The Pevar Company
606 Ridge Avenue
Kennett Square, PA 19348
*********
**********
**********
**********
Re: Review of Documents
Attn: **********
Dear *********:
You asked me to review the construction documents for your new building and to inspect the site, and then to comment on my observations. In this connection, I inspected the new building and its grounds and also reviewed the following documents:
Permit set of Building Plans (“Bldg. Plans”) dated **********
Land Development Site Plans (“Site Plans”) revised **********
Project manual, including the signed AIA Contract, which incorporates by reference the Form of Agreement (“Agreement”) between Owner and Contractor and the Specifications (“Specs) including certain detailed design drawings
These comments are strictly limited by these documents and are subject to revision based on any additional documents, correspondence, addenda codes or regulatory requirements that may modify or otherwise supersede them.
COSTS TO BE PAID: This is a lump-sum, fixed price, cost not-to-exceed contract, including certain itemized alternatives (Agreement, Article 5). This means that the Contractor is solely responsible to perform the work, regardless of any changes in price by subcontractors or material suppliers.
SAVINGS: If the total cost for the project is less than the agreed cost-not-to-exceed, then savings will be divided 75% to the Owner, 25% to the Contractor (Agreement, Article 5.3). There is no provision in the Agreement for the Owner to pay extra if the Contractor incurs costs that exceed the agreed price for the project.
PERFORMANCE BOND: The Contractor was obligated to produce a Performance Bond to guarantee completion of the work at the agreed total budget (Agreement, Article 16.11). This means that if the Contractor failed to perform the work in a timely manner or otherwise defaulted, that the Owner could rely on the bonding company to do what was necessary finish the work at the bonding company’s expense.
SUBCONTRACTS & MATERIAL PURCHASE ORDERS: The Contractor was obligated to provide the Owner with copies of all executed subcontracts and material purchase orders. (Agreement, Article 16.7). This means that all direct costs incurred by the Contractor were to be known by the Owner, as the accounting basis for determining the amount of total project savings, if any, to be divided between the Contractor and Owner.
VALUE ENGINEERING: The Specs (Section 1039), provide for value engineering proposals for the Owner’s consideration and sole right to accept or reject. Although there is no specific discussion of sharing such proposed savings in the Specs, the Agreement (Article 5.3) does provide for the Contractor keeping 25% of all savings.
SHOP DRAWINGS: The Contractor is responsible for any work done or materials used without the Architect’s prior approval of shop drawings and material specifications (Spec Section 1040 – 3.1.A.2). This means that the Contractor is solely responsible to remove and replace any materials that were not first approved by the Architect, or which do not meet the Specifications.
UTILITIES: The Contractor is solely responsible to pay for any utilities (water, sewer, electric, gas) used before Substantial Completion and producing the Certificate of Occupancy (Spec Section 1500 – 3.2.A.4)
DEWATERING: Spec Section 1500, page 7, section F requires the Contractor to: “Maintain the site, excavations and construction free of water.” This means that the Contractor should not have charged the Owner for removing storm water from the construction site. The Owner is not required to pay for the pumping or other dewatering work.
DOOR 102E: The Contractor was obligated to reject all wood doors with defects (Spec Section 8211-3.1.A.2). Viewed from the lobby, the left leaf of Door 102E has an eight-inch long horizontal compression gouge starting at the hinge-side, about five-feet above the floor. The gouge was painted-over. The gouge needs to be eliminated or the door needs to be replaced. Because this defect is visible to inspection, the Contractor should not have installed or invoiced for it, nor should the Architect have approved payment for the door.
ALUMINUM DOORS: Spec Section 8411 provides for weather stripping and seals to minimize air infiltration by meeting stipulated performance criteria. The gaps around and between all pairs of aluminum doors appear to allow excessive air infiltration and should be corrected if necessary and certified for compliance. Because this defect is visible to inspection, the Contractor should not have invoiced for the doors without first correcting this defect, nor should the Architect have approved payment for the doors. These gaps allow excessive heat exchange and materially impact the cost to heat and cool the facility, thereby damaging the Owner financially.
EXTERIOR FENCE AND GATE: Fencing and a gate were eliminated from the scope of work. The Contractor should produce the original signed subcontract with the fence subcontractor or for the fencing material that details the fence and gate, to demonstrate the reasonable savings resulting from eliminating part of that work. This is a significant cost savings and is 100% to the account of the Owner as a credit.
WOODEN WINDOW SILLS: The Owner requested a change in the contract to eliminate the two oval Sanctuary windows and to add two rectangular windows with wooden sills and trim similar to the window sills in the Office, per detail S-6 on A600, which shows a continuous solid wood sill. Instead of using the specified solid wood sills, the Contractor fabricated the sills by joining two pieces of wood. The joining was done poorly, resulting in the pieces of wood not being in the same plane, creating a visible joint. Additionally, the two pieces of wood are reacting differently to changes in humidity, resulting in visible warping. For these reasons, the sills in the Sanctuary should be removed and replaced to suit detail S-6. Because this defect is visible to inspection the Architect should not approve payment for this extra work until the defect is corrected.
OPERABLE PANEL PARTITIONS: Spec Section 10651 requires a vertical acoustical seal between the end operable panel and the wall. Because the wall is out of plumb and irregular, there is no acoustical seal. A suitable acoustical seal must be provided, either by rebuilding the wall, or by providing a vertical surface against the wall to receive the compressible vinyl panel’s acoustical seal. The problem arises because of inadequate inspection and quality control, resulting in irregular and out-of-plumb wall construction. These conditions were visible to the Contractor when the wall studs were erected and when the drywall was installed, and was even more easily seen by the Contractor when the operable panel was installed. The Architect should not have paid for the irregular wall and should have required the studs to be corrected before drywall was installed.
ABRASIVE STAIR NOSING: The Contractor failed to install any of the abrasive stair nosing required by the Contract. All of the exterior concrete stairs are required to have three-inch wide continuous abrasive metal stair nosing per Detail 10 on drawing A610. As measured in the field the following stairs require these nosing:
Exterior stairs to basement, 13 @ 51”, 1 @ 56” and 1 @ 53”, or 15 pcs @ 5’ ea.
Up to existing house, 3 @ 78”, or 3 @ 7’ ea.
From existing house to landing, 3 @ 97”, or 3 @ 8’ ea.
Landing down toward the parking lot, 3 @ 71”, or 3 @ 6’ ea
It is not practical to retrofit abrasive nosing into concrete stairs. In lieu of directing the Contractor to remove and replace the stairs and reinstall with the nosing, the Owner could reasonably request a credit for the nosing, with 100% of the savings going to the Owner’s account. The credit would include the costs for the nosing material, for cutting it to correct lengths, and also for fastening it securely before the concrete stairs were poured. The Contractor should provide acceptable 3rd-party quotations to furnish and install the nosing to support the proposed credit to the Owner. The Architect should have noted the lack of Contractor paperwork for the abrasive stair nosing, and should not have approved payment for the concrete steps without the nosing.
REPAIR SPALLED NOSING: Repair one spalled exterior concrete stair nosing from the rear landing going down to parking lot (Spec Section 3300, pg 17, section D.1).
DOOR 119: Detail 4 on A400 meets best design practices for exterior Door 119 by showing that it is an insulated metal door, using insulated glass for the top half of the door. The Door Schedule conflicts with the detail, and does not meet best design practices, showing Door 119 as an uninsulated solid wood door with a short, narrow glass panel. Additionally, the Door Schedule calls for Hardware Set #04, which itself is an exterior hardware set using weather stripping seals and panic hardware in a hollow metal frame. The detail 4/A400 conflicts with the Door Schedule. Thus, the Contractor improperly charged the Owner extra to make the door half glass (as shown on detail 4/A400), and then downgraded the glazing by using uninsulated glass. The Contractor should refund the extra payment to the Owner and also add the missing kick plate required for Hardware Set #4. Additionally, the Contractor should install the specified continuous hinge instead of the three 3-1/2” hinges incorrectly installed. The Architect should pay for the costs to remove and replace the wood door with an insulated and galvanized hollow metal door and frame.
GALVANIZED DOORS/FRAMES: The Door Schedule calls for the following openings to have galvanized doors and frames: 102A, 104A, 108 and 109. All of these doors and frames are rusting through the paint, which can not happen with galvanized material. If these doors and frames are not galvanized, then the Contractor should remove and replace them with galvanized doors and frames. Additionally, according to best design practice, all exterior doors and frames should either be aluminum or galvanized steel. This means that Door 119 and its frame, discussed in #15 herein-above, should also be galvanized. The door frames and doors should have been inspected by the Architect before they were painted, at which time the lack of galvanization would have been obvious. The Architect should not have approved payment for non-compliant doors and frames. Because the Agreement requires the Contractor to submit certification for the doors and frames, either the Contractor submitted the right paperwork and installed the wrong doors and frames, or the Contractor never submitted any paperwork for the galvanized doors and frames, and the Architect failed to notice this oversight.
FROSTED GLASS: The Door Schedule calls for tempered frosted glass in the side lite to door 111A into the office. Instead clear glass was used. Unless the Owner requested this change in writing, then the Contractor should remove and replace as specified. This defect is visible to inspection and should have been seen by the Architect before approving payment for the glass. If the Owner requested this change, then the Contractor should offer a credit because frosted glass costs more than clear glass.
SILENCERS: All Hardware Sets require silencers in all door frames, both wooden and steel, but none are installed. The Contractor should install silencers as specified.
GROUTED HOLLOW METAL FRAMES: Details on A600 show all exterior hollow metal door frame heads and jambs grouted solid. It does not appear that the Contractor grouted any of the door frames. The Contractor should do what is necessary to grout the frames solid. The Architect could have determined whether the frames were grouted solid by tapping the frames during their pre-payment inspection.
TOILET ROOM FITUP: In the two toilet rooms, each has one toilet partition door that is missing a door stop for a door that hits the wall when opened. In the men’s room, one toilet partition base is missing its trim. The specifications require toilet paper holders in every stall and soap dispensers at the vanities, but none are installed. The Contractor should install these missing items. Additionally, the Contractor should provide a reasonable credit for not installing the continuous knee guards under the toilet room vanities required by detail 9/A604.
TOILET ROOM VANITIES: Because the Owner furnished the toilet room vanity tops, the Contractor should provide a material credit for not furnishing the specified Formica vanity tops and side and back splashes. Because the Owner did not furnish side or back splashes, there is a net labor savings to the Contractor and an additional credit is due from the Contractor to the Owner.
WATER COOLER: Drawing A604 note #16 required a high/low water cooler. Instead the Owner directed the Contractor to install a low water fountain without a cooler. The Contractor should provide the credit for the material and labor savings for the related equipment, plumbing and electrical work.
HINGES: Based on Spec Section 8711.2.3. all hinges are specified to be 4-1/2” size, heavy duty with ball bearings. Instead, the Contractor installed 3-1/2” standard hinges without ball bearings at the following openings: 102A (2ea), 102B (2ea), 102C (2ea), 102D (2ea), 104B (2ea), 105 (2ea), 106C (2ea), 111A, 111B, 112, 113 and 117. All exterior hinges are specified to be stainless steel, but none appear to be stainless steel, including the continuous hinges, which all appear to be paint-grade standard steel instead of stainless steel. The Contractor installed 4-1/2” ball bearing hinges on fire-rated doors which the County would inspect for Fire Code compliance, but not other doors whose hinges were of no concern to the County. All hinges of every kind that do not meet the specifications should be replaced with specified hinges. This defect is visible to inspection and should have been seen by the Architect before approving payment for them.
CONTINUOUS HINGES: The Architect specified continuous hinges for certain doors, using a #628 finish. The #628 finish indicates anodized aluminum, which is both rust-proof and is not fire-rated. Although aluminum hinges are not fire-rated the Architect specified them for certain doors which are fire-rated, thereby compromising the fire rating of the door assembly. The Contractor installed continuous steel hinges, which are fire-rated, but installed standard painted steel, rather than the more costly and rust-proof stainless steel hinges. Rust is showing through the paint on the steel hinges that the Contractor installed. Because of the rusting, these hinges should be replaced with stainless steel. The Contractor should absorb the labor and material cost of the painted steel continuous hinges because they did not meet the specifications. The Owner should pay any extra cost between aluminum verses stainless steel continuous hinges.
DOOR STOPS: Spec Section 8711.2.15.E requires commercial grade wall-mounted door stops for all doors, and allows floor mounted door stops where physical conditions are not right for wall-mounted stops. The Contractor did not install any wall or floor mounted door stops. Instead, in certain locations, the Contractor used hinge-mounted residential grade door stops. Lack of the proper stops will result in damage to walls and doors. The specified door stops should be installed. This defect is visible to inspection and should have been seen by the Architect before approving payment for the hardware.
DOOR CLOSERS: Spec Section 8711.2.12 details all closers. The Contractor should demonstrate that the correct closers were installed by removing cover plates and showing the Owner the manufacturer’s product numbers on the closer bodies.
SOCIAL HALL CABINETRY AND TOPS: Detail 6/A603 calls for two recessed sets of wall and base cabinets, counter tops, back splashes, and wash basins, with stained wood chair rail and base installed against the walls. The Contractor was obligated to furnish and install all of these items. The Owner eliminated framing to create the recessed openings, resulting in a savings to the Contractor. Additionally, the Owner furnished all of the cabinetry, tops, wash basins and plumbing trim. Additionally, the Contractor saved by not providing any of the originally required base and wall cabinets. The Owner offers to accept that the labor to install the cabinetry, counters, etc that the Owner provided equals the total labor saved by the Contractor (labor saved from building recessed areas, installing specified wall and base cabinets, wood trim, etc). The Owner requests a credit for the cost of the base and wall cabinets that the Contractor did not furnish.
LIGHTS: The Contractor neither furnished nor installed the Lights for either the ********** or the ********* and should provide a credit for the savings in material and labor. Additionally, the Contractor should show that the required electrical circuitry is properly installed for both lights.
TREE DAMAGE: During construction, the Contractor cut roots of a tree next to the existing house, weakening the tree. A wind storm caused the weakened tree to fall against and damage the roofing, fascia board and siding of the existing house. The Contractor should restore the roof shingles, fascia and siding to their original condition at the Contractor’s expense because the trenching that damaged the tree was a necessary part of the work and the fact that the tree was in the way was visible from site inspection before bidding. Rather than remove the tree as part of the site-clearing, the Contractor chose to leave the tree and try to work around it. This was a risk that the Contractor took, resulting in damage to the Owner’s property.
******** REDESIGN: The Owner reduced the scope of work in the ********* by eliminating the recessed alcoves for shelving, the Arc and various wood trim. Some of this trim was provided by the Contractor and is stored in the basement. The Contractor should provide a detailed credit for the steel stud walls, drywall, paint, millwork material and labor that were all eliminated from the scope of work.
SANCTUARY ARC DELETION: The Owner eliminated the ********** from the scope of work. The Contractor should provide a detailed credit for the Owner’s review.
HVAC COST: The Owner advises that the Contractor requests extra money to offset alleged cost-overruns in connection with the HVAC work. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Owner has no contractual basis to expect the Owner to pay more money for alleged cost over-runs by the Contractor or by its Subcontractors. Before agreeing to sign the Agreement, the Contractor had subcontract quotations. If the Contractor paid its subcontractor(s) more than the originally quoted amounts, that was done at the Contractor’s risk, in part, because that if the contractor defaulted, then the Bonding Company would have completed the contract at the Contractor’s expense. If there were cost-overruns, they were solely to the Contractor’s account. On a project of this magnitude, it is possible to lose tens of thousands of dollars on one line item of work, while saving even more on all other items of work combined, resulting in a net savings and increased profit for the total project. Because the Contractor never gave the Owner the signed Subcontracts and material purchase orders required by the Agreement, this leaves the Owner no way to verify whether there were net savings on the project as a whole, which would then be shared 75% to the Owner, 25% to the Contractor. The Contractor should provide all cost accounting as required by the Agreement.
In summary, the Contractor owes the Owner various credits, corrective work and paperwork as detailed above.
Very truly yours,
Marc Pevar, President
The Pevar Company