Showing posts with label IPQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPQ. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
A Unit Owner's Question
Question: Why is IPQ repairing damage from buildings where JM is the contractor. JM should be responsible and by having another company involved could null any agreements. Darcy Williams #2703
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Construction Nightmares
This story was first published in the TAJ Newsletter
Una traducción española está disponible en Web site: www.TAJWatchSpanish.blogspot.com
by Steve Frahm
The story of Building 14 is fraught with trouble. There is trouble in the work that was done, and more accurately there is trouble in the work that was not done. And there is also trouble in getting the whole story of what happened and why it happened that way. In writing this story I have spoken with several first-hand sources. I give to you what I can decipher from what they have told me.
Refurbishment of Bldg 14 was well underway and going without a major hitch when the question arose, why are we waiting to replace the roof? The roofer was done with the other jobs in the community. He was ready and waiting to do this one. Some unit owners had leaks from the old roof and were anxious to have it replaced. The Property Manager used what she thought was sound judgment and asked the two contractors (refurbisher IPQ and roofer Needham) if there would be any difficulty with them working simultaneously. They agreed that they could work at the same time.
Exterior wall refurbishment work and roofing work are largely independent of each other, apparently, except for one very important area: the drip-edge (the metal flashing that folds over the edges of the roof top). When the roofing job progressed to the point of inspection, the city inspector shut down the roofer due to problems with the drip-edge. That drip-edge was Needham’s responsibility but it sat on top of, and was greatly affected by, the sub-fascia and fascia boards that were IPQ’s responsibility. Somehow they were unable to reach a workable solution other than to do a complete fascia/drip-edge replacement at an additional cost to Bldg 14 of approximately $8,800.00.
There were many long discussions about who should pay the extra expense. In the end, three vendors agreed to shoulder some financial responsibility: IPQ for their involvement with the fascia; Needham for their involvement with the drip-edge; and Crain for their stewardship over construction in general (even though they had been specifically excluded by the BOD from consulting on roofing on that job). They each agreed to pay $1500.00, leaving unit owners with an additional bill of about $400.00/unit (there are 11 units in Bldg 14). Needless to say, Bldg 14 unit owners were not happy and wanted to negotiate a better price for themselves.
While the involved parties have argued, the sun, wind, and rain have worked tirelessly on the tar-papered roof. Water damage has plagued several homes. The new BOD has expressed the fear that even the newly refurbished walls may have suffered water intrusion (which can lead to mold, mildew, and rot) from lack of proper fascia and drip-edges.
On Saturday some patch-work was done to help stave off the roof leaks. It is a necessary measure. But that, too, adds to the overall expense of the job.
Una traducción española está disponible en Web site: www.TAJWatchSpanish.blogspot.com
by Steve Frahm
The story of Building 14 is fraught with trouble. There is trouble in the work that was done, and more accurately there is trouble in the work that was not done. And there is also trouble in getting the whole story of what happened and why it happened that way. In writing this story I have spoken with several first-hand sources. I give to you what I can decipher from what they have told me.
Refurbishment of Bldg 14 was well underway and going without a major hitch when the question arose, why are we waiting to replace the roof? The roofer was done with the other jobs in the community. He was ready and waiting to do this one. Some unit owners had leaks from the old roof and were anxious to have it replaced. The Property Manager used what she thought was sound judgment and asked the two contractors (refurbisher IPQ and roofer Needham) if there would be any difficulty with them working simultaneously. They agreed that they could work at the same time.
Exterior wall refurbishment work and roofing work are largely independent of each other, apparently, except for one very important area: the drip-edge (the metal flashing that folds over the edges of the roof top). When the roofing job progressed to the point of inspection, the city inspector shut down the roofer due to problems with the drip-edge. That drip-edge was Needham’s responsibility but it sat on top of, and was greatly affected by, the sub-fascia and fascia boards that were IPQ’s responsibility. Somehow they were unable to reach a workable solution other than to do a complete fascia/drip-edge replacement at an additional cost to Bldg 14 of approximately $8,800.00.
There were many long discussions about who should pay the extra expense. In the end, three vendors agreed to shoulder some financial responsibility: IPQ for their involvement with the fascia; Needham for their involvement with the drip-edge; and Crain for their stewardship over construction in general (even though they had been specifically excluded by the BOD from consulting on roofing on that job). They each agreed to pay $1500.00, leaving unit owners with an additional bill of about $400.00/unit (there are 11 units in Bldg 14). Needless to say, Bldg 14 unit owners were not happy and wanted to negotiate a better price for themselves.
While the involved parties have argued, the sun, wind, and rain have worked tirelessly on the tar-papered roof. Water damage has plagued several homes. The new BOD has expressed the fear that even the newly refurbished walls may have suffered water intrusion (which can lead to mold, mildew, and rot) from lack of proper fascia and drip-edges.
On Saturday some patch-work was done to help stave off the roof leaks. It is a necessary measure. But that, too, adds to the overall expense of the job.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)