HOW TO AVOID (AND/OR MINIMIZE) CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS INTRODUCTIONS Contact Information: Paul A. Joelson AIA NCARB CASp Joelson Vail Associates LLC 330 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 202-G San Diego, CA 92024 Office - (858) 836-3210 Cell – (619) 788-7172 Web Site: www.joelsonvail.com Email: [email protected] © Joelson Vail Associates LLC – 2015 DENNIS STRYKER MONICA SLEV PROJECT SET UP AND YOUR KEY PLAYERS Dennis Stryker PROJECT SET UP AND YOUR KEY PLAYERS ▪ Knowledgeable/experienced construction person, construction manager? ▪ Insurance expert/broker ▪ End user expert for the product type you are building ▪ Attorney PROJECT DESIGN TEAM Fred Nolta PROJECT DESIGN TEAM ▪ Experienced in product type, brought on up front, all services required to be included at the right price in each team’s scope of work. PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS ▪ Architect, structural engineer, MEP engineer, civil engineer, soils ▪ Interior design (sooner vs. later) ▪ Acoustic consultant ▪ Waterproofing consultant ▪ Special product type needs such as food service, hotel operations, lighting, etc. PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS ▪ Window washing consultant, Operation Procedure Outline Sheet OPOS, OSHA required (OSHA not enforced by permit process) PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS ▪ ADA consultant – why? ▪ What is CASP certified? PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS ▪ Attorney and insurance expert review the baseline of consultant agreements (Dennis Stryker) DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Fred Nolta DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ▪ Engage all consultants to: ▪ Cross check each other’s work ▪ Perform interim pricing, and ▪ Do budget check as the design develops DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ▪ Avoid last minute cost cutting and VE. ▪ Start engaging general contractors “GCs” and solicit preliminary budgeting. ▪ Consult with GCs and specialty contractors for their opinions and recommendations. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ▪ Ensure all are reviewing manufacturer’s recommendations, invite manufacturer’s rep into discussions and attending meetings. ▪ Include quality control procedures to be specified during construction. ▪ Make sure the owner and end user fully understand what is in the plans and specs to avoid last minute changes. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ▪ Start developing your contract with the GC – Dennis ▪ Risk evaluation; and ▪ Insurance MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS Fred Nolta MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS ▪ Missing details, undefined scope of work, narratives defining work. ▪ Transitions horizontal to vertical and at different materials. MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS CONT’D ▪ Balconies and decks, especially over interior spaces, inadequate slope to drain. 3.0—Second Floor Decks Typical View of Second Floor Decks 3.0—Second Floor Decks Water Ponds Due to Improper Slope. Retro-fit Drains Are Haphazardly Placed and Do Not Fully Discharge Water on Deck. Decks Slope Away from Edges and Toward Walls and Center of Decks. Condition is a Safety Hazard and Will Lead to Premature Deterioration of the Deck Membrane. Installation of Expansion Joints and Retro-fit Wall Flashing Is Poor. 3.0—Second Floor Decks Plumbing for Retro-fit Drains. Arrows Indicate Unsealed Penetrations Through Rated Soffit. 3.0 – Second Floor Decks “Zero” Slope Leads to Ponding. Metal Edge (Green Arrow) Is High Resulting in Improper Drainage. Red Arrow—Depression in Deck Surface. 3.0 – Second Floor Decks Decks Slopes Toward Center—Ponding Stains Visible Throughout Deck Surface. 3.0 – Second Floor Water Stains on Plaster Soffit under Decks. 3.0 – Second Floor Decks Decks Typically Slope in Reverse Direction away from Edges at Gradient of 2-4%. 3.0 – Second Floor Decks Utility Room Door Install without Sill Pan Flashing. 3.0 – Second Floor Decks Water from “Short” Scupper Burbles Back onto Stucco and Soffit Below. Evidence of Water Stains on Soffit. 4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters Trench Drain Discharges Water from Roof and Upper Deck Out-flow. Drain System Appears Undersized and Over Burdened. Red Arrows—Slab Cracks. Green Arrows— Heaving between Main Slab and Strip Around Drain. 4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters Trench is Shallow, Inlet Undersized and Cavity Filled with Debris. Secondary (Weep) System not Visible. System Appears to be Job Built. 4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters Evidence of Water under Topping Slab / Hydrostatic Pressure / Heaving and Cracks 4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters Waterproofing and Drainage Failure at Planters / Source of Water under Topping Slab 4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters Water Infiltration Through Open Joints in Sheet Metal Flashing Hydrostatic Pressure / Heaving and Cracks 5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab Active Water Dripping Through Cracks and Pipe Penetrations in Structural Slab onto Garage Floor and Cars Likely Source is Water Infiltration Through Breaches in Plaza Deck Waterproofing Above at Laps, Penetrations and/or Interface to Drains. 5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab Active Water Dripping Through Cracks and Pipe Penetrations in Structural Slab onto Garage Floor and Cars Likely Source is Water Infiltration Through Breaches in Plaza Deck Waterproofing Above at Laps, Penetrations and/or Interface to Drains. 5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab Leaks Through Garage Walls / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures. Remedial Repairs Using Koester Have Failed 5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab Leak Through Garage Walls / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures Streaks on Wall Are Result of Rust Bleed from Exposure of Rebar to Moisture 5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab Leak Through Garage Walls / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures Streaks on Wall Are Result of Rust Bleed from Exposure of Rebar to Moisture 5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab Leaks Through Wall and Floor Penetrations in Electrical Rooms / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures / Condition is Extremely Dangerous MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS ▪ Custom installations, adapting products to fit outside of manufacturer’s recommendation. ▪ Failing to adhere to manufacturer’s recommendation for application and installation – Number One Problem!!! (Trumps code, plans/specs, agreements, industry standards, etc.) 6.0—Exterior Finishes & 7.0—Building Envelope Poor Workmanship / Unresolved Details / Unsealed Gaps at Material Transitions 6.0—Exterior Finishes & 7.0—Building Envelope Poor Workmanship / Unresolved Details / Unsealed Gaps at Material Transitions INGRESS/EGRESS & OTHER ADA ISSUES Paul Joelson ▪ California Building Code—2013 or California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Vol 1—Chapters 10 (Means of Egress) ▪ California Building Code Chapter 11A—Housing Accessibility ▪ California Building Code Chapter 11B—Accessibility in Public Accommodations ▪ ADA compliant products 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Size of Landings at Main Entry Ramps Do Not Comply with Referenced Standards. 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Handrail and Guardrail Configurations at Stairs and Ramps Do Not Comply with Referenced Standards. 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Project Lacks Detectable Warning Strips at Transitions between Vehicular Area and Accessible Paths, Aisles and Elevator Landing Areas as Required by the Standards 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Columns are Obstructions in Accessible Aisle / Loading Zone, and Are Barriers to Unencumbered Use as Required by the Standards. 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Bicycle Parking is an Obstruction in Accessible Aisle / Path of Travel, and is a Barrier to Unencumbered Use as Required by the Standards. 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Second Level Deck Surface Does Not Comply with Standards—Cross Slopes and Main Path of Travel Slopes Exceed the 2% Maximum per Standards. Expansion Joints are a Tripping Hazard. 1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA) Water Infiltration under Topping Slab Has Caused Heaving. Vertical Transitions measured at 3/8-to-3/4”. Maximum Allowable Per Standards—1/4”. Condition is a Tripping Hazard. Paul A. Joelson AIA NCARB CASp and Staff Provides ADA and Accessibility Compliance Audits and Consulting Services as follows: • Peer Review of Plans and Compliance Strategies • Witness to Architects, Builders, Developers & Property Owners • CASp Property Inspections and Compliance Reports • Barrier Removal Analysis, Design and Construction Documents • Cost Estimating and Value Engineering with Risk Analysis • Third Party Site Inspections – New Construction and Alterations • Coordination with Local Building and Planning Departments Access Compliance Frequent Claims of Non-Compliance with Fair Housing Act, ADA Standards vs. CBC Requirements Learning Objectives: At the end of this presentation, the participants should understand current trends in Access Compliance Standards and Regulations to increase awareness on the following topics: • Review of the Top Infractions Cited by Plaintiff Attorneys • Review of Photographs and Conditions that Support Plaintiff’s Claims • Designing for Compliance in California Housing and Public Accommodations • Demonstrate the Importance of Understanding the Building Blocks and Scope of Federal Standards and California Building Code—Chapter 11A & 11B. • Presentation illustrates the Top Issues from Recent Cases with Photos, Field Sketches and Code Diagrams Was This Building Accessible in the 1920’s ADA / ABA Standards Applied in the Real World on Public Building Architect Case Gilbert designed the US Supreme Court Building in the late 1920’s to convey an image that the occupants and goings-on within were above the political fray of its sister branches of government—Congress and the Presidency One may ask: Though the 44 steps ascending to the main level promote an image of authority and power – did the design provide access to persons with disabilities in the way we have come to define the term – passage without architectural barriers? From Supreme Court Website – Ramp access to the building is located along Maryland Avenue on the left side of the building. Limited “handicap parking” is also available along Maryland Avenue. Was This Building Accessible in the 1920’s ADA / ABA Standards Applied in the Real World on Public Building From Supreme Court Website – Ramp access to the building was not provided in the original design. Litigation Basis for Allegations Raised by Plaintiff Attorneys “California ‘s Unruh Civil Right Act Cited as Basis for Claim: • California Civil Code § 51 states, in part, that: All persons with the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages and privileges or services in all business of every kind whatsoever. • California Civil Code § 51.5 also state, in part, that: No business establish of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against any person in this state because of the disability of the person. • California Civil Code § 51 (f) specifically incorporates (by reference) an individual’s rights under ADA into the Unruh Act. Litigation Considerations for Mitigation and Design Removal of Barriers – Goals • Goal – Place People at the Same “Starting Line” • Clear, Convenient and Direct Access – Upon arrival on site and throughout facility provide – information/directional signage; accessible parking and paths of travel; accessible entry and doors; accessible sanitary facilities; accessible drinking fountains and telephones; and means of egress. • Access Shall Be Permanent – Not Temporary • Access Shall Not Require Assistance – At Doors, Sanitary Facilities, etc. • Equal Facilitation – Alternate, but Equal, Means of Access Provided in Existing Buildings—Difficult to Make Argument in New Buildings. Litigation Considerations for Mitigation and Design Unreasonable Hardship (CBC) Per 1134B.2.1 Exception 1…Unreasonable Hardship (CBC) exists when the cost of providing accessible features to a existing building are disproportionate to cost of overall project – greater than 20% of budget • Per Section 202...Factors for consideration: 1) Cost of providing access, 2) Cost of all Construction, 3) Financial impact of proposed improvements on feasibility of project, 4) Nature of accessibility to be gained or lost, and 5) Use of the facility and its availability to disabled persons… • Use of this approach is the decision of owner which may subject him/her to financial scrutiny by the Courts Readily Achievable (ADA) • “Easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense • Factors for determining whether an action is readily achievable are similar to the language in CBC Why are we here today? What is SB 1608… and how does it affect the Industry? • Creates “California Commission on Disabled Access” • Mandates Continuing Education for Architects and Building Officials • Creates CASp—Certified Access Specialist Program • Goal: Protection for Property Owners from and during Litigation • Goal: Increase Awareness of Rights of Disabled Citizens • Goal: Properly Coordinate Code Requirements into Design Solutions • Goal: Establish Uniform Standards and Applications for Construction Senate Bill 1608… “California Commission on Disabled Access” Why? The disability community logged complaints that the building industry— architects, inspectors and contractors were not sufficiently educated about requirements for disability access What? Creates commission whose responsibilities include: • Monitor disability access compliance to public accommodations • Make recommendations to the Legislature for changes in disability access laws • Develop a master compliance check list for building inspectors • Assess and report on the effectiveness of the CASp Program Senate Bill 1608… “Mandatory Continuing Education for Architects” California Architect’s Board – Basic Requirements for License Renewal: • Complete coursework provided by an Qualified Provider • Course shall cover the ADA-1990, State Laws and Relevant Standards that govern access to Public Facilities and Accommodations • Requires 5 hours on Individual Renewal Date: • Certify completion and provide documentation of Coursework on Form provided by California Architect’s Board GOALS – INCREASE AWARENESS TO VIEW ACCESSIBILITY AS A DESIGNED SYSTEM OF INTERCONNECTED COMPONENTS RATHER THAN SEPARATE CODE REQUIREMENTS Senate Bill 1608… “CASp—Certified Access Specialist Program” Scope of Program – Certification of Inspectors: • Self Certification is offered to Architects, Building Inspectors, Contractors and Members of the Disabled Access Community • DSA qualifies, tests and certifies successful candidates • Candidates are tested on the knowledge of both federal and state codes and standards that address disabled assess covering Housing and Public Accommodations • SB 1608 requires local building departments to employ or retain by July 1, 2010 at least one inspector who is CASp certified • CASp inspector may provide consultation to the local agency, permit applicants and public – Service is subject to additional fees Senate Bill 1608… “CASp—Certified Access Specialist Program” Intent and Scope: • Program to assist business owners to ensure compliance with disability access codes and standards • Requires a CASp inspector to file status report identifying “construction related” items for correction • After corrections are made CASp inspector will issue a final report of compliance • Qualified businesses may display a CASpissued, numbered, watermarked “Disability Access Certificate” • Goal—Reduce risk and expense of litigation Senate Bill 1608… CASp – Litigation Control and Containment • CASp Certificate does not prevent a lawsuit – goal is early resolution and reduction of legal costs • CASp Certificate does not prevent plaintiff from filling a claim of access violation or a reduce business’ liability for damages • Business with CASp certificate is a “qualified defendant” • Can apply for 90 day stay of lawsuit and an mandatory early evaluation conference (ECC) within 35 days • Defendant required to produce CASp report for plaintiff review 15 days prior to ECC • Plaintiff must provide basis of claimed violations and costs 15 days prior to ECC • At ECC parties discussions may include settlement, correction of alleged violations, continuation of stay, etc. Housing Accessibility—Private and Public… Fair Housing Act and California Building Code REQUIREMENTS—MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND MIXED-USE 1. PRIVATE (CHAPTER 11A) / PUBLICLY FINANCED (CHAPTER 11B) PROJECTS 2. APPLIES TO UNITS FOR SALE OR RENTAL 3. APARTMENTS - THREE (3) OR MORE /CONDOMINIUMS - FOUR (4) OR MORE. 4. PROJECTS BUILT FOR FIRST OCCUPANCY AFTER MARCH 13, 1991. 5. FEDERAL FINANCING—FIVE (5) UNITS OR MORE—5% ACCESSIBLE (UFAS) 6. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990—PUBLIC USE AREAS 7. LOCAL (STATE) REQUIREMENTS—CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE—2013 COVERED HOUSING / COMMON AREAS – CHAPTER 11A MIXED USE - PUBLIC USE AREAS — CHAPERT 11B Housing Accessibility—Private and Public… Fair Housing Act and California Building Code COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Accessible Parking - Insufficient number of spaces, remote location, obsolete signage, etc. 2. Accessible Route to Building Entrance - steep ramps and cross-slopes, no signage, etc. 3. Common Areas – Barriers in public restrooms, stairs/ramps, fitness rooms, pools, etc. 4. Usable Doors - Insufficient clear floor space, sloped landings, improper hardware, etc. 5. Accessible Route within the Living Unit - Narrow hallways / doors, clear floor space, etc. 6. Access to Operable Controls and Devices – Light switches too high, 7. Adaptability—Grab Bars / Sink Counters – Lack of backing and removable base cabinets 8. Usable Kitchens / Bathrooms – Insufficient storage, counters lengths, clearances, etc. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #1—Accessible Parking COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Insufficient number of spaces. 2. Improper border stripping, stall 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. or aisle sizes, and pavement markings. Remote location that requires navigating behind cars and in driveways. Cross Slopes exceed 2% in space and aisle. Obsolete stall signage. Lack of tow-away sign(s). Transition to accessible route via non-compliant curb ramps, sidewalks, etc. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #1—Accessible Parking 1. All “covered multifamily projects” must have accessible parking according to CBC-11A-1109A. 2. The referenced section prescribes the required sizes for the parking stall and aisle, on-pavement markings, signage and the transition to the accessible route that leads to the building entrance 3. If public accommodations are provided on site design and construct parking according to CBC-11B -502—Parking Stalls for the portion that serves the commercial section of project. 4. Note requirements for different stall counts for projects with “assigned” (2% of total spaces provided) versus “unassigned” (5%) parking per 1109A.4 and 1109A.5, respectively. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #2—Accessible Route to the Building Entrance COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Steep Curb Ramps **Flares. 2. Lack of Signage on large 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. projects with numerous routes and changes in direction. Sidewalks and entry door landings with steep cross slopes exceed 2.0%. Missing or improper configuration of handrails at ramps and stairs. Ramps steeper than 8.3% Detectable Warnings missing or installed in wrong location. Obstructions in Accessible Route—bike racks, trash cans, broken sidewalks, etc. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #2—Accessible Route and Building Entrance 1. All covered multifamily dwellings must have at least one accessible building entrance on an accessible route unless it is impractical to do so because of the terrain or unusual characteristics of the site. 2. An accessible route means a continuous, unobstructed path connecting accessible elements and spaces within a building or site that can be negotiated by a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair, and that is also safe for and usable by people with other disabilities. 3. An accessible entrance is a building entrance connected by an accessible route to public transit stops, accessible parking and passenger loading zones, or public streets and sidewalks. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #3—Accessible and Usable Common Area Facilities COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Raised steps/thresholds at 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. laundry and community rooms, and rental offices. Common area restrooms lack required grab bars, dispensers, mirrors, accessible controls, etc. Service counters are higher than 34” AFF. Tables in game and dining areas not accessible or provided. Drinking fountains are obstructed, too low or too high. Kitchen sink is not accessible Saunas, Pools, Space, etc. are required to be accessible and many times are not. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #3—Accessible and Usable Common Area Facilities 1. Covered housing must have accessible and usable public and common-use areas. 2. Public and common-use areas cover all parts of the housing outside individual units. 3. They include -- for example -- building-wide fire alarms, parking lots, storage areas, indoor and outdoor recreational areas, pool and spas, lobbies, mailrooms and mailboxes, and laundry areas. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS COMMON VIOLATIONS Issue #4—Accessible Doors 1. Lack of clear floor space and 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. “level landing” at exterior. Reduced CFS on strike side of door—less than 18” at interior and 24” at exterior. Operating force is heavy and closing speed is too fast—closers not adjusted. Non-compliant hardware requires pinching and grasping with fingers or twisting of the wrist to operate. Doors swing into the clear floor space of vending machines, drinking fountains and other accessible devices, etc. Conflicting door swings— insufficient clearance between. Doors to walk-in closets / storage rooms do not provide a nominal 32" clear opening (31 5/8"). HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #4—Accessible Doors 1. All doors that allow passage into and within all premises must be wide enough to allow passage by persons using wheelchairs. 2. Accessible Hardware—Useable by persons with mobility problems with limited ability to manipulate device with hands. 3. Clear Floor Space—Approach to both sides provides sufficient space for a wheelchair user to independently open door. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #5—Accessible Route into and throughout Living Unit There must be an accessible route into and through each covered unit. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #5—Accessible Route into and throughout Living Unit There must be an accessible route into and through each covered unit. COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Insufficient clear floor space at doors and within kitchen and bathrooms. 2. Hallways are narrower than 36” clear—finish to finish between baseboards! 3. Access not provided to all rooms on the ground floor of covered units. Key Requirements to Remember: • Hallways must be 36” wide minimum; • The first level of multi-level units must be accessible; • All Doorways must be 32” wide minimum with the door open 90 degrees; • Clear Floor Space must be provided at kitchen appliances and both kitchen and bathroom fixtures; • Walk-in Closets and Storage Closets must be accessible. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #6—Accessible to Operable Controls and Devices COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Insufficient clear floor space below device for a parallel or forward approach. 2. Switch or controls are mounted above maximum height limit of 48” AFF or below 15” – minimum height AFF. 3. Controls require pinching or grasping with fingers, or twisting of the wrist to operate. Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls must be in accessible locations. Provide 30” x 48” clear floor space for either a forward or parallel approach. Maximum high reach is 48” AFF to top of outlet box. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #7—Adaptability—Grab Bar Backing / Removable Sink Counters COMMON VIOLATIONS 1. Backing not provided completely at tubs, showers and/or at toilets according to CBC text and diagrams 2. Removal base cabinets not provided. 3. Finish flooring not provided under cabinet as required. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #7—Adaptability—Grab Bar Backing / Removable Sink Counters 1. Reinforcements in bathroom walls must be installed, so that grab bars at bathtubs and toilets can be added when needed. The code does not require installation of grab bars in bathrooms. 2. Provide removable base cabinets under sink counters so a wheelchair user may make a forward approach. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS Issue #8—Accessible Kitchens and Bathrooms Kitchens and bathrooms must be usable - that is, designed and constructed so an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver in the space provided and perform functions as illustrated HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—COMMON VIOLATIONS Issue #8—Accessible Kitchens and Bathrooms COMMON VIOLATIONS ERROR In the kitchen there is not 30" x 48" clear floor area parallel to and centered on the kitchen sink and range. Many times the sink or range is positioned into the "elbow" of an L-shaped kitchen, or sometimes in a small angled section of counter that doesn't provide a full 48" clear floor area. RESULT The purpose of the 30" x 48" clear floor area in front of the sink or range is to allow people using a wheelchair to position themselves in front of the sink and use it. If there is not a clear floor area centered in front of the sink, a person using a wheelchair may encounter obstructions that can keep them from being able to reach the faucets and use the sink. ERROR Sinks in bathrooms are not positioned with 30" x 48" clear floor area parallel to and centered on the sink. Faucet is not a lever style—round knobs installed instead. RESULT A person using a wheelchair cannot reach accessible faucets or the sink PERMITTING Fred Nolta PERMITTING ▪ Just because your plans went through plan check, do not assume the plans are buildable. ▪ Consider a 3rd party plan and spec review expert while plans are in plan check. ▪ Ensure all changes in transitions and materials are detailed on the plans. ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY TESTING PREVENTION RISK MANAGEMENT Fred Nolta ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY TESTING; PREVENTION; RISK MANAGEMENT ▪ Quality control ▪ Lender Required inspections ▪ Architect to identify all special submittals ▪ What triggers a special inspection ▪ Consider purchasing additional (more than required by your permit) field inspection ▪ Field inspections by consultants 1. Mock ups 2. Concrete floor flatness and levelness test (F Tests) 3. Re-shoring concrete decks 4. Earth shoring systems 5. Building envelope 6. Flood tests 7. Moisture content concrete slabs CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Fred Nolta CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION ▪ Documentation (meeting notes, RFIs, site visit reports by consultants, daily reports, etc). ▪ Who and how are you watching the contractors and design team? ▪ Changes, incorporating into the job and plans correctly. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION ▪ Owner’s FF&E and other contractors interface ▪ As-builts ▪ Operation and maintenance manuals ▪ Ensure your GC has and follows quality control program in place ▪ Product submittals – have one for each product used ▪ Dealing with substitutions CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION ▪ Ensure substitutions meet the specs in the design ▪ Verify/confirm if there any changes on how to install the substituted product ▪ Counterfeit or mislabeled products: Ex lumber liquidators ▪ Keep a submittal log ▪ Have weekly site meetings ▪ If you make changes, make sure the drawings reflect those changes POST CONSTRUCTION Monica Slev and Dennis Stryker POST CONSTRUCTION ▪ Initial investigation ▪ Attorney and team of consultants – physical inspection ▪ Review plans and specs ▪ Review contracts and change orders ▪ Review available insurance - CGL vs OCIP vs. Wrap ▪ Mediation vs Arbitration vs. Litigation – contract dictates ▪ Cost benefit analysis/business decision – cost to repair vs cost to litigate POST CONSTRUCTION ▪ Time Limitations ▪ 10 years from date of notice of completion ▪ 4 yrs breach of contract ▪ 4 yrs open/obvious defects ▪ 2 yrs for personal injuries ▪ Why negotiate repairs or litigate: ▪ To preserve your investment; ▪ Fiduciary responsibility to investors/partners; ▪ To get reimbursed for repair costs ; ▪ To preserve funds for future maintenance and expensive repairs; ▪ Have your team review any proposed repairs before agreeing to ensure maximum benefit.