10 year exterior envelope warranty?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1732 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 05:36 pm:    One of the exhibitors at the SCIP event (which I believe should be named "SCIP Summit") was a guy from EDA Contractors (www.edacontractors.com). The contractors are offering a 10.....yes TEN year all-inclusive warranty for the exterior envelope assemblies for their projects. What do you think about this warranty? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1190 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 06:41 pm:    I love the idea but I'm not in favor of having a sub responsible for it. EDA would love to see their warranty be used since this would limit Installer to those who provide the entire exterior envelope system from sheathing and air barrier out. Not many of them around and I'm not sure I want to lose some of my better cladding Installers just because they don't install air barriers. Ultimately it would be best if this came as a joint warranty from the manufacturers. There are a few who are looking at this. In the meantime it should be the Contractor's single source responsibility. There is nothing stopping us from requiring a joint warranty signed by multiple entities including GC, Installers, and manufacturers. Wording of the actual warranty and enforceability is a whole other nightmare. Keep in mind, warranties are ultimately a tool to minimize liability of the entity issuing the warranty. It's a lot easier for us to require a vague warranty requirement in our spec than it is to flesh out the actual clauses that we expect to benefit the Owner. To be fair I owe Cory a revised draft. I just haven't had 2 minutes to rub together to produce one. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 07:15 pm:    yeah, ok. I would need the warranty before getting excited about this. A warranty is just a list of exclusions, meant to protect the issuer, not the issuee. You have a copy? Also, the web site uses the term "guarantee" for this. So, is it a guarantee or is it a warranty? Do you think this contractor knows the difference? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1191 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 07:34 pm:    The guy who put this together is in marketing. He's putting it out as a concept for the industry to consider. Anyone that puts this in their documents does so at their own risk, just like anything else that gets used from unvetted sources. Ever see architects use manufacturers' guide specs without editing them? Happens all the time. This is minor in comparison and unenforceable as currently written. EDA is asking for our help, not shoving something down our throats. I think it has potential and shows vision. Brett Scarfino (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 12:28 pm:    10 year "system" warranties including labor/materials are not uncommon for custom curtain wall work. I've even seen requests for 20 years. Whether or not its priced out or excluded is another matter. Ken - not always the case...but for higher profile projects, I have found that cladding contractors will take on other portions of the wall / single source the design and installation via additional subs. I don't think most folks realize all the coordination that needs to take place between cladding components, girts, and stud work.... let alone all the different trades working to make this happen. Single sourcing this work, if possible in your locale, is very beneficial IMO. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1733 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2018 - 02:35 pm:    Here is the exact warranty language from EDA Contractors that they were handing out at the SCIP meeting. "Special Building Enclosure Warranty The installer of the exterior panels shall provide a (10) year warranty covering all leaks that directly result from the defective materials or defective workmanship supplied or performed by installers for both the Air & Vapor Barrier and the Exterior Panels. Should the exterior walls develop any such leaks during the Warranty Period, the installer's sol obligation shall be to furnish necessary materials and labor to repair the affected area and return it to a watertight condition. All removal of overburden and access to area is to be included in warranty. Warranty must be provided by single source entity which includes the Air & Vapor Barrier and Exterior Wall Panels." David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Cory Robbins (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - 11:35 am:    Thank you Ken for sticking up for the little guy here! My name is Cory Robbins, and I just wanted to defend the idea. Thank you as well David for putting this topic on the table for discussion. We do understand the difference in between a guarantee and a warranty, but our biggest concern is the limits in the material warranties that exist for AVB/WB. As soon as that barrier is punctured, the warranty is done. And they will only cover the material that FAILED, not provide labor to remove the cladding/overburden material. Also, the EDA Envelope is our company's guarantee that the leak will be fixed by us, ASAP. On the other hand, the warranty language, should be included in specifications for institutional projects nationwide so that even if EDA is not awarded the project, the other installer will have to upgrade their installation and stand behind their wall-system for 10years. The way we see it is pretty simple. There is a loophole, that cannot be denied, that exists in these wall systems. If a leak is discovered after the GC's 1-year warranty is over, a legal battle ensues which ends with the installer being liable due to their WORKMANSHIP. We figure, if it falls on them after $200,000 in legal fees, why not just write it in there so there are no questions. This way, the problem can be fixed quickly, and everyone can move on and keep their professional relationships intact. In conclusion, we feel this idea is a TRUE "Value Add" and instead of pushing it back, we hope specification writers simply help us find a way to push the concept into the industry so it becomes the new norm. Help us change the industry… Thank you and have a great day. Feel free to email me for further questions. crobbins@edacontractor.com EA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 - 12:04 pm:    Cory, Can you provide information on current or previous cases that have arisen due to the loophole you describe? I can't think of any projects in the last 10 years (the length of your guarantee period) that I've been involved with where there was an issue with the exterior envelope that wasn't directly attributed to shoddy installation/workmanship (covered under GC's warranty) or material failure (covered under manufacturer warranty). Are you saying that EDC's guarantee will cost my clients $200k ... the cost of their supposed legal fees? That's $200k added to each job, but no recent history that it is necessary. Help me understand the value that this would add to my client's projects. Also, note that at least in the standard AIA family of contracts the GC's warranty is not limited to 1 year. Don't confuse the GC's warranty with the correction period. Aren't you in effect limiting the warranty you provide to the owner to 10 years for the exterior envelope? Depending on the statute of repose, this may not be an issue, but in some jurisdictions this may actually limit the owner's recourse under the standard GC warranty (something us specifiers should keep in mind if we entertain this idea). Finally, I'm not sure you do understand the difference between guarantee and a warranty as you've used the terms interchangeably in your post. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1768 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - 02:25 pm:    Well, assuming that the design is well thought out and workable, I would rather spend my money on two things: 1) a comprehensive mockup, possibly including testing; and 2) significant on-site observation by third-party envelope specialists (maybe a commissioning agent). The first gives the chance to make sure the design is buildable using the components actually proposed for use; that all parties know how the small details go together; and that there is a standard to match. The second helps make sure that everything learned in the first is followed, and that new problems that arise are corrected before they become unfixable. I have no cost comparison to cite, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is cheaper than a warranty (which cost would be buried in the sub's quote and not discernible). I feel strongly about this because who wants to have to trigger a warranty clause? Possible fights (no matter the language). Maybe manufacturer or contractor out-of-business. Disruption to the occupants. Non-warrantied but related costs. Better to endeavor to get in right in the first place. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1193 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 10:28 am:    Brett, I also prefer single sourcing when it's viable but the GC has ultimate responsibility for scoping the work out to subs. Unless the client buys in to the single source concept, and we can come up with multiple qualified subs who fit the bill, I'm not about to require it on my own volition. I've been handed my head enough times in my life to learn to avoid specifying certain requirements just because it's best practice (isn't that sad?). John, like you I have yet to see a piece of paper capable of keeping a building dry. There are no substitutes for tested mockups and compliance inspections. The proposed warranty is intended to add value. I know that EDA does not add cost when providing this warranty but as John points out, the cost has to be borne somewhere. One of the many reasons I am not in favor of having the subs own the warranty is that I've seen too many subs in too many disciplines go out of business one day only to return within weeks or months with a different name and a different Owner. If that were to happen, the warranty is nothing more than a piece of paper. I don't expect that to happen with EDA but the idea here is to create a document that can be provided by all bidders including the unknown low-bidder. Since this would not be standard warranty issued by a manufacturer I would almost want to require that the warranty be covered by a bond or insurance policy with written terms and acknowledgement of full payment for the period of time specified certified by the bonding company or insurance agency. The certification would be issued with the warranty, Cory Robbins (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 10:27 am:    EA, I am not sure how to respond considering you seem to be attacking the language and its validity versus working to come up with a solution. That being said, if you have not been involved with a metal panel project(rainscreen) where the seperation of scopes to multiple subcontractors turns into a leak. You must employ the best building envelope consultant on the planet and have them involved on DAY 1. EDA's (not EDC’s) guarantee simply pushes our cross-training and attention to detail up because we have no other choice. The concept is simple, the manufacturer's warranty (AVB) does not cover leaks after the product has been penetrated/punctured. Then it falls on the workmanship of the installer who punched through their product. In Fact, that is exactly what they SHOULD do, why would any AVB manufacturer warrant the work of an installer they did NOT bring to the table. You are talking about hypotheticals, and I am speaking in reality. This loophole that exists in the warranty overlap of rainscreen wall-systems is real. It has buried a lot of cladding installers in legal fees and even taken some out of business. We saw the loophole, and decided to lean into it, BECAUSE, even if this language is NOT INCLUDED, the blame still falls on the exterior cladding installer. We can play this out, and that is always where it falls. EVEN WHEN THE MATERIAL FAILS, the only thing the manufacturer will provide is the replacement AVB (1 roll of Peel&Stick) and then it is up to the installer to REMOVE THE CLADDING AND REPAIR THE LEAK!!! That is a huge expense, and every installer will fight it TOOTH AND NAIL, if it is not explicitly explained that they are liable. We are simply showing the industry that the installer is liable due to the way the warranty is written by the manufacturer. So, we are asking the architects to correct the mistake and include the language so there is no mistake where the liability lands when a leak is found. The reason I am writing this way is because the tone you took on your last post. I thought this was a blog to write ideas and debate them, not accuse others of not knowing how the business operates. Thank you again for giving me the ability to share my opinion on here and debate this concept. It is near and dear to our heart and we NEED you architects and specification writers to see the wisdom in this loophole. It is real, and instead of thinking that our company is out to win and steal jobs from others and set the table, please help us come up with a REAL solution to this REAL BUSINESS KILLING problem. Cory Cory Robbins (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 12:01 pm:    If the subcontractor is not trust-worthy enough, and does not have enough staying power and could potentially go out of business. Then, rewrite the warranty you receive from the AVB manufacturers. Challenge their warranty limitations by rewriting their warranty to make them liable. They will have 2 choices: 1. Certify their installers and become much more involved in the installation... 2. Reject your new warranty language and you are back to square one. Whether or not what we propose is the answer for the future, it is definitely the best bet for now. This language is used as a safety net and makes the installer aware of their company being behind what they install. If the language is NOT included, the results remain the same... 1. Manufacturers will avoid the leak, unless their product fails. Then they will give you enough material to patch the leak, and that is all. 2. Installers will battle to NOT be the one who takes down the cladding, forcing the owner to do so and sue the installers afterwards to prove fault. 3. All professional relationships are ruined when lawyers are involved and owner is upset with architect and team for not seeing this coming. 4. Installer of cladding, after lawyer fees, most likely is found liable and they have to fix the leak anyway. While paying for lawyer fees and bankrupting their company. I know that this all sounds far-fetched and most likely "not your problem", but this is what happens. This is how the cookie crumbles when a leak is found. Why not alert everyone ahead of time by notifying everyone who is at fault if the water integrity fails??? Put it on the installer, or put it on the Manufacturers. Either way, do something, because to do nothing is to invite litigation and the toppling of installers nationwide. Like I said before, we need your help to get this concept through or to fix this issue. This is a real issue, and we need the help of the A/E community to address it and fix it. Thank you again for your time, Cory EA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 01:47 pm:    Cory, If I'm attacking any language it is only to point out your confusion between guarantee vs. warranty. If I'm attacking anything else (I'd prefer to say I'm questioning it rather than attacking) it would be the premise of the loophole in the current way of doing things. I'm asking you if you can cite specific examples (reality, not hypotheticals) to help me understand what this loophole is and where it exists because I don't see it. EDA (please forgive my earlier error in your company name) sees a loophole that you want us to help close. How can I close it if I don't see it or understand it? More importantly, how can I ask my client to pay for something I don't think is necessary? What value am I adding to my client's project that way? If you'll allow me to get into your hypothetical scenario when your proposed language is not included ... if the problem was a material failure, and thereby covered under a material warranty, the initial installers presumably did nothing wrong and would not be liable to cover the expense of repairing something that wasn't their fault. If they installed everything according to the manufacturer's instructions and the documents, they would bear no liability for the product not performing as it should. The material warranty to cover this failure is generally to replace the product as you describe. The Owner is not entitled to free labor* to get that replacement product installed however. If the installers didn't do anything wrong initially and it really is only a material failure, they should not battle to be involved in that work unless they simply don't want work (in that case the Owner could hire another contractor to install the replacement product). It should be work that they are paid to do. The cost of this work is borne by the Owner. Perhaps the Owner could go after the Architect for specifying a product that failed, but I don't expect them to get very far with that unless the architect wasn't performing their services to the standard of care. On the other hand (to play out your hypothetical situation), if the failure was caused by a poor installation and not a material defect, and we presume that the installation was not in accordance with the contract documents (this assumes the contract documents were ok ... the alternative to this is the next paragraph). This is then a breach of contract and covered under the GC's warranty that the work was carried out in conformance with the contract documents ... no new warranty is needed where one already exists. In this scenario, the GC would need to bear the expense of the repair (it would be up to them to pursue a claim with the installer with whom they've contracted). After all, they were paid initially assuming the work was done correctly. If it is discovered that the work was not done correctly, they should not be paid again to redo the work as they fix their error. The owner should only have to pay once for work that conforms to the contract documents. Alternatively, we could hypothetically presume that the contract was followed to the letter and the failure instead was due to poor design and/or poor documentation. In this case, the GC and installer have done nothing wrong, the manufacturer's material functions as it should under correct design conditions, but the Architect's design was incorrect. The Owner would then be able to pursue a claim against the Architect, thereby getting the Architect to pay for their design error. I'm not saying that the hypothetical scenario you describe playing out isn't feasible, I'm just pointing out that, hypothetically, it is already addressed by the contracts and warranties already in place. If it is as you describe, something that ultimately falls back to a failure of the installer to perform the work correctly, then perhaps the solution isn't to create a new warranty, but to simply enforce the one that is already in place; as a GC make sure the installers are performing their work according to the contract documents. *A manufacturer's labor and material warranty would presumably cover the labor to replace the material, though maybe not all of it. As manufacturer warranties are written to generally protect the manufacturer there are usually limitations on the total cost the manufacturer would bear ... usually limited to the initial cost of the work, though there are certain NDL or no dollar limit warranties available. I only bring this up to point out another method the Owner could pursue to guard against failures. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1062 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 03:51 pm:    Another solution is to have the Contractor (or the appropriate installer) purchase a performance bond that would guarantee the work for a specific time. The bonding company would be on the hook if the installer or manufacturer defaulted. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 433 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 06:21 pm:    There is another way... Use only proven systems that are simple to install. When I was still doing project specifications, I worked on a project where the designer insisted on a roof detail that would have been very difficult (impossible) to flash. So I wrote a specification for BUCKETS and put it in the project manual. The designer got the message, and corrected the details. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1063 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 11:19 pm:    Even proven systems (and proven details) can be installed poorly. You just can't fix stupid, and when nothing beats quality like a good price, stupid things happen. There is never enough time to do things right, but there is always plenty of time to fix it once it is screwed up. I would rather have second rate products installed by good mechanics than premium products installed by people who don't know what they are doing or don't care. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 885 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, October 26, 2018 - 12:41 pm:    Peter- Coincidentally, I used your "second rate product/good installation" comment just yesterday in a class session our CSI chapter provides for Washington University School of Architecture every year. I first heard this during a presentation you gave in St. Louis probably 15 years ago, and have never forgotten it, or the underlying wisdom behind it. Thanks. Cory Robbins (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 26, 2018 - 03:30 pm:    You all have many points, and are requesting statistics behind our findings and issues we have seen firsthand for over a decade. Our industry is quite slow to catch up, but that can be a good and bad thing. EDA has spent a lot of time and energy and money thinking and considering ways to make the industry better. We are a subcontactor, and I work for their Business Development department. I am the only BD in Subcontracting that I have personally ever met. That being said, my company has spent a lot of time doing our best to make the industry better and thinking of ways to attack this litigious issue. We understand the word warranty has been tainted in the past in this industry, but this concept addresses a real-life risk that owners face constantly. This is what our company does for a living, everyday all day. Our company has put our company behind our work by saying we will take responsibility right away and the OWNER/PROPERTY INSURER does not have to prove it first. As soon as a leak is found, our company will come and address it and return it to working condition. If the owner has to speak to their insurer, who then fixes the issue but works on finding who is at fault to collect what they have lost... They will grab anyone involved and try to prove fault... This takes time and money and lawyers. When the leak is found, the owner does not care who is at fault. They care WHEN the leak will be fixed. This language puts that responsibility on ONE CONTRACTOR, and avoids the need of a lawyer. This is the conversation that needs to be had and honestly I cannot wait to continue it.