Archive through November 29, 2016

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

Author Message John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 139 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - 06:05 pm:    Does anyone require an informational submittal of the test results or certification that the testing has been done and that the substrate complies with manufacturer's moisture vapor, humidity and alkalinity requirements? I have the testing and performance requirements in the Sections, but it occurs to me that without closing the loop and requiring some sort of submitted confirmation that the testing was done and the substrates are compliant, it's awfully easy for this to fall between the cracks. Even though the Contractor would be on the hook to repair any failures, I'd rather spare the Client the disruption and ourselves the involvement. Edward J Dueppen, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: edueppen Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2016 - 08:37 am:    Yes, we require the submission of a "Flooring Substrate Acceptance Statement" which consists of a form that we provide that they need to fill out (test agency name, test results, test locations, etc.) as well as signed certification of whether or not the Contractor accepts the substrate conditions. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2016 - 11:46 am:    Is it sufficiently important to you that you add yet another QA/QC requirement...in addition to those that you already have (whether code-mandated or otherwise)? But also just as important...do you have something that specifically addresses the remediation of excessive moisture? Typical 30-day requirement is generally not conducive to most construction schedules. Or do you leave that up to the Contractor (as "means and methods")? John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 140 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2016 - 01:11 pm:    Flooring failures have significant negative impact on our Clients, so yes this is sufficiently important. Even though there are remedies in place in the event of failure, it seems to better serve everyone to minimize the opportunity for failure. We address moisture vapor emission control either via Common Work Results for Flooring or a separate Mositure Vapor Emission Control Section depending on the project requirements. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2016 - 01:20 pm:    John, Call me crazy, but I require a CaCl test to be done after the installation of the moisture mitigation system (Koster, for example). This is a surface test, which is what I want to see as proof that the system was installed as required to bring the moisture levels to acceptable levels (dictated by each floor covering manuf.). Without this test, I have nothing... and if flooring fails without having done this test beforehand, it likely ends up being fingers pointed at everyone for blame. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, November 18, 2016 - 07:28 pm:    Failures of any type impact clients, but does that mean we need to specify QA/QC for EVERYTHING? You could specify 3rd party continuous inspection of application/installation of each and every material on a project...albeit at Owner's "extensive" expense....for what other end result? To also protect the designer's liability? John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 141 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Monday, November 21, 2016 - 02:14 pm:    Guest - You appear to have an ax to grind. The testing and performance requirements are already in the documents and that will not change. The question is whether others require an informational submittal documenting that the testing was done and the substrate complies with the requirements? This isn't about adding a requirement - it's about documenting compliance with that requirement. Whether there is liablity associated with requiring testing but not requiring documentation of the test results is not a question I had considered, but will now have to explore. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - 04:38 pm:    It's all about QA AND QC! It's still a "requirement" if submitting an informational document is required. My "beef" as you so may call it is that many A/E clients have a pet peeve subject in which they've been "burned" for in a previous project; reactively they request some sort of QA/QC requirement to hopefully mitigate as much as possible a recurrence. No ax to grind...unless you have something that needs being chopped! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 575 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, November 28, 2016 - 04:40 pm:    I agree with the emphasis by several writers above on the importance of adequate moisture and pH testing of concrete slab flooring substrates. What I believe is open to discussion is whether or not the Architect should continue to expand their Babysitter role of requiring submittal of each test result. The Contractor is required to perform the test, review the test report indicating whether (in this case) the substrate met requirements, and if not, take action to remediate the substrate until it meets requirements. Why should the Architect have to receive and review the test reports? In this modern day of project information management cloud services, the Contractor could just file the qualifying test reports in the permanent project record and go about their business. They ought to know that inadequate testing or lack of response will put them on the hook for an expensive flooring failure; why share this responsibility with the Architect except to hope that the frustrated Owner can hit both parties' liability insurance? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 661 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, November 28, 2016 - 04:42 pm:    Curious if anyone pulls moisture testing and floor prep into a separate Division 09 section and, if so, if anyone is willing to share? Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 28, 2016 - 05:50 pm:    Robin, you might take a look at MasterSpec's section 090561.13 - Moisture Vapor Emission Control. Covers testing, some floor prep (patching, leveling and underlayments), and fluid-applied epoxy systems to control excess moisture in slabs. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2097 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, November 28, 2016 - 06:51 pm:    The reason I opted to have the testing reports submitted was because of one instance of flooring failure. When asked for the test results, the GC replied that since the results had been within the acceptable ranges, he'd thrown them away. So, we had no information and no proof of anything. Consequently, we required submittal, but no review of the test results. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1023 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, November 28, 2016 - 07:01 pm:    I've been told that even receiving Informational Submittals that are not reviewed, just filed away, is enough to create a liability issue for designers. Perhaps we can require certification that testing has been done or require that test results be kept by the GC/CM until Substantial Completion. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 576 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, November 28, 2016 - 09:25 pm:    Ken: I'm with you on that. Does that produce a new category of submittal? Submittal for Record? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1024 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 08:17 am:    Maybe a takeoff on Abbie Hoffman: "Submittals for the Hell of It" or something similar? How about "Means and Methods Submittals" where the submittals are sent to a black hole in the Contractor's trailer, right next to the specs. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1533 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 12:38 pm:    Robin, I do have a separate Section 096000 - Floor Preparation. Sometimes on my projects the school districts will separately contract out the "soft flooring" (resilient base, carpeting, resilient tile, etc.) from the construction contract. The school district goes through a cooperative purchasing entity, KCDA (www.kcda.org), who "buys in bulk and saves". The flooring is installed by a separate contractor. The Contractor is responsible for floor preparation (patching, leveling, moisture mitigation) while the flooring installer is responsible for the occasional minor patching and leveling. I created the floor preparation section by taking the floor preparation requirements from the individual flooring sections and putting them into one section. Email me and I will send it to you: david@axtconsulting.com David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 12:41 pm:    I'm not sure how the contractor's failure to prove their substrate fell within acceptable ranges constitutes a problem for the architect in Lynn's example. Is the assumption that because the contractor said so it must be true and therefore it is the architect's (or specifier's) fault that the flooring failure occurred? Could it be more likely that the test results weren't quite within acceptable ranges, but were really close, so the results were thrown away so there wouldn't be a paper trail? Even then, who performed the testing? Do they not keep copies of the reports they create? Where is the invoice for their services to prove the testing was actually done? Wouldn't it be more likely that testing was never done and the contractor was just trying to avoid paying for the failure? Contractors won't believe anything is in the contract until we cite them chapter and verse and hold the book for them while they read it ... why do we accept anything less from the contractor when it comes to proving they've complied with the contract requirements? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2098 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 03:03 pm:    Anonymous, the flooring failure situation resulted in an explosive law suit where everyone was involved. The architect was trying to cover all the bases and requested the test results in an effort to determine cause. With no test results available, it continued to be a "it's your fault, no it's yours" situation. I'm no longer at that firm, so don't know exactly what the result was, but heard the architectural firm was determined partly at fault. John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 142 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 05:30 pm:    Probably all of us have requirements for moisture/ pH testing of some form or fashion in virtually all of our flooring Sections. To rephrase the original question, if we require the testing, should we also require documentation that the specified testing was done and that the substrate is within the recommended range for installation of the flooring? Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 563 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 - 06:50 pm:    We ask for documentation in a passive way, per the following example, not defining it as a submittal: 4. Contingency for High Moisture Readings: a. Report all unacceptable test results to the Architect. b. Refer to Section 01 27 00 – Unit Prices and Section 09 01 23 – Common Standards for Slab Moisture Control for remedial procedures for unacceptable moisture readings as defined by the flooring manufacturer.