| Author |
Message |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2021 - 05:38 pm: |    |
I am curious as to how everyone currently handles MVE testing and remediation.
Do you include specific requirements in Section 090561 or do you require compliance with flooring manufacturers' requirements in your individual flooring specs?
Do you include cost of remediation in base bid? How do you budget for it?
Do you include unit pricing and consider remediation an added cost? How do you stop the Contractor from requiring remediation and getting paid for noncompliant work? Is that rewarding unacceptable behavior?
What about the information being presented by individuals in the industry that RH requirements from flooring manufacturers often cannot be achieved and appears to be an excuse for requiring remediation when it's not needed?
How important is a flooring warranty if you're getting one from the remediation manufacturer? |
RH (Hank) Sweers II RA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rhsweers2
Post Number: 28
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2021 - 06:47 pm: | |
A couple of years ago, I started specifying MVE admixture in the slab spec, OR a separate Division-09 topical MVE floor treatment spec - for application throughout the Work (if not polished or sealed floors, and if no admixture was used) as my "default". Sometimes, my Architect clients had me remove both of them - after I explained their risks (and documented that email of course). With MVE treatment as the default, there really isn't much need for doing moisture tests except to verify that the treatment really worked. And I haven't seen many projects that can wait 4 to 5 months for a slab to dry out. And a large contractor in my local area said they started using the admixture treatment as typical - even if not required by the Designers - reduced their risk also. The admixture treatment is much less expensive, but doesn't work well on remodeling projects. |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 963
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2021 - 01:14 pm: | |
Requiring a concrete admixture in a Division-09 specification section is asking for problems. Talk with the structural engineer and at least have the concrete specifications reference the other specification section. Sometimes the concrete specifications specify curing compound. |
RH (Hank) Sweers II RA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rhsweers2
Post Number: 29
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2021 - 02:59 pm: | |
Duh . . . the admixture wasn't in Division-09 - it was in the Concrete spec, of course. |
Stephen Wilson
Senior Member
Username: swilson
Post Number: 16
Registered: 02-2019
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2021 - 09:54 am: | |
Ken, I include testing requirements in 090561 as a referenced section for all flooring types--resilient, carpet, tiling, etc. I tend to avoid specifying a specific remediation type, instead noting that it must be "approved by flooring manufacturer." I write the individual flooring sections to reference 090561 for testing, and part 3 of the individual sections instruct the contractor to reference the flooring manufacturer's instructions for remediation.
I don't think that requiring remediation in the specs is rewarding the contractor for non-compliant work. A lot of the time if the slab chemistry isn't correct for flooring application it's due to it not having enough time for the slab to cure, but the flooring has to get installed anyway to keep things on schedule. I don't think that's a fault per se but the reality of managing different trades to get a project completed on time.
I can't speak to RH requirements from flooring manufacturers being unreasonable, but having heard of enough projects with flooring adhesive issues, I'd rather err on the side of caution and save from future costly litigation and remediation. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2021 - 10:02 am: | |
Does anyone have experience with this - https://megaslab.com/?
A friend is researching it and finds it compelling. I'm trying to get more information. |
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob
Post Number: 395
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2021 - 10:17 am: | |
Ken,
Thanks for resurrecting this post. I was just overhauling our Section 090561, because a contractor pointed out that Laticrete has changed the name of their MVE system. We are discussing testing and coordination with Division 09 finish flooring, but I think the moisture requirements have to come from the finish floor manufacturer.
No one believes in the magic pixie dust added to concrete mix, except the people who sell it.
Alternates and unit prices are interesting. We've seen both, depending on private vs. public bidding and how many different flooring types on each slab. Do you add MVE before or after the walls are installed? On a privately bid job, it's easier to coordinate and plan ahead. With today's construction climate and long lead times for windows, strategies may change.
Everyone can do their best, and we may still need remediation. Pointing fingers isn't productive. If anyone wants support for this, Emily Hopps, PE at SGH, has an excellent presentation about the whys.
By the way, we have three products with CDPH testing and VOC compliance for LEED. These products will never be LBC red list free because of the epoxy content.
- |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2021 - 10:33 am: | |
Thank you Lisa. I agree with you on the pixie dust. I feel the same way about the spray-and-pray systems but they still have a level of popularity.
My understanding was that Laticrete has two separate epoxy coating systems, SuperCap and NXT. They sound like similar technologies but I understand SuperCap to be an holistic overlay or underlay system that includes integral MVE as part of the topping system while NXT is for more traditional construction. Is that your finding? |
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob
Post Number: 396
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2021 - 10:39 am: | |
Ken,
Yes about Laticrete NXT, and the SuperCap system requires its own type of MVE. SuperCap is great for new high rise construction, but not always for our typical smaller, low rise, and renovation projects.
- |
|
4specs.com Home Page
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page