Contractor's Warranty Nonsense

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 836 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 05:51 pm:    I have an ongoing argument on a project with the GC who insists we delete all language in the specifications that talks about any warranty over 1 year. The GC argues that by contract he is required to provide a one year warranty, which I agree with. However the GC wants us to remove special warranty requirements for waterproofing, roofing, aluminum finishes, etc. and replace with requirements to meet the standard warranty from the roofing manufacturer. The GC objects to the following language in our roof specification section: Standard Roofing Manufacturer's Warranty: Submit a written warranty, for twenty (20) years, transferable, no dollar limit (NDL), single source warranty signed by roofing system manufacturer agreeing to promptly repair leaks in the roof membrane and base flashings and lightweight insulated concrete roof deck resulting from defects in materials or workmanship for the warranty period. Warranty starts from date of Final Completion. Its Friday, my brain is fried and I am working all weekend on a deadline for another project due Monday and I have Jury duty on Tuesday - can anyone who is thinking clearer than I or has had more than 5 hrs sleep come up with a response to this nonsense so I can put this to rest. Much appreciated. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 423 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:08 pm:    Jerome - who is your client? Is your contract with the GC? If not, then you should not be taking direction from him, but should get direction from your client. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 466 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:08 pm:    Say no. That spec was in the bid set, and was not excluded. Furthermore, the language requires the MFR to support the warranty, not the contractor, so what's the big deal? The only way you could revise the language is to purchase the materials directly, instead of the GC. Since the GC is the purchaser, the GC needs to provide the warranty to the owner. If the Owner chooses to purchase direct, you should be entitled to deduct all the overhead, markup, profit, bond, and insurance percentages from those materials. The GC would lose a lot of money (or potential profit anyway) if you forced it on him that way. Final thought, your warranty start period is non-standard. Usually starts at Substantial Completion (when Owner recieves beneficial occupancy), not Final Completion. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 837 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:38 pm:    Robin, My client is the architect, the architect's client is the Developer. The Developer on this job is an idiot....The architect is overwhelmed and has asked for my assistance, this is one of those jobs that no one wants to work on, not only is the Developer an idiot, his representative is a major piece of work...no one wants to work with him and the original PM for the architect quit her job from all the stress of working with this pig. Unfortunately the Developer is steadfast on keeping his rep on the project - this will be one of those jobs from hell, for the next year we will all lose sleep over it...oh btw its a HUD job too. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 320 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:43 pm:    Actually if you're using AIA A201, the one-year period is a correction period, not a warranty. The 'warranty' is legally based on the statute of discovery or the statute of limitations for the state where the project is. Extended warranties are very common and no one has to accept the manufacturers standard warranty, especially if you had it specified and they signed a contract based on your spec. The Contractor bought it. They can gripe all they want, but if the manufacturer won't provide it then the Contractor has to. After all, the Spec is written to the Contractor and the Contractor signed the Contract. Shame on him/her if the folks providing the Work aren't required to comply too. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 321 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:45 pm:    Sorry, I was sending while you were responding. If this is a Federal government project, the FAR clauses govern. That's another story and, like you, I'm on deadline. I'll try to come back to this Monday. Sorry. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 838 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 06:49 pm:    Here is the exact comments from the contractor regarding extended warranties in the specifications, perhaps I am reading it incorrectly: ...in reviewing the current specs, it appears that there are still many extended warranty provisions included. Our pricing to the Owner, as we qualified with everyone back during the first review of the specs, only includes standard manufacturer’s warranties. We will have the subcontractors price any special extended warranties that are included, and these will have to be priced as an addition to the Owner. Also, as per standard AIA procedure, CEI will provide the standard one-year contractor’s warranty which includes appropriate warranty for any latent defects to comply with the FL State Statute. The Contractor will not provide any additional “Special Project Warranty” or other “Special” warranties called for within the various spec sections; nor will we accept liability for any manufacturer’s disclaimers and limitations on product warranties. The Owner’s budget cannot afford the mark-up we would have to charge to comply with this provision. Please revise all individual spec section warranty provisions to state “Manufacturer’s Special Warranty” and delete from Section 01780 – Warranties and Bonds, the provision for “Disclaimers and Limitations” (1.2.B.) and “Special Project Warranty (Guarantee)” (1.3. A.1.). Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 584 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, August 03, 2012 - 10:53 pm:    It doesn't matter if the developer is an idiot or a genius; indirectly, that's who you are working for. If the developer decides the walls should be papier-mâché, that's what they will be. Provided, of course, you can make them comply with the code. ;-) I haven't looked the FAR for several years, and I don't remember the details, but I wonder if it specifically asks for extended warranties. If it does, the developer must be made aware of those requirements, but if not, your responsibility is to the developer, not the tenant. It's hard for most architects to work with developers. We are taught to base our design on the owner's requirements, but in school, we assume the owner and the occupant are the same entity. I think that's usually the case, but when you're working for the developer or building owner, rather than the tenants, all you can do is do your best to provide a decent space for the poor souls who have to live or work there. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 474 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 10:55 am:    Well, no wonder! You are still using MF95. If you were using MF2004 all of these problems would not have occured... hee, hee, hee, Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 839 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 11:19 am:    Wrong again Peter, this particular job is prepared using MF2004. I offer my clients the option of either version. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 12:05 pm:    I thought the same thing, Peter, because the quote from the contractor mentioned "Section 01780 – Warranties." Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 72 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 12:15 pm:    This feels like a lot of the CM/GC or CMAR projects I work on. The contractor gives the owner a price (a supposed GMP) at some point during CD's, without clearly explaining to anyone their assumptions and qualifications, and then tells everyone after construction has started that the stuff in the specs "would be an extra" to the owner. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 840 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 12:30 pm:    Liz, peter, I never said the Contractor was smart, on HUD work you must use MF04, yet this contractor claims to have built 42 previous HUD financed residential projects. I've explained to them several times that in South Florida you must specify a roof sustem based on the current approved NOA (Notic of Acceptance) from Miami-Dade County Product Approval, typically those systems automatically render at least a 10 year warranty, yet the GC continues to advise that the 10 year warranty is not in his agreement. So yeah, the GC is an idiot cause there is no way he is ever going to get a permit in Florida for a building with a roof without an NOA...and so the fight goes on, there is another conference call on Monday, so hopefully some of my learned peers will chime in here so I can add some juice to the CC. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 841 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 12:39 pm:    Ron, William, John, Jim, Peter, Paul, (sorry, no Ringo), Phil, Mark, Lynn, Ralph, where are you guys, I could use some help here, share the knowledge share the experience, isn't that what this board is all about? Sorry, lack of sleep, have two deadlines for Monday, is making me crazy (ok so I am already crazy for working with both MF95 and MF04) no more jokes please...the hair is falling out as I type. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 424 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 01:07 pm:    Jerome: It seems to me, based on the language you quoted, the the GC wants only "standard" warranties. If the roofing system you provide, based on the NOA, comes with a 10 year warranty standard, that would be fine. My interpretation is that the GC did not bid any extra warranty (such as a 20 year NDL). Of course, it also depends on HUD's requirements, which will take precedence over everything. I don't see him objecting to all warranties- just extended ones that typically cost extra. Am i missing something? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 842 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 01:22 pm:    Robin, you are correct, the extended warranties were always in the bid documents, the GC wants them taken out, the architect does not want to take them out, the Owner does not care, he just wants a permit and to start construction, however the Building Depts are now requiring GC submit copies of current NOA's along with contract documents. I have offered to delete all extended warranties from the specifications, even though I think that is rediculous, the architect needs to instruct me to do this, and so far he has not. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 843 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 01:25 pm:    The question still remains is how does the architect ensure that the extended warranties are provided and the work is done according to those warranties, if ithey are not noted in the Contract Docs? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 475 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, August 04, 2012 - 02:34 pm:    At the end of the day, what matters in this discussion is whether or not the Developer has more confidence in the Architect (and you) than he does in the Contractor. I wish I could say that I have never run into this before (a baldface, damned lie) and assure you that with your support the Architect will prevail (an empty promise if there ever was one). Based on previous comments on this forum from you and others doing work in Florida, it sounds to me like there a line up around Tallahassee below which informed judgement about construction begins to exponentially diminish. The result is a bare-bones approach to construction estimating that looks at everything as an extra. "So, you want nails with that wood framing?" And I love the Contractor's comment "I've done 42 projects before..." My response is "Obviously, you've been doing them wrong; oh, and even more obviously, you haven't done any projects in South Florida." I have had to do this before. I don't think there are any magic words that you can use to restore sanity. You can say that, based on your professional expertise, this is standard practice for this building type in your area and is consistent with HUD and requirements of the AHJ. The Architect should also consider whether or not to apply his seal to the construction documents. Should the Developer side with the Contractor (and remember, nothing beats quality like a good price), inform the Developer that changes required by the AHJ to obtain a building permit will be an additional service (maybe in advance). That way, he can not only pay for what the Contractor believes are "upgrades", but also for his failure to understand that there is value in using responsible design professionals. Maybe you can bill both of them. It is so easy to be cynical and glib from the outside looking in, but I do feel your pain, believe me. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 - 09:36 am:    I am wondering if the contractor is objecting to the wording in the warranty and not the extended warranty itself. The GC did respond that they would supply standard manufacturer's warranties. Is it possible that they feel the wording in the spec is requiring a non-standard warranty? The typical roofing warranty we recieve would not include any provisions to repair anything to do with damage to the roof deck, ceiling, etc. (unless of course the lightweight deck is provided by the roofing manufacturer which it typically is not) I am not trying to take the GC's side but maybe due to the adversarial nature of the project there is to much CYA going on and not enough straight talk between the parties. Sometimes I have needed to talk directly to the GC about their concerns (without the developer in the middle) to find out what the real concern is. Good Luck Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 844 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 - 10:07 am:    Thanks Scott, from what I understand the GC objects to any warranty more than one year. I am not privy to the Construction Contract. I am assuming their agreement calls for a one year warranty on all products. The architect will be involved in a cc this morning to discuss the current impass on the extended warranties...new at eleven!! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 322 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 - 12:03 pm:    Jerome, unfortunately the first thing that needs to be determined is whether or not the Developer indeed agreed to forego the warranties. If that is how their contract is written, that's what has to be complied with. I doubt there is anything in Owner-Architect Agreement stating the Architect will be listened to; just that the A/E will be blamed to everything the Contractor and Developer decide to do without A/E involvement. To my knowledge there are no Code or FAR requirements for extended warranties. If the government will not own the building but merely lease them, the buildings must simply meet Federal tenant guidelines. From the sounds of this forum, that probably won't happen, but that is for the Developer to worry about. One would hope that Housing and Urban Development actually follows its own guidelines. If the Developer has put you and the Architect in the position where you are essentially answering to the Contractor, all you can do is protect yourself as much as possible. You're wasting your time, energy, and stress levels on someone who doesn't care to do things right. They are looking at making as much money as they can, as quickly as possible. Our tax dollars at work and play. This rip-off probably will be a drop in the bucket compared to what the occupants of the building will generate. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 845 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 - 12:45 pm:    Ken, this project was HUD financed, the contract docs were peer reviewed by the Dominion Group, and several HUD forms were included in the Project Manual; however we were not required to follow any HUD guidelines, in fact the construction is being permitted under the 2004 FBC, which was grandfathered in from the previous project. We did not follow any FAR requirements. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1432 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 - 03:06 pm:    I think the issue is entirely different than other posters here. The issue is that the contractor believes that these warranties did not exist in the documents upon which his maximum price is based. All you have to do is determine if this is true to figure out whether this is a change or not. He's simply saying that the warranties will be an extra cost over and above his GMP. Like it or not, this is a perfectly legitimate claim. It happens a lot when GMPs are calculated on preliminary documents. Interestingly, this dispute may not be about very many dollars once you add up the few extended warranties that are actually specified, and their often relatively low cost (relative to the project total). The contractor can prepare documented line item amounts for each one. The owner is then free to forgo those warranties -- which all here would agree is probably not advised, but is the owner's prerogative -- or to pay those extra costs the contractor is able to document to get the warranties. It's as simple as that.