Ken Kosloff, CDT, CCCA Richard Avelar & Associates Architects Oakland, CA ABSTRACT This case study explores a re-roofing project of The Keys Condominium Owner’s Association in Walnut Creek, CA, that took over two years and consisted of approxi¬ mately 800 residential units in two large buildings. Over 850 older HVAC condenser units were also replaced in conjunction with the re-roofing. The project budget was approximately $5,000,000. The Keys re-roof project was unique from many stand¬ points and offers numerous lessons for any roofing consultant. The roof consultant was part of a “team” of professionals that consisted of the property association manager, an architect-of-record, mechanical engineer-of-record, construction manager, asbestos abatement consultant, and attorney. The coordination and organization of those indi¬ viduals was a key ingredient to the success of the project. Ken Kosloff, CDT, CCCA Ken Kosloff is a senior construction consultant with the architectural firm of Richard Avelar & Associates and has represented common interest developments since 1985. He has served as an expert wit¬ ness in arbitration and in trial on construction defect cases. Kosloff is a leading public speaker on topics related to homeowner associations and managing their buildings. Kosloff is licensed by the state of California as a general building contractor and a roofing contractor. He is a professional member of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) where he is a Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) and Certified Construction Contracts Administrator (CCCA). Kosloff has been an active member of the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) since 1986. He is a member of Westcon Consultants Association, The Western States Roofing Contractors Association, and the Roof Consultants Institute (RCI). In addition, Kosloff is a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Association of Construction Inspectors, where he holds credentials as a certified Construction Inspector (CCI) and Certified Construction Project Manager (CCPM). He is also a trained mediation/arbitration spe¬ cialist. Kosloff holds a bachelors degree from the University of California at Santa Barbara and two teach¬ ing credentials from the state of California. In addition, Kosloff is a founding board member of the Association of Professional Reserve Analysts (APRA), and holds the designation of Professional Reserve Analyst (PRA), is past chairman of the reserve study resource panel for the Executive Council of Homeowners (ECHO), and is a member of the ECHO Maintenance Resource Panel. In addition, Mr. Kosloff is a member of the California Association of Community Managers (CACM) Council of Affiliate Members Steering Committee. Kosloff- 41
Keys to a Successful Mega-residential Reroof In the world of professional roof consulting, consid¬ erable discussion is focused on the technical aspects of doing the job (i.e., the criteria and ultimate choice of roofing system, the specifications and drawings, and the solving of unforeseen problems and technical issues that always seem to arise during the construction process). However, there is another world that demands as much if not more “expertise” than the one we just mentioned. That is, how is the consultant to interact with the owner, other consultants, design engineers and architects, con¬ tractors, and suppliers… especially in a large, residential re-roof project? Large, multi-residential re-roof projects have their own unique set of circumstances that can only be truly learned from experience, and lots of it. To begin with, these projects are unlike commercial, industrial, or gov¬ ernmental entities in that the consultant is dealing with “multiple” owners. There may be a board of directors consisting of 7-9 owners, an architectural control com¬ mittee consisting of an equal amount of owners, and per¬ haps, in the case of the project under discussion here, a “major projects committee” consisting of an additional five people. To make matters more challenging, these owners are typically non-technical individuals with little or no construction background who are being called upon to make decisions involving millions of dollars worth of roofing work. Of all the players involved in the process, it is likely the roof consultant’s responsibility, more than anyone else, to educate the owners in the huge and costly process they are about to undertake. Therefore, it isn’t enough for the roof consultant to be just technically pro¬ ficient. He or she must also be an excellent communica¬ tor, have an excellent system for organizing and cata¬ loguing information, be willing to spend time on the pro¬ ject above and beyond what was estimated, have sound legal knowledge, and possess counseling, psychology, and mediation skills. If this sounds like a tall order, it is. Anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable wearing all these hats must be sure there is someone on staff who is profi¬ cient and comfortable in handling these areas. A one-per¬ son operation must make sure to have a good therapist on call, or at the very least, ensure his or her continuing education with workshops and classes that are designed more toward communication and problem solving skills. Original built-up roof after a day of rain. The case study under discussion is an 800-unit con¬ dominium complex in Northern California. It was origi¬ nally built in the early 1970s and was converted to con¬ dominiums in the mid-1980s. The complex consists of two large, stucco-clad, rambling, five-story buildings that were originally covered in what appeared to be a 3-ply built up roof system with gravel ballast. This was a com¬ mon system for this type of construction, and somewhere around the time of conversion, a new 3-ply system was installed. Based on take-offs from the original drawings, the square footage of the roofs was estimated to be in excess of 320,000 s.f. or 3,200 squares. It was estimated that the BUR was approximately 15-20 years old, since exact records were no longer available, and the condition of the roof was extremely poor. There were approximate¬ ly 800 original HVAC condensers that were sitting on the roof on 2×4 sleepers that were nailed into the existing BUR. Many of these HVAC locations had been constant¬ ly leaking along with over-spanned joist areas that had severely deflected during the previous 30 years and were serving as low areas where water was ponding as deep as three inches during the rainy season. It was estimated that as much as 25% of the entire roof area on the third, fourth, and fifth floors had been covered with either some sort of flood coat, mastic application, or single ply modified torch-down membrane in a variety of emer¬ gency leak repairs over the years. You could say that it was definitely time to re-roof! Kosloff— 43 New HVAC condensers and stands. • Interfacing with the design professionals to deter¬ mine the best choice of roof material and applica¬ tion. • Providing the initial cost estimates and budgets for the entire project. • Developing an initial timeline for construction and CPM schedule. • Putting the design package out to bid after researching and qualifying prospective contractors. • Other aspects of the bidding phase, including bid recaps, setting up interviews with contractors, and interfacing with the attorney to develop the con¬ struction contract. Although the owners were well aware of the dire condition of the roofs, permanent replacement had been delayed for years due to the lack of proper funding. Very simply, the owners had not put nearly enough money aside for a job of this magnitude, and although they did¬ n’t know how much replacement would ultimately cost, they knew they didn’t have the funds, no matter what. In the spring of 2001 , the process began. Even though this group of owners wasn’t familiar with the re¬ roofing process, they tried to set up the project in the most professional manner possible. First they had their attorney draw up contracts for all the major players they decided to hire, so that the contracts would not be redun¬ dant, would dovetail into each other, and the language would be compatible. Then they started by writing a scope of work for the design consultant, and ultimately interviewing and hiring an architectural firm to fill that role. In that process, they decided that the scope of replacement would include all the residential roof, and all the individual HVAC condenser units as well as the larger package units that handled the hallways, laundry facilities, clubhouse, etc. Rather than hiring a separate mechanical engineer-of-record to handle the HVAC design issues, they decided to let the architect incorpo¬ rate that individual as a subcontractor under the archi¬ tect’s contract. This would consolidate all the design under one “umbrella,” so to speak. Next, they decided to hire the roof consultant/ construction manager. This would be a dual role entailing a multitude of tasks that were outlined in a 25-page con¬ tract. Essentially, the roof consultant/construction manag¬ er would be responsible for the following: • Manage the weekly construction meetings, includ¬ ing meeting minutes and follow-up. • Interface with homeowners in matters of schedul¬ ing disputes, damages, and punch list items. • Interface and coordinate design consultants with regards to RFIs, change orders, and in-progress inspections, substantial completion, and final signoffs. • Oversee all applications for payment by contractor, and keep an up-to-date job accounting and change order logs, etc. • Maintain all job file records at job site trailer. • Coordinate and implement any special inspection or special testing necessary. • Provide weekly on-site observations to ensure quality control and quality assurance. • Attend monthly meeting with the owners to review job progress and owner issues. • Provide all close-out documentation, including verification of completion of punch list and/or any other outstanding items. The above scope of work ended up incorporating some administrative tasks that would normally be han¬ dled by the architect as well as construction management tasks. In this instance, the roof consultant performed a somewhat hybrid scope of work as requested by the owner, which ultimately gave us the lead position of rep¬ resenting the owner in all dealings having to do with the job, even though we were not chosen until after the architect-of-record . Kosloff— 44 Tear-off process. Overview of building 300, 4th floor, with new single-ply membrane installed. The Design Phase Highlights of the design phase were many and var¬ ied. Based on budgetary constraints and several meetings with the architect, we all agreed that the best choices for re-roof included either a built-up system with a mineral¬ surfaced cap sheet, or a dual-ply modified, adhesively applied system. The board chose the dual ply system, and authorized the architect to begin the drawings with the understanding that the new roofs would now need to be fully sloped to prevent ponding water as well as a breach of the impending manufacturer’s warranty. When we received the design documents, we proceeded to generate cost estimates and breakdowns. The estimated cost just for the roofing was $4 million, and it was determined that the “sloping” portion of the job would cost approxi¬ mately $900,000 – $1 million. When the board gave this information to the home¬ owners, a near riot erupted in the community. Since this equated to a $6,200 special assessment for each owner, the popularity of the project quickly went downhill. At least four additional general meetings were held with owners in order to convince them that sloping of the roofs was necessary. However, the end result was to go back to the drawing board and come up with options for other systems, which would not require sloping. This first necessitated the hiring of a separate structural engi¬ neer (not associated with the architect) who could act as an impartial third party and determine by structural cal¬ culations if and how much water could pond on the roofs before a life-safety situation occurred. After several fur¬ ther meetings, an engineer was hired, but the board did not like his findings and report since he concluded the best remedy was to slope the roofs. So the board directed our firm to find another structural engineer. His conclu¬ sion was that the roofs only needed to be sloped in those areas where the joists were over spanned at 24 feet and showed signs of deflection. After several more meetings, his recommendation was accepted, and now it was neces¬ sary to choose another roofing system – one whose war¬ ranty would not be voided by ponding water. The choices came down to either single-ply PVC or polyurethane foam. Both were “energy efficient” systems that would qualify for rebates by the state of California. The board of directors, architectural review, and major projects committees requested that we set up field trips so they could study each type of roof. This took numer¬ ous trips to accommodate everyone. After several more meetings, the owners eventually settled on single-ply and chose Duro-Last as the manufacturer of choice. The pro¬ posed manufacturer had also stated that standing water on the roof would not void its warranty. As a result, the board of directors could delete almost all sloped areas of the roof, and save approximately $1 million. This was the determining factor in favor of single-ply. However, that was not to be. A splinter group of owners, led by a vocal, retired 80-year-old engineer, decided that it would not be a good idea to delete the tapered insulation entirely, as those owners living on the top floors would have to continue enduring higher summertime temperatures in their units. At the eleventh hour, insulation suddenly became a big issue. We were asked to help solve the dilemma by researching the amount of heat gain/loss which would be realized by either an increase or decrease in R-Value. After several more lengthy meetings, calculating how additional tapered insulation would increase the comfort Kosloff— 45 Continued ponding issues at building perimeter after installation of new membrane. of the top floor units, as well as help the roofs drain more efficiently, it was decided to go ahead and add some additional tapered insulation in “certain” areas. However, there would still remain large areas of the roofs, including the perimeters, which would be dead flat and therefore probably not drain well. At the time, this was acknowledged by everyone involved. Another design issue getting lots of attention was roof drainage. The original drains had been 1-1/2″ area drains at various locations around the perimeter. They had ceased to be serviceable long before, and therefore demanded a complete redesign. This was difficult for the architect, since he did not have the flexibility to slope all of the field areas to what would be new “scupper” loca¬ tions. In addition, it would be almost impossible to get penthouse exterior patio decks to drain to the perimeter – 40 feet away in some instances. Much of this was lost in the maze of decisions that needed to be made. Not every¬ one agreed on the course of action taken, and each step was surrounded with drama, occasional argumentative discussion, and lack of a consensus in the community. Trying to get hundreds of people to agree on one course of action where there was so much money at stake was turning out to be a monumental challenge. Nonetheless, the board finally took action, and authorized the architect to re-design the project. What started out to be an ancillary part of the scope of work, the new HVAC units, was also turning out to be more major in the overall plan. The mechanical engineer had designed new plywood platforms that the new con¬ denser units would sit on, and had “ganged” them so that they were not so spread out over the roof surface. This appeared, at the outset, to be a good idea, but still created additional questions and issues regarding stabilization, extension of supply and other lines, and accessibility under the platforms for maintenance needs. All these questions would need to be answered before the owner would feel comfortable in proceeding. With the majority of the HVAC issues handled for the moment, the architect revised the plans and specifica¬ tions which were then, after several additional meetings, approved by the owner. Throughout this process, the architect made his position quite clear. He would comply and provide any product or design the owner wanted, but from a liability standpoint, the owner was on his own. The architect made it very clear that many of his recom¬ mendations were not being followed, and that he was working at the direction of the owner. Our firm had to follow suit with similar disclaimers for our own protec¬ tion. In total, we probably lost about 5 – 6 months on the schedule because of these changes. The Bidding Phase Since our firm was handling the bidding phase, the first order of business was to determine who to have bid the project. Because the HVAC and miscellaneous car¬ pentry work was now such a substantial part of the over¬ all scope, it forced examination of options that might otherwise have been bypassed. Would we be better off going out to bid to general contractors who had qualified carpenters on their staff, and then letting them add the roofing and HVAC contractors as subs? Or was the better choice to go out to bid with roofing contractors who had a general contractor’s license and could add the HVAC contractor as their sub? After several meetings with the owner, we decided to do both. That is, half the bidders were roofers acting as a prime contractor, and the other half were general contractors with roofing subs. We would let the market determine who could be more com¬ petitive. Bidders were pre-qualified based on experience installing Duro-Last product (with input from the manu¬ facturer’s local reps), their overall manpower capacity to handle a job this size, their commitment to the schedule, and the quality of their subcontractors. Typical decayed plywood substrate Kosloff— 46 Decayed roof joists at 5th floor perimeter. Portion of fifth floor roof receiving poly-iso tapered insulation. The board of directors decided to choose a local con¬ tractor who had “partnered” with another branch of their company located in another county about 1-1/2 hours away. The labor rates in that county turned out to be cheaper than the Bay Area, and therefore their overall bid was substantially lower. In addition, they had included an HVAC sub who had a union shop. This turned out to be a factor in their favor since the board president was pro¬ union. There were still further negotiations after the contract was signed. The board needed to be assured that the workers coming from that distance would not impact the impending schedule in any way. In addition, the contrac¬ tor proposed several key changes that they developed in their own” value engineering” process. Firstly, they wanted to delete the scupper details because they felt that much of the water wasn’t going to be able to even get to the scuppers and would end up sitting at the perimeters. They were willing, at no additional cost to the owners, to install fascia gutters around the entire perimeter of the buildings, and install more slope provisions at the eaves to make sure water flowed off the roofs. The second involved changing the HVAC platforms from ganged enclosed wooden platforms to individual tube steel plat¬ forms that water wouldn’t have to flow around. This again would be at no additional charge to the owner. The continuous fascia gutter idea was rejected by the board due to maintenance considerations, but the tube steel platforms were approved. The Construction Phase This phase began with the contractor requesting revi¬ sions to some of the flashing details at doors, and around the new HVAC platforms. By the time that was resolved, the tear-off had begun. This process involved vacuuming up the existing gravel ballast, and then removing the old roof. Since no samples of the old roof had been taken to determine its composition or application, the tear off gave the first real indication of what was underneath on a larger scale. It was determined that the base sheet had been hot mopped directly to the plywood substrate. The downside of such an application was to allow what was believed to be a tremendous amount of heat, over the years, to be absorbed directly by the plywood. In other words, a majority of the plywood was “cooked.” Buckling and delaminating plies appeared to be the norm. This turned out to be a real bone of contention with the owners, since we had only included a 10% con¬ tingency for decayed plywood substrate. The manufac¬ turer ended up conducting pull testing which determined that a majority of the wood was not in satisfactory condi- Installation of single-ply roofing on third and fourth floors Kosloff— 47 tion to hold the fasteners, especially in wind uplift condi¬ tions. The necessity of replacing what was now about 80% of the plywood impacted the overall cost and sched¬ ule greatly. The tear-off phase also impacted some of the owners on the top floors, when several “step throughs” occurred, which was compounded by the fact that asbestos was in the ceiling areas. Clean up and abate¬ ment had to be monitored by local jurisdictions, which again was the responsibility of the roof consultant to coordinate. Some complaints that came to light during the con¬ struction phase never went away. One had to do with the color of the membrane. The owners had chosen the “whitest” color available in order to gain maximum reflective value. However, when the membrane was finally placed, many complained of “snow blindness” and were not happy. Another complaint was the standing water in areas chosen not to have drains. Some owners, who had penthouse patio decks on the roof surface, were afraid of insect and mosquito infestation, as well as taint¬ ed water under foot. Such issues and the numerous meet¬ ings needed to resolve them caused the schedule to extend approximately eight months past the estimated substantial completion date, even though the contractor cooperated fully by stepping up and offering additional crews and extended hours of operation (including week¬ ends). In the end, the job ran approximately $1 million over budget, of which about 80% was attributed to the plywood replacement alone. The Close-out Phase The close out phase was lengthy due to a variety of issues that surfaced, including: • Final cleaning of the roofs and what constitutes a “clean” roof. • Downspouts clogged with construction debris in some cases, but with normal dirt and debris in oth¬ ers. • Repairs to ceilings of units and other miscella¬ neous damage still not resolved to the owners’ sat¬ isfaction. • Vibration and noise from some HVAC condenser units that needed to be resolved by special remedi¬ ation in order to make the owner happy. • Other miscellaneous issues that should have been brought up under the warranty umbrella. Overall, even with so many issues, the project went well and the new roof and condenser units are perform¬ ing very satisfactorily. Kosloff— 48
