Construction Meeting Notes
Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013, 10:30am, Construction Trailer
Harold, Dorothy and Bob met from 10:52am to 12:30.
Punch list: Bob showed the current list, and a couple ‘tough cases’ were discussed. The caulking of the door hardware has not yet begun at all. JEM and Scott Winter Construction’s lists are mostly complete through the 950s, but not for the last 2 clusters.
A couple of procedural test cases were discussed–when should owners in the “completed” units report things they think should be taken care of by the project? These are often ‘interface’ issues where it is unclear whether this was in the scope of work, or whether this is an interior finishing issue. See next item.
Scope of work on interface issues: Note that in the scope of work the old baseboards and the casings around the doors and windows would have been replaced. The contractor found it preferable to install globally new baseboards and casings. However, in neither case was the filling of nail holes or priming/painting of the wood part of the scope of work. Thus homeowners need to do this (or have it done) when they have these painted. It is a standard part of the things that painters do.
Various ways of addressing these interface issues, at the project level, Association level, and by individual homeowners, were discussed. Ultimately such items are each homeowner’s responsibility. Could the Association facilitate such work to obtain economies of scale?
We did not resolve this issue. The suggestion is to offer homeowners solutions to the various problems, which they could implement themselves or hire someone to do. But who will organize this?
Stains on the upper deck Tufflex coating: the manufacturer’s recommendation was provided, but not sufficient. Going to the “next level” is not part of the project scope.
Doors: “NRP” door hinge replacements have been completely installed *up to and including the 940s*. Two units in the 950s were done as well, but the first delivery of hinges was used up. Additional ones are expected soon.
Door hardware waterproofing/contingency: Stonemark has accepted Jim’s bid to do this work. Bob had a small suggestion on the test unit in the 960s/70s. The per unit bid price went down from $25 to $18, whereas Servpro bid $46, and the waterproofer recommended by MacFarland (Acme) was higher as well.
63 homes times 8, plus 19 Juliet doors=523 door units, means about $9500, which may come out of contingency. However, some funds are coming back into contingency because, for instance, there was less “bad paper” needing to be “chased” around the new installations,.
Reported theft of silver in the 960s: The way this was done was unusual and required pre-planning. There is no specific evidence that the theft was Project-related. The Project will cooperate in any investigation.
Exterior doorstops, -bells, outlet/receptacle covers: if the rigid stick stops break and are reported, they are being replaced with wall models. If they are solid, they will be left alone. Doorbells have been pooled and reused from the beginning; they have now been used up. Thus the 960s and 70s will receive new ones. They are round and have a similar finish, but slightly different in profile. New exterior receptacle covers will need to be purchased as well.
900s, 910s, 920s, 930s, 940s and 950s: except for ca. 4 units, both JEM and Scott Winter punchlists are complete. However, homeowners won’t be notified of completion until the door hardware waterproofing has been done.
960s: Bob will be finishing his punch lists this week and providing them to the contractors. Painting is ongoing.
970s: The scaffolding is being taken down on 974 & 5 today. Except for a few walls the color coating is complete as well. Roof tiles are being installed. The painters are slightly behind for this cluster; the painting prep, however, is not yet complete.
Tune-up before compilation of the punch list will take place next week.
Next meeting: Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, 9:30am.
The fitting over the spout in my courtyard does not touch the wall. I sent a photo in June 2013 and Bob agreed that this was not correctly done. I will not consider my condo’s punch list complete until this is addressed. This is clearly in the scope of work, since the problem is the work done itself. I have asked about this multiple times without receiving an answer. The last time I spoke with Bob he assured me that it would be dealt with with in a few days. That is over two weeks ago.
When will this work be done?
Cynthia Kaplan 919
For the record – a defective covering of my deck IS PART OF THE PROJECT! If this was private, I would have this redone and whoever did the work would complain and seek redress from the manufacturer. I am NOT satisfied with this work. I understand that Bob refuses to address this other than tell us what the manufacturer suggests, but this does not work. So, for the record, you have a dissatisfied client in regard to the quality of product chosen by Stonemark, or its sub-contractor for the covering of the deck. It should not deteriorate within a few months.