Expected repair percentage on formed walls/columns 1

[beton1]

We are being asked to mediate between developer and concrete forming sub (there is no GC), project is a big box retail centre. Some foundation walls are exposed such as loading dock areas, but there was no 'architectural specification'. Contractor has filled tie holes, patched/rubbed and done grinding of fins/joints etc. There must be some allowance carried by concrete contractors to cover 'expected' repairs. Contractor is looking for extras, the owner is 'expecting perfection', and hanging onto holdback.
Any thoughts?

 

[hokie66]

Without a specification, the contractor has done extra work. If he did it without direction, he bears the cost. If he was directed to do so by the owner, the owner pays. But the contractor has backed himself into a corner by not getting agreement on payment before he did the work.

 

[RHTPE]

beton1: Now this sounds familiar. The owner wants smooth as a baby's butt, and the contractor bid as-cast concrete. What ACI document was referenced in the specs? Visible concrete does not necessarily mean "Architectural Concrete" - been there with utility & boiler rooms. For foundation walls I would expect plugged tie holes (if the ties had cones), projecting fins knocked off, and excessively large bug hole & superficial honeycombing to be patched. Period, no more.

If ACI 301 was the reference spec document, then that's the most any concrete contractor would offer. Now, if ACI 303.1-97 was a referenced document, it becomes a whole other matter...

Why is it always the contractor's fault when the Architect did a poor job at moderating the owner's expecations or didn't necesessarily convey the correct intent via the contract documents?

Ralph
member ACI-347 Committee

 

[beton1]

Thanks for input and promptness, Hokie & Ralph! Agree with what you are saying, there was no ACI spec, or other, and this is where I sympathize with contractor to some extent. However,I cannot let the contractor take liberties with extras (a walk through was done with the project super, then project manager, then owner, and each time more was asked and done), then we became involved, as there are holdback issues and possible legal issues pending; we are trying to settle it. I believe the contractor should shoulder costs for filling tie holes etc. as mentioned,and must have carried a allowance (perhaps 1 to 2% ? of contract). Above that, owner preference should mean owner
pays extra. Is this percentage a reasonable number to at least get negotiations going?

 

[RHTPE]

With no spec or general notes, then the issue really becomes kinda cloudy. Since it sounds like there is no basement, then I would expect:

For buried work, the ties ends are broken off, maybe the tie holes get plugged, and major honeycombing get repaired. Fins are left untouched.

At the loading dock, visible wall surfaces would have the ties ends broken off, the tie holes plugged, projecting fins knocked off, major bug holes & superficial honeycombing get patched, and seriuos honeycombing gets repaired.

As far as a $ amount, I wouldn't attempt to put a number on it based on contract amount (it's just not the right way to evaluate it). It really needs to a manhour quantity based upon the surface area of wall forming. You need some input from a forming contractor who has a better grasp of current production rates and costs than I have.

Ralph

 

[beton1]

Thanks Ralph. I have some manhour rates and input from another forming contractor. I will be consolidating this info and getting prepared for meeting(s) next week.

 

[Ron]

Hokie's right. Both may have unreasonable expectations. Mediate an appropriate result since you have nothing with respect to specifications or requirements on which to base a claim, either way.