Published in the ECHO Journal, March 2012
Maintenance is a concept that most people understand; yet its potential for economic savings is often overlooked. The reason is maintenance is often considered a good thing to do, but it is usually deferred until there is a problem. Unfortunately, by the time most problems are visible they are much larger than they appear.
Although maintenance repairs are usually accounted for in reserve studies, most associations do not have a policy or guidelines in place to ensure maintenance is performed in a timely manner. If you have ever served on an association board or managed property, you know the difficulties of juggling available funds to accommodate repairs.
Having worked in the construction industry for over 25 years, I’ve seen the value of creating and implementing a systematic approach to maintenance, and the economic savings that can be realized. Depending upon the type of maintenance being performed, the overall savings can be substantial. However, for the savings to be realized, there must be a procedure in place, and it must be followed. All too often, maintenance is performed to correct a specific component, without considering an overall strategy for maintaining the entire building.
Establishing a maintenance program requires knowledge and details of a building’s current condition. This is best accomplished by an annual or periodic inspection of a complex. Unless you know the current condition of the various building components, reserve studies and complaints of deficiencies will not tell an association what the current maintenance needs are, or what work is truly needed. A baseline evaluation of a complex can provide this information as well as identify conditions that may fail in the near future.
This is particularly true of water intrusion through the envelope of a building. Although reports of water intrusion are usually responded to quickly, many times the initial investigation and repair fail to properly identify and correct the deficiency, wasting valuable time and resources.
I recently worked with an association that was beginning to receive reports of deteriorated wood trim at the exterior of a few units. The buildings in the complex were 10 years old and constructed with stucco and hardboard siding, with wood trim at the windows and doors, and a tile roof. Casually looking at the complex, a person would assume it was well maintained particularly since it was repainted 18 months earlier. While the association did perform some maintenance such as gutter cleaning, landscape improvements, and the painting of the complex, they had not considered the overall maintenance of the building exteriors.
Over a period of months, the board received complaints of damaged wood trim. Concerned that damage was being discovered after the complex was painted, the association requested an evaluation of the trim at all the units in the complex. The board wanted to know how extensive the damage was, and what was causing it, within the parameters of a limited evaluation.
The results of the evaluation were revealing; there was substantially more deteriorated trim than expected, and much of the damage existed to some extent prior to the repainting of the complex. Based on observations, the damage appeared to be the result of flashing deficiencies in the original construction, and to deferred maintenance. The data and photos from the report provided a detailed list of the where the damage was located, which building components were affected, and what factors contributed to the wood deterioration, but it did not advise the association on how to proceed with the repairs. This board will now have to solicit opinions and costs to correct to distinguish what method of repair will be most effective for their situation.
When multiple building components are involved in a repair, it is often best to seek the advice of a construction specialist to determine available options. This person can assist in identifying and prioritizing what needs to be fixed, and offer suggestions on minimizing future damage. Yet, most associations and managers are reluctant to seek the advice of outside professionals often citing the additional costs of the professional service, and the fact they already have vendors in place to implement repairs. These are common misconceptions.
The initial failure of obtaining professional input and advice could be seen at a complex I recently evaluated. For the past two years, water leakage had been reported at two adjacent units in one of the buildings. The management company hired a contractor to make an initial evaluation of the leakage. It was determined that the leakage was coming in around newly replaced windows, so the contractor installed additional flashing and sealing around the window frame to make it weather tight. After a few rains, the leakage continued and began to infiltrate into the garages below the units
Assuming the leakage was coming in from another location, another contractor was hired to provide an opinion and repair the leakage. The second contractor believed the leakage was coming in from the entry deck. New flashing was installed between the deck and the exterior walls, and a liquid membrane was applied to the top of the entry deck to additionally seal the area. Once again after a few rains, leakage was observed by the unit owners.
Frustrated, the association board directed the property manager to solicit additional proposals from contractors to make further repairs. When three bids were submitted, each had a different scope and cost for the repair. Not knowing which bid to consider, the manager asked if I would review the proposals and determine which would best resolve the reoccurring leakage. The three bids ranged from $1,500.00 to $6,500.00, and none addressed the full extent of the leakage. When I pointed out the obvious discrepancies in the bids, the manager asked if I would take a look at the two units and see what might be involved.
After an initial reconnaissance of the units, it was obvious to me the attempted repairs to the windows, deck, and stucco were of little value. Continued leakage had caused substantial damage around the windows, under the entry deck and at the ceiling of the garage. When I met with the board and showed them initial photos of the water damage, they had no idea the previous repairs did not correct the leakage, nor were they aware of how extensive the damage had become. The repairing contractors assured the board they performed the work specified in their proposals, and that the leakage must be coming in from somewhere else.
I explained to the board that before any other attempts were made to correct the leakage, a systematic evaluation and spray testing would have to be performed to clearly determine the points of water entry. Once that was completed, a detailed scope of repair could be created and structured by the board, and then comparable bids from competent contractors could be obtained.
During the spray investigation, we checked the deck, the window installation, the stucco exterior and portions of the roof. The results revealed the added flashing around the windows was not installed to shed water, the deck-to-wall flashing at the entry deck was not properly integrated with the weather resistive barrier behind the stucco, and the recently installed liquid membrane was delaminating from the deck substrate allowing water to infiltrate into surfaces below.
Since many of the surfaces evaluated during the spray testing connect and interface with each other, it would be impossible to effect repairs without removing and replacing the stucco at two walls, the entry deck, and a section of the roof. The spray evaluation revealed that leakage was partly the result of flashing deficiencies of the original construction at the roof, wall, and deck, and the improper installation and flashing around the replacement windows.
The board finally realized the repairs would involve more than a simple fix; it would require a detailed scope of work and cost several thousand dollars to complete. It was recommended that the board retain an architect to design additional flashing details (to correct deficiencies discovered in the original construction), and that the repairs be implemented by a contractor specializing in waterproofing and reconstruction.
Probably the most valuable lesson to be learned from this scenario is the need to investigate matters before repairs are made, and the need for association boards and managers to understand what is necessary to successfully execute repairs. Concerned with saving costs and not understanding what was involved in stopping the leakage, this particular association inadvertently wasted several thousands of dollars by agreeing to repairs which did not resolve the issue, and allowed the damage to get worse.
With proper planning and a thorough knowledge of construction, specific strategies can be created to balance repair needs with available funds and resources. Work can be divided into phases, and performed as funding allows, and sequenced so that it integrates with work which needs to be done in the future. Successful maintenance involves knowing the current condition of a complex, developing an overall plan and timeline so repairs can be done in an efficient manner, and enlisting the services of an experienced construction professional when maintenance needs have not been clearly identified.
John R. Schneider is a licensed general building contractor and certified code specialist. Since 1985, he has been president of All About Homes, Inc., an East Bay consulting company that specializes in the investigation of construction related deficiencies, bid review, project management, and the facilitation of disputes between owners, associations, and vendors. He is a member of the ECHO Maintenance Panel, and questions can be directed to him at jrschneider@allabouthomes.com.