Spread the Word
This year’s Annual Winter Meeting is going to be just what we are looking for, a low-key night in a fun atmosphere with three hours to eat, drink, and talk concrete. The Hofbräuhaus Las Vegas is a great German restaurant with a unique atmosphere, tasty German beer (and soft drinks) and traditional style food. We are bound to have a good time!
But I don’t want you to forget, without the financial support of our National Associates we would not be able to have events like this for such an affordable price. Many of the National Associates donated monies that will be used to cover such costs as entertainment and refreshments, and in return reduce our registration fees. The associates who have participated in this sponsorship are listed on page 10. Their banners will also be hanging in the restaurant, so make sure you thank them for their generosity. National Associates help make the CFA a successful association – one that continues to grow and prosper.
That being said, I encourage contractor members and associates alike to invite potential members to the event. This is a prime opportunity to show others why it is great to be a part of the CFA. We know that networking, talking with other contractors about their problems and successes, is a priceless benefit. And since there is no speaker or presentation, there will be three hours available to connect with these potential members and show them first-hand the power of exchanging ideas and information.
This Association was established to improve the quality and acceptance of cast-in-place concrete foundations, and we do this through educational seminars, publications, and events – such a the Winter Meeting – where contractors and suppliers from across the United States can get together and discuss the industry. I encourage all of you to attend and bring a guest or two. The greater our numbers, and the more active our members, then the stronger our voice is. Now do your part…spread the word!
Terry Lavy, CFA President, Lavy Concrete Construction Inc. terry@lavyconcrete.comACI Publishes 332 Standard
IT FINALLY HAPPENED!
The long-awaited 332 Standard, the first accepted consensus document for residential concrete, was approved by the Board Standards of the American Concrete Institute. Several CFA members have worked towards this goal for over ten years. Buck Bartley, Barry Herbert, Ron Colvin, and Brent Anderson are to be congratulated for their input and guidance throughout the process. Jim Baty, the committee’s new secretary, also put forth a tremendous effort in the final push to get the document ready for ACI review.
ACI is an engineer, university professor, and supplier-dominated organization; therefore, the incorporation of the contractor perspective was not only helpful, it was essential. Without the input of those who have to live with documents drafted outside the construction industry this would have been a vastly different and cumbersome document.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE AVERAGE CFA MEMBER?
Once it is published, which should occur after the first of the year, it can be referenced as a document that bears the weight and significance of other ACI Standards, most notably, ACI 318 (the engineering and code “bible” for concrete construction). Application was already made to the International Residential Code (sponsored by PCA, ACI, and CFA) to reference the 332 Standard in the next edition of the IRC. The document does not formally become a code until a legal jurisdiction, such as your local city government, formally adopts the Standard.
This document further defines acceptable practices and design guidelines, beyond the IRC. It includes extensive tables for empirical design of foundation walls that incorporate less stringent design parameters than ACI 318 uses and many other less obvious, but equally important, regulations.
While this is a significant milestone, it is just a beginning. Many compromises, deletions, and restrictions were accepted by the committee, which now need revisited. Above grade concrete wall construction, for both ICF’s and traditional solid walls with reusable forms, was entirely deleted in order to gain the consensus needed for approval. A new structural design section, which was more residential friendly, was also deleted. Acceptance of a residential standard is a point of departure from more stringent and conservative commercial construction requirements where guidelines and standards for residential construction can be developed. The CFA and its members will continue to play a vital role in this process.
Ed Sauter, Executive Director, CFA esauter@cfawalls.orgTHANK YOU
It was in September 2000 the CFA kicked off this study with funds coming from the Research and Education Fund. The initial tests were done at Bowser-Morner testing Labs in Dayton Ohio, on materials graciously provided by Henry Ernst and Dick Hoying of Piqua Concrete Co., Piqua, Ohio. After this initial test, our studies sort of stalled out for lack of direction until a chance meeting of Ed Sauter, myself and John Gnaedinger of Con-Cure Systems at the New Orleans W.O.C. in January 2002. When Ed and I explained to John what we were trying to accomplish, the light bulbs went off in everyone’s heads, (yes, mine was a bit dimmer than Johns and Ed’s) that we needed to team up on this thing.
We very soon decided that we wanted to use John’s equipment to monitor some real world walls in real cold temperatures, so since winter was winding down, we needed to move quickly. Because of his central location, we leaned on Bill Esker of J.B. Esker and Sons of Teutopolis IL. Bill graciously allowed us to pester his help, and donated more materials for this testing. At about the same time we were calling on volunteers to serve on the formal committee. The list that we settled on was:
• Kevin MacDonald & Kevin Heindel of Cemstone Concrete Products, Minneapolis, MN
• John Gnaedinger of Con-Cure Corporation, Chesterfield, MO
• Jim Baty, Technical Director for the CFA, Mount Vernon, IA
• Joe Daczko of Degussa/Master Builders, Cleveland, OH
• Mark Markovitch of Dependant Foundations, Brighton, MI
Ron Colvin of JC Concrete, Berrien Springs, MI
• Terry Lavy of Lavy Concrete Construction, Piqua, OH
• Scott Smith of Modern Poured Walls, LaGrange, OH
• Brad Barnes, P.E. of North Central Engineering, Canton, OH
• Rick Buccini of Osborne-Medina Concrete, Medina, OH
• Frank Ramey of Tri-County Excavating, Inc. Richfield, OH
• Arie VanWyk of Van Wyks Inc., Waldo, WI
Our committee first met in Rosemont, IL on June 15th, 2002. It was here that we devised a formal plan on how to progress with this testing. Because we had a very willing ready mix supplier in close proximity to, and evidently in very good standing with Degussa/ Master Builders Lab, we decided to do the testing in this locality. The fact that it was also the area of Ohio where the issue was in the fore-front, was just icing on the cake test cylinder. We can not thank Rick Buccini and Osborne-Medina Concrete enough for their facilities, materials, time, and those little Italian pastries! Many thanks also to Joe Daczko and his able-bodied team at Degussa’s Lab. Some days it seemed as though they were working for pizza.
Brad Barnes, P.E. has given so much time, effort, and brain power to this endeavor, he can never be paid enough. John Gnaedinger, thank you- thank you, thank you. Frank and Kristi Ramey, diligently took notes and pictures of every step of the process. Franks crews faced the cold weather to form and place our walls during phase two, and used his Tele-Belt for the pour. Western Forms graciously lent us brand new forms for the test. Charles Korhonen, M.ASCE of the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, and Chair of the A.C.I. 306 committee on Cold Weather Concrete, has been a constant source of information and encouragement. We received great ideas and input from this entire group, other members of the CFA and the concrete industry. Most of all, many thanks to all the CFA Members who contributed so graciously to the education and research fund, and to the late, great Bob Sawyer who made it happen.
It’s been a Chilling Experience!
Thank You All,
Terry Lavy, Chairman
CFA Cold Weather Research Transitions to Contractors
Jim Baty, CFA Technical Director
“You can feel it in the air, you can feel it on the breeze…” isn’t that how the song goes? For many contractors throughout the middle to upper states, cold weather is not only on the horizon, it is approaching rapidly. What better time for the CFA to finish production of its long-awaited Cold Weather Research Final Report available to the Association.
Those who attended the CFA’s Summer Meeting in Breckenridge, Colorado this past July were able to receive the very latest presentation based on this research. John Gnaedinger of Con-Cure and CFA President, Terry Lavy, conducted a seminar during the opening day of education in Breckenridge presenting the results of the third phase—Durability: Freeze/Thaw Performance and wrapping up the current program with a concise summary of the impact it will have on the market. Attendees were provided with a draft copy of the final report to gauge the readability and the interpretation of the data.
“Everyone that I talked with in Breckenridge was satisfied with the results that we presented and discussed in the draft form of the final report,” said President Lavy. “The editorial committee that I worked with on this including Brad Barnes, John Gnaedinger and Jim Baty gave a tireless commitment to making this document not only presentable to the Association and inspectors, but immediately useable for this next cold weather season.”
The information contained throughout the report is a thorough representation of the scope and success of this two-year study. The size of the report is far too significant to reproduce in this publication; however, the key components of where you, as a foundation contractor, concrete supplier or building inspector should go from here can best be summarized with the following information:
RESULTS FROM THIS RESEARCH PROJECT
The data resulting from this research suggests the following insights:
1. Ambient temperatures, although having an affect on the drop in concrete temperature, should not set the restrictive condition. All concrete mixes tested displayed a significant lag in internal temperature in relation to ambient temperatures— remaining above the freezing point much longer than the ambient temperature.
2. All the concrete continued to gain strength even at early ages and at low temperatures which would suggest that cement hydration does not stop at 40°F (4.4°C).
3. The strengths determined using the maturity curves created with prediction software very closely match the actual strengths obtained from testing the cylinders and cores in both phases. This relationship gives further support to the theory that in-place strength can be accurately and adequately determined using maturity meters for prediction purposes—making it easier to adjust mix designs to suit individual and regional differences and requirements.
4. Admixtures that reduce water content enhance strength gain at lower temperatures.
5. Many references state that concrete must not freeze before it reaches 500 psi. While this may or may not be a valid benchmark for concrete in general, our research indicates it may be less important as a target for residential foundation walls. The amount of “free” water in the mix has a direct relationship to the affect freezing has on concrete. Concrete produced with modern technologies can continue to gain strength even if the internal temperature drops below 32°F (0°C) before it reaches the 500-psi level. The “frozen state”, as predicted by the ambient temperature, did not negatively affect the strength of the concrete. All samples reached or exceeded their designed ultimate strength. Mix designs did cause variable time intervals for gaining target strengths. This provides contractors with information to use with their own mixes to achieve specific performance requirements.
6. Wall samples in Phase II that were uncovered developed similar strengths to those that were covered for the first 18 hours. Petrographic examination showed improvements in the surface characteristics and reduction in micro-fracturing in the cores taken from the walls which were covered for the first 18 hours. Samples subjected to 300 freeze-thaw cycles were proven to be durable, but the data suggests better durability can be achieved with higher cement contents and/or Type III cement.
7. Mix designs using Type III cement were shown to gain strength much faster than those with Type I cement, and usually with less accelerating admixture.
8. The incorporation of calcium chloride up to 2% as an accelerating admixture provides faster strength gain at a low cost. Nonchloride accelerators (NCA) provide a similar benefit without corrosive affect to steel reinforcement, but at a higher cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESULT OF THE RESEARCH
• The CFA cautions the perception that all concrete practices and mixes are appropriate for cold weather. Casting a wall is very different than a four-inch thick driveway. Good common sense and concrete procedures should be observed.
• Rules and Regulations based on ambient temperatures have little or no validity.
• Contractors should work with their local ready-mixed concrete producer to design concrete mixes that will perform well based on the expected variables for a placement. The mix designs used in this research provide a sound basis for your own mix development but should be used after localized testing.
• There is no single mix design that works best for cold weather concreting. Results vary as mixes vary but all are predictable and economy can be kept in mind when designing and selecting a mix.
• Use maturity meters or other instrumentation on your cold weather projects to evaluate how your concrete mixes perform and provide a documented history of their maturity.
• There is a significant impact resulting from adding excessive water to concrete under cold weather conditions—the greater the water content, the greater the affect those freezing conditions will have on the concrete. A six-inch slump may be acceptable, but a high water to cement ratio is not.
• Placing concrete early in the day will normally give you an advantage by capitalizing on solar gain to dampen the affect that ambient temperature has on internal concrete temperatures.
• Finally, cold temperatures do cause slower strength gains than normal, so don’t remove structural supports from a wall too early—top and bottom restraint must be in place prior to applying any lateral loads to the walls.
A NOTE TO CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS
It should come as no surprise that it is to everyone’s benefit to provide our customers with the best possible product, at the most economical price. In today’s business climate, the economic impact of stopping construction unnecessarily is huge. Listed below are a few notes and suggestions as to what each of us can do to help.
CONTRACTORS:
Keep in mind that this study discusses cast-in-place concrete walls only. While many of the findings will apply to other types of pours, there are many variables that should be considered.
The CFA wants to make it absolutely clear that we are not saying you can pour any ol’ mix design in any kind of weather, this would be irresponsible thinking. If you have been doing that and see no need to improve your procedures, file this report away and forget it.
For the rest of you – either you just have a desire to learn to do things better, or you are seeing pressure from customers and/or code officials to change your ways. The CFA is seeing, what we believe to be, overly restrictive codes being adopted all over North America. The problem is growing like a cancer. Chances are good that you will see the effect of this in your area sooner or later.
Work with your local Ready- Mix Producer to develop a few different mix designs for the conditions you are likely to encounter. Some of our suggested recipes may be a starting point; however, consideration should be made to using some form of instrumentation and/or maturity testing on each selected mix design to validate its performance. The goal is to get the hydration process “kickstarted” so that the material can generate its own heat. Keep in mind that if anything in the mix changes, ie; water/cement ratio, type or brand of cement, admixtures, etc, the performance will change as well. (Note:It is not essential to wait until the first cold day to perform testing. However, the mix design used during cold weather must be identical to that tested.)
Pay attention to possible shrinkage problems with some of the hotter mixes. We have the shrinkage data from our test mixes, but the potential will vary greatly from local differences.
Type III cement, where available, really does set much faster and usually requires less accelerator.
The temperature of the concrete when it hits the forms is of great importance. Material that is 60° to 70°F (15.5° to 21.1°F) is much preferable, and usually not to hard to accomplish.
Water/cement ratio is also a huge factor, eliminate as much water as you can.
Type E, (accelerating) Mid-Range water reducers are a great tool, talk to your supplier about them.
Good old Calcium Chloride is probably the best “bang for your buck” accelerator, as long as steel corrosion is not a big concern. You may want to consider adding your own dry calcium at the job-site as opposed to the liquid calcium from the producer. Non-Chloride Accelerators do a wonderful job, they do not promote corrosion, and may work in even colder weather, but they do cost more. Use them where applicable.
Make sure that all of your employees and anyone else involved understand that concrete does indeed set slower in colder weather. Things to consider are the safety of stripping a cantilevered haunch, or door openings, or backfilling before the wall has gained enough strength to support itself. Also, damage can be done by applying torque to the anchor bolts prematurely.
Working in a freshly excavated hole has large benefits. Capitalize on the heat of the earth. Try to get the foundation in quickly and backfill a couple of feet around it ASAP.
Making your cold weather pours early in the day can help a lot. The solar heat gain on the walls and forms will boost the concrete temperatures substantially, even on a dreary day.
Help to promote the idea that rules and codes based solely on weather forecast, are out of step with reality.
Please document and report any problems you do see to the CFA. The research contained in this report is not finished; we will continue to study the affects of cold weather on concrete mixes as they pertain to residential concrete foundation walls.
SUPPLIERS:
Learn about Maturity testing and make an investment in it. You will find it becoming more and more a part of the specs on government and commercial jobs. Be pro-active.
Depending on your location, making Type III cement available in the winter could be a huge benefit to all concerned.
Take a good look at your material heating systems, you need to be able to provide concrete to the job site at a consistent 60° to 70°F (15.5° to 21.1°F). Some plants are installing concrete storage pads with hydronic heat systems.
Work with your Contractors to provide the Maturity Testing required to assure the customers and code officials what your products can do. Several Ready-Mix suppliers around the country market special mix designs which have been proven.
It appears to most members of this committee that dry (flake or powder) calcium added at the job site works better than the liquid calcium typically added at the plants. Consider stocking calcium in dry form, and teach your contractors how to be responsible in its use· Please document and report any problems you do see to the CFA. The research contained in this report is not finished; we will continue to study the affects of cold weather on concrete mixes as they pertain to residential concrete foundation walls.
A NOTE TO CODE OFFICIALS
Understand that the American Concrete Institute 306 (Cold Weather Concrete) Committee, is currently re-writing the entire cold weather code, including the definition of what is cold weather. While it will be several years before the new language reaches your code books, it is important to understand that the experts agree big changes are necessary. Please do not pass or go overboard in enforcement of codes that we already know are outdated. Please do not ignore the fact that we currently cast basement walls in extremely cold weather and with a very, very low incidence of problems.
If the code says “concrete should achieve 3,000 psi in 28 days” request that the contractor provide the assurance (maturity prediction) as to how this concrete will reach this strength and make this your area of enforcement.
Please document and report any problems you do see to the CFA. The research contained in this report is not finished; we will continue to study the affects of cold weather on concrete mixes as they pertain to residential concrete foundation walls.
As you can see from the details above, the effects this research should have on the foundation environment are quite significant. However, this research also reinforces a lot of the information many of the CFA contractor members already know…good sense makes good practice. The main thing to remember going forward is that the CFA needs your communication and assistance in making this a success. Reports will be available for supplemental purchase. We encourage you to distribute this information to the entities that you work with throughout the year to help them prepare for working with you. Finally, we encourage you to contact us periodically with a report on the successes and shortcomings you are experiencing as a result of this research. If you begin concrete monitoring to supplement this data as presented, we’d love to receive copies of these logs to further supplement our data records. If you experience differing results or take photos of interesting notations, please send us these as well. The entire industry will continue to benefit from us recognizing that the work isn’t finished…it’s just beginning. Contact Jim Baty at CFA for more information at phone number should be 866-CFA-WALLS or jbaty@cfawalls.org.
CFA Standard Updated
The CFA published the “2003 CFA Standard” in late 2002. It was our first attempt to present a wide variety of foundation construction information and minimum standards in a “code format” for use by our members, yet it goes well beyond the basic code approach. The Standard established a base-line for construction. It followed the layout of current and proposed building codes but was enhanced by some “real life” experience. It included details and procedures that are incorporated and used daily by our members but which are not documented in any code or publication. It includes a section on soils, waterproofing, and materials in addition to chapters on footings, foundation walls, and backfilling.
The Standard is currently referenced by several local building codes, developers, and other groups in the foundation industry. CFA headquarters is out of this document so a reprint is needed. Errata were corrected and a few update paragraphs were incorporated.
We go to print on the 2004 edition in a couple of months but need to know how many to print. This greatly depends on how you use the document. We will send the current version to all CFA members (around 400) but how you, our members, use it will determine home many more we print. Some contractors send it to their builders and local building code officials. If you intend to do this we need to know. We will send it on your behalf, if you would like, as long as we know how many to send and the recipient’s contact information. Contact Jim Baty (jbaty@cfawalls.org) or Talia Nelson (tnelson@cfawalls.org) or call our office at 1-866-232-9255 (toll free) with your needs.
The Tropics Call Contractor to Build Concrete Homes
By Wendy Shannon & Libbie Hough of Shannon & Company, a marketing communications firm for the Concrete Homes Council.
K-Wall Poured Walls, Inc. is located in Traverse City, Michigan and has been in operation for the last 11 years. Kubica is the owner and president of K-Wall and is a man who loves to challenge convention. From inventing new technologies, to expanding his company’s capabilities, to escaping the harsh winters of Michigan and heading for the tropics…well, that’s exactly what Rich and Patty Kubica of K-Wall did.
Take poured concrete walls, for example. Rich started out in the poured wall business, working for his father for ten years and learning all he could. Then he headed out on his own and, using the E-MAXX Insulated Concrete Wall System (a system Kubica invented, patented and sold in the late ‘90s) created a company that has a versatile portfolio and varied clientele.
K-Wall does it all—poured walls, foundations, waterproofing, flatwork and excavation, you name it. Over the years, Kubica has diversified his clientele, from traditional below-grade commercial construction to a business that includes expanding to above-grade residential and office construction, decorative treatments and architectural walls. And what he offers to all of his clients is the expertise that comes with over 20 years of experience, the openness to try something new and the opportunity to be more involved in the building process.
For instance, let’s say you are building a concrete home with an attached garage. With standard poured wall construction and insulation methods you get an all or nothing proposition – either the entire structure is insulated or it is not. Kubica’s company, however, offers clients a choice: insulate the main house or only portions of the house. Moreover, you can choose to use concrete for interior or exterior walls, and in a variety of styles and colors.
And the E-MAXX System is fast. For the concrete homeowner this means design flexibility, luxury and enhanced energy-efficiency at a fraction of the cost. For the Kubicas and their company, the speed translates into an enhanced bottom line.
Although Kubica has been successful, it hasn’t been easy. “Homeowners are always interested in better cabinets, windows, fixtures and the bells and whistles for their new homes,” explains Kubica. “But the same doesn’t hold true when you talk about standard concrete walls. It’s the insulated concrete walls that homeowners are becoming interested in now.”
So how did the concrete contractor from Traverse City end up in the Virgin Islands? One of Kubica’s Michigan clients also had property in St. John and asked Kubica to build him a concrete home on the island. Kubica has just completed a gorgeous 4,000 sq. ft. concrete home in Traverse City, another first. Leave the cold and dreary state of Michigan to work in a tropical paradise – Kubica didn’t have to think too long.
Island construction is quite different than on the mainland. First, Kubica transported the requisite equipment to Florida and then shipped it to St. John. All the concrete came first from Colombia on concrete barges to St. Thomas and then over to St. John. No calling up the day before and ordering concrete. Think two to three weeks ahead. Kubica took three crew members with him and hired three local workers to round out the building team. This 2,800 sq. ft. home, like most others on the island, was built on the side of a cliff and consumed much of the lot. The roads leading up to the site were called “switchbacks,” which means they zigzag sharply up the side of the mountain. Every day, the crew loaded the trucks with the needed supplies and headed up the mountain.
The project was challenging, due to logistical considerations, but successful. The beautiful home with 30’ tall walls—was less expensive than using a plywood wall forming system, the system traditionally used on the island—was completed in four months, a time frame well below average.
Kubica returned to Michigan in time for the poured wall business surge that comes every summer. Next December, he’s heading back to St. John for house number two. He’s not sure what the future holds, but he’s willing to go out there and see. “Changes are coming to the poured wall business,” he states. “I need to be flexible and stay on top of the new technologies and the demands of the market. If not, I won’t be in business very long.”
Subcontractor Agreements – What Does This Mean to Subcontractors?
Doug Staebler, Custom Concrete Company, Inc., Westfield, IN
Over the past year, there has been a marked increase in the use of subcontractor agreements in residential construction. Although these agreements were used for years in commercial construction, residential contractors often operated on handshake agreements. Like it or not, those days are probably gone for good, and we must learn to operate in an environment that is increasingly legalistic and prone to litigation.
These agreements often create unreasonable obligations on subcontractors, with potentially devastating financial consequences. This article discusses the reasons for the increased use of subcontractor agreements, and what it means to subcontractors. Subsequent articles will focus more closely at indemnification clauses, as well as strategies for negotiating changes to agreements with our customers.
The biggest factor driving the use of subcontractor agreements is the surge in litigation involving homebuilders, especially those involving mold. The frequency and amount of losses create large losses for insurance companies. In an attempt to limit future losses, insurers are determined to push liability for claims on to subcontractors or suppliers. This is accomplished by a combination of tightly worded indemnification provisions combined with strict insurance requirements for subcontractors.
Many insurers stopped writing coverage for homebuilders, and now only a few markets remain for builders to obtain the insurance coverage they need. Builders fear being cancelled or non-renewed and take requests from insurers seriously. In many instances, insurers provide contracts to their homebuilder customers with orders to get them signed by all of their subcontractors. Failure to obtain signed contracts from all subcontractors can jeopardize continued coverage.
The motivation behind the use of subcontractor agreements varies significantly. Large national builders use subcontractor agreements as an important piece of an overall risk management program. In most cases, the agreements are drafted by attorneys from national corporate offices. Conversely, local builders are often given subcontractor agreements by insurance companies, with instructions to get them signed by all subcontractors. They usually had no direct involvement in drafting the agreements, and often have little familiarity with them.
Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about these agreements and how they operate. Agreements are often long, detailed documents with lots of legal jargon that is difficult to understand. At first glance, they appear to clarify each party’s duties and obligations, and seem fairly balanced between the parties. In reality, the agreements are one-sided, written entirely to benefit the builder. Upon close examination, it is difficult to find anything in the agreement that protects subcontractors. Another misconception is that unfair contract provisions will not be enforced by the builder or by the courts. In reality, courts will generally enforce any provision agreed to in a contract, even those considered unfair or one-sided.
So what options do we have when presented with these agreements by our customers? At first glance, it appears we have little choice but to sign the agreement if we want to work for the customer.
It is difficult to find problem provisions in the agreement, let alone negotiate changes. We feel additional pressure knowing that most subcontractors simply sign the agreements as drafted. However, if carefully executed, most customers, even large national builders are open to discussion about the agreements, and will agree to reasonable changes.
It is helpful to divide contractual provision into three categories. The first are provisions that are operational in nature, such schedules, materials, supervision, change orders, and quality standards. While still important, these provisions will generally work themselves out in daily operations. If problems are encountered, they can generally be resolved in the field as they occur. Ultimately, if reasonable solutions cannot be found, and the issues are significant enough, it may not be profitable to continue working for that customer. In general, it is best to focus on other areas of the contract.
The second category involves provisions dealing with payments to subcontractors. In addition to providing for normal payment terms and procedures, there are two common provisions that pose problems for subcontractors. The first is a “No-Lien” provision. In these instances, subcontractors legally waive their right to file mechanics liens. Builders have valid reasons for seeking these provisions, but we should use extreme caution in agreeing to waive lien rights. An alternative solution is an agreement to reinstate lien rights if certain conditions and delinquencies arise.
Another problem provision is the “pay when paid clause”. These provisions are commonly found in commercial projects, and state that the general contractor (builder) has no obligation to pay subcontractors until the general contractor is paid by the owner. In essence, our payments are dependent on the owner, and we may have little or no contact with them, and no knowledge about their financial status. Additionally, we will suffer from any dispute between the owner and general contractor.
The third category involves indemnification clauses, and other provisions dealing with construction defects, personal injuries, and other liabilities. These provisions are potentially the most severe, and impose substantial and unreasonable obligations on subcontractors. This area will be more fully discussed in the next article.
As our businesses grow, greater amounts and net worth are needed to sustain and operate the business. Unfortunately, the equity in our businesses is at risk to litigation or other claims. These agreements are simply too important to ignore. But if we approach them correctly, there is a surprising ability to make necessary changes to the agreements.
Building Officials Announce Change in Pressure Treated Lumber Materials
Ohio, as well as other states, recently warned residents and the building industry to be aware of the lumber, anchors, and fasteners used on their construction projects. The preservative-treated lumber used for the last 60 years was deemed unusable because it contains arsenic. It was replaced with a new preservative-treated lumber that contains a chemical commonly used with treated lumber.
Until recently, the most common chemical used in the pressure treatment of wood was Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA-C). Effective Dec. 31, 2003, the treated wood products industry voluntarily agreed to cease the production of CCA-C wood for residential and consumer use. This action responded to concerns about the arsenic levels in the wood. As such the primary type of pressure treated wood now available is Alkaline Copper Quat (ACQ). Testing conducted by Simpson Strong-Tie has shown that ACQ is more corrosive to steel than CCA-C.
“This is a public safety issue and the public needs to understand that if they use the old anchors, bolts and screws with the new pretreated wood, a danger exists that the anchors will corrode and could cause the deck or other structural elements to collapse,” said Joe Busch, Ohio Chief Building Official. There are two types of anchors that can be used. Hot dipped galvanized or stainless steel will hold up when used with the new lumber. Dissimilar metals in contact with each other will corrode and possibly lead to failure. Also, all fasteners must match connectors, galvanized with galvanized or stainless with stainless.
Production of the CCA preservative-treated lumber stopped earlier this year and a new ACQ preservative-treated lumber is currently being sold at home improvement stores and lumberyards.
“It is imperative to purchase the proper connecting materials in order to avoid a potentially serious problem,” said Busch.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE INDUSTRY?
Jim Baty, the CFA technical director, says this topic has become a significant issue because the change in connection type increases the unit costs on the project and the result is often a conflict between the foundation contractor and builder. The end result is rising costs of residential construction.
Subcontractors, Beware! Your Assumptions Can Cost You
One of the most dangerous words in the English language for subcontractors is “assume.” For example, do you assume that your company will be reimbursed for costs incurred as a result of project delays caused by another subcontractor on a project or by the general contractor? If the subcontract document doesn’t say it and the general contractor is not specifically obligated to do so by the general conditions, you assumption probably will leave you paying for de-and re-mobilization cost, and other costs, out of pocket! Without sound planning this and many other assumptions are, well, just that – assumptions without basis in fact. And they can cost you.
The American Subcontractors Association’s (ASA) white paper, “What’s NOT ‘In’ the Contract,” gives real-life examples of where courts have issued conflicting opinions on what the general contractor is responsible for when the subcontract document is silent on an issue. In some cases, courts have found that the general contractor is responsible for when the subcontract document is silent on an issue. In some cases, courts have found that the general contractor is responsible for subcontractor’s costs. Other courts have come to the opposite conclusion. The white paper points out several examples of common dangerous assumptions for contractors:
• The general contractor will provide facilities and storage areas onsite: stairways; security for equipment; adequate parking; and access to toilets, electricity and lighting.
• The general contractor must properly schedule and coordinate work so that the subcontractor can complete its work according to the project schedule.
• The general contractor must pay for changes in work that result form schedule changes.
• Someone else (i.e. the owner or general contractor) is responsible for providing property insurance in the work area.
The point of examining such assumptions is to discover how best to ensure that you, as a subcontractor, have properly anticipated your responsibilities and costs for each project.
ASA’s white paper looks at different options, including asking general contractors to clarify, in writing, the meaning of language describing the project requirements; conditioning bids and contracts with language describing the project requirements; conditioning bids step-by-step to identify assumptions reflected in cost estimates. One particularly useful resource for identifying assumptions is the “Guideline on Site Logistics” developed by ASA, the Associated General contractors (AGC) of America, and the Associated Specialty Contractors. The guideline is publicly available online.
In addition, the white paper compares and contrasts the subcontractor’s responsibilities under model subcontract documents published by AGC, the American Institute of Architects, and the Design-Build Institute of America.
For more information, visit ASA’s Web site and click on “Stand Up! ForSubcontractors” or call ASA at (703) 684-3450.
Why all Poured Wall Contractors Should be Members
The CFA is a great group of men and women who are dedicated to the advancement of foundation contractors and the industry in which we work. Some are just starting up companies, while others have been around for years, some member companies are huge while others are very small, some appear tremendously organized and experienced, while others are, well, more like mine. We all share the same goals; we want this Industry to be one that can provide us a decent living, and our products to be in demand from our customers. Whether or not we have inspirations to grow into a “Mega” corporation, we do want our businesses to be the best that they can be. The CFA helps us do that.
We all fight the same dragons: competition, cash flow, profitability, employee retention, restrictive building codes, form theft, business succession, cold weather, hot weather, the list goes on and on. By working together we can solve, or at least minimize, these problems, share ideas, and strengthen the industry as a whole.
The CFA also helps us change our industry. As CFA executive director Ed Sauter discusses on page # , our representation on several code and regulatory bodies ensures that our concerns as foundation contractors are addressed. We could not do this on our own. By being a CFA member, you have joined other contractors to create an industry voice to make changes on a national level. CFA works hard to help its members on a local level as well. If you are having difficulties with codes in your area, don’t hesitate to call CFA. We can make a difference.
Events such as the Summer and Winter Meetings, provide opportunities for us to come together from across the United States and Canada, to enjoy and learn from one another. At the Summer Meeting, and the newly formed regional meetings (starting Spring 2005), we have the chance to network with other contractors and suppliers, but we also have educational opportunities to improve our business skills. I greatly encourage you to attend the Winter Meeting at the World of Concrete in January. The complimentary registration is on page 12. And you can’t miss the Summer Meeting in San Francisco, CA in July. It is CFA’s 30th anniversary – such a milestone should not go unrecognized. It is because of us, the membership, that CFA continues to grow and succeed. This celebration is for us.
There are several of you who have not renewed your membership this year – your time is running out. If you aren’t certain what CFA is doing for you, then call the Talia Nelson, CFA Director of Member Services, and voice your needs. CFA is here for you, but it cannot fill needs that are not voiced. Your involvement is crucial to the successof the CFA. The stronger our voice, the more we can accomplish. You need the CFA, the CFA needs you! n
Terry Lavy, CFA President, Lavy Concrete Construction Inc. terry@lavyconcrete.com
