Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A most unfortunate flooring failure!
12-03-2012, 01:47 PM,
#39
RE: A most unfortunate flooring failure!
(12-03-2012, 01:24 PM)CCR Wrote:  But if I'm understanding the problem, it's not if testing should be done, but who is responsible for covering the cost, as well as make sure all installers are playing on the same level playing field. This is where I see the communication breakdown between installers and GCs.

I would also add Owner's Rep. Many public owner's reps have their own testing labs. Sometimes if you can get the inspector up to speed he will take this subject over. But, still, IMHO it is best specified in the testing section of the general conditions.

There is a big movement on in the spec'ing community to put both testing and mitigation in the same div9 spec. I've seen Architects in California say in the div9 spec 'perform testing as required by manufacturer and if slab tests beyond limits mitigate floor using XYZ product' When you bid on such a project you get chaos in bids. Imagine having an open ended mitigation section (pre-construction). You could be talking >$20 s/f.

I wouldn't let my fox guard the hen house; so, I wouldn't let the flooring installer, GC, or moisture mitigator test the slab.
Quote this message in a reply


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Technorati Digg MySpace Delicious

Messages In This Thread
RE: A most unfortunate flooring failure! - eaadams - 12-03-2012, 01:47 PM