The Institutional Real Estate Inc Sponsorship brochure, Connected-Investor Focused, We connect people, data and insights, sponsorship, events, IREI Products
Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/896341
NAREIM DIALOGUES FALL 2017 27 statement "It meets code!" is incomplete. What code does it meet? Does it meet the other standards that are applied? By contrast, checking the strength of a batch of concrete is straightforward, and scientific. Whether a particular accessibility design solution is compliant, or close enough, can come down to fractions of an inch and involves interpretation and an assessment of risk when a condition isn't quite close enough. Case Study On a Class A multifamily project that had been constructed within the past 1-2 years, a Property Condition Assessment was performed. It was designed and constructed under the most recent building codes, developed by a competent developer, an experienced architect, and seasoned contractors. Yet issues of construction quality were found with the exterior wall and disabled accessibility. Exterior Wall Upon review of the site, questions about exterior weather barrier provided beneath the stucco/EIFS arose: What is the system, what components were provided, and was it installed properly? Limited information was provided, limited drawings were available, and the seller's property management personnel did not have a technical background in these construction materials. Destructive testing was not initially performed; however, in one area at a garage door, tenant car strikes had damaged stucco and foam trim, showing a potential lack of weather barrier. When approached with these questions, the development team provided copies of monthly reports that had been created by a third-party inspector during construction. While these included some photo documentation, photos were limited in number and taken from a distance, making it impossible to definitively determine the detailed makeup of the exterior wall assembly. Of the additional raw construction photos which were provided as follow-up, only 2 photos showed anything approaching a weather barrier. Additional avenues of discovery were pursued, each with limited success. The contractor did not hire a third-party firm to observe the exterior construction. No record of involvement from the exterior wall system manufacturer was provided, and no documentation of meetings with the contractor or subcontractors was available. The contract for the firm observing the exterior construction was reviewed, which indicated part of their scope was to perform a Preconstruction Document Review report, and be involved with exterior wall system submittals, RFIs, and plaster mockup. No evidence of these services being performed was provided by the firm. No meaningful confidence in the quality of exterior wall construction could be developed without additional destructive testing and/or infrared analysis. In this particular building, this was a key concern to the potential purchaser. Disabled Accessibility: We performed a review of property from several angles, as different areas of the project are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Local Building Code. In the dozens of units required to be accessible (not adaptable) by local building code, many issues were noted: primary entries not accessible, sliding glass doors not the required clear width, thermostats too high, restroom lavatories higher than allowable, water closets at non- compliant distances from the side wall, deep refrigerators that impede access through the kitchen, missing under-sink pipe insulation, etc. While each of these issues individually are minor, collectively they can have substantial impact. It is not uncommon to see costs associated with making corrections to address these types of items be on the order of $1,000-$5,000 per unit. A significant portion of this cost is the removal of existing construction and re-installation of finish materials, in addition to the actual work needed to address the issue. Outcome These issues eventually led to a lack of confidence from the buyer and the purchase could not go forward. The issues with the exterior wall construction quality suggested to some that there may be potentially other items not properly constructed that could not be identified in a Property Condition Assessment, without further destructive testing. The estimated cost to address the accessibility issues also impacted the buyer's ultimate decision. Recommendations: Get a specialized disabled accessibility review well before the commencement of construction. Multiple rounds of review may be appropriate, with issues follow-up and correction with design and development team. Architects are trained as generalists, not all are focused on disabled accessibility in the way that the current legal and interpretive climate requires. Contract with an experienced, qualified reviewer for specialized disabled accessibility review during construction, to catch issues before they are set in stone. Compare their findings with legal counsel in gray areas, to analyze risks and address issues of non-compliance before they become a factor in a disposition. Setup document retention policies for Quality Control inspectors. Follow up on all services that were contracted. Make sure raw photos are available for future review. Document retention policies for the developer are important as well, involving accurate as-builts, warranties, and so forth. Ownership can require more frequent oversight from qualified third-party reviewers. Once per month may not be appropriate to review wood frame construction, especially during framing and waterproofing phases of the work. Issues of construction quality were found with the exterior wall and disabled accessibility. ©iStock.com/aydinmutlu