Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/954267
for failure from the very beginning because of the design, specification, and budget restrictions of this project. The parties argued over details that the adhe- sion and corrosion failures may have been caused by poor design, poor fabri- cation processing, improper metal alloy selection, and a variety of finishing relat- ed methods and material problems. The parties under deposition testimony all but admitted to the fact that there were better design material and finishing options available for this project. They stated that they could have made sugges- tions for design and material changes, but that they elected to proceed within the scope of work and budget to meet the proposed completion date. A host of direct and indirect contribut- ing root causes for the failure of the dec- orative and protective value of the fin- ish were discovered during the analysis and discovery phase of the investiga- tion. There were many contributing issues, including, but not limited to, the following: • Improper design of metal components • Stitch welds caused process chemicals and contamination entrapment • Incomplete fabrication methods, steel component design, and fabrication permitted moisture trapping, pooling, and cupping in areas, causing an i n c r e a s e d t i m e o f w e t n e s s t h a t advanced corrosion cell development • Failure to remove sharp edges and metal burrs • Thin film coating application result- ing in weak areas of the protective coating • Poorly written and incomplete fabri- cation specification • Finishing instructions were vague and ambiguous; no formal written finish- ing specification or standard refer- ences • No first article approval, color control samples, or mock-up submittals • No first article finish quality accep- tance sign-off • Failure to retain sample from produc- tion processing for color and gloss control • No Certification of Compliance or Conformance requirements • No finish quality testing or related quality compliance records privacy screens failed to provide a lasting protective and decorative finish due to a number of design, fabrication, finishing, and contract administration compliance related issues. The general contractor was contacted to correct the problem and ended up in litigation with the fab- ricator and custom coater. The custom coater and their legal team fought hard on the basis that the project was destined Photo 3 Photo 2 Evidence file photo: Perforated steel privacy weldment defects (stitch welds, channels pooling water, and sharp perforated ferrous metal screen panel) Evidence file photo: Aluminum balcony rail 32 POWDER COATING, March 2018