Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/954267
POWDER COATING, March 2018 33 • No project specific formal written con- tract existed between fabricator and the finishing contractor for this project • No written warranty of quality or expected service life of the finish was provided by or offered to any party; warranty was assumed • No communication between the archi- tect or general contractor and the finish contractor regarding finishing options prior to the beginning of the project • Documents confirmed that an inferior preparation process was used on the alu- minum substrate for the intended use of the product in a coastal environment • Documents confirmed that the pre- treatment preparation process on steel substrates was not suitable for the intended use of the product in a coastal environment • Powder coating materials chemistry selection for the intended use of the product in a coastal environment was inferior • No records of customer care and maintenance Settlement When construction workmanship and materials defects of any kind are noticed, every contractor involved is suspect of noncompliance, poor work- manship, or material quality related issues by the plaintiff, and the search begins to find as many fault issues as possible to support a class action claim and drive up the legal costs and remedi- ation settlement cost. The faulty design, inappropriate pre- treatment chemistry, improper powder material selection, and faulty workman- ship on the aluminum balcony rails and the steel privacy dividers suddenly became a huge legal expense for several of the contractors and their liability insur- ance providers. A multi-million-dollar legal battle ensued for alleged defects and other related building construction issues. The case was on the court docket for a number of years before being settled for an undisclosed amount of money. The settlement was rumored to have been several million dollars in collective liability between the contractors. This situation and other similar cases demonstrate the importance of devel- oping and following a pragmatic plan, including concise specifications with realistic and affordable goals, to ensure and define quality and value from the beginning of the design phase to the final finishing of the product. This pre- mature failure of the protective and dec- orative value of the finish was complete- ly preventable if a proper plan was in place that would have facilitated good communication up and down the pro- ject supply chain of professional design- ers and contractors. Professional guidelines I t i s s a i d t h a t f a i l u r e s become opportunities to learn, providing we survive them. Unfortunately, the emotional and monetary strain of this project failure was enough to cause the ownership of the custom coating job shop to close the facility for good. How did this project go so bad? Was it a classic case of failure to communicate? Was negligence involved? What does this mean from a liability standpoint? The poorly designed components for this project moved forward without questioning the Fit for Purpose issues related to fabrication and finishing by the professionals who should have known better than to proceed without questioning the details surrounding the specific scope of work. Professional contractors involved in high-value projects are expected to par- ticipate and offer advice after review of the design plans and scope of work in an effort to offer suggestions for improve- ments and help avoid pitfalls related to their portion of the scope of work whenever possible. A true contract pro- fessional would never knowingly pro- duce a product or provide a value-added service that is known to be wrong. In this case, the design plan was flawed from the beginning. The fabrication and finishing contractors should not have continued to move ahead with their scope of work according to a plan