Hi

This is my basement in Selkirk , Manitoba that might have to be partially or completely torn down. It now has my house on it , but is not habitable . The basement was built to relocate  my house from an area soon to be flooded by the Red River. The " builders " tell me that this is a properly built Logix ICF basement and then put a  " lien "on the property before they started their flawed remediation attempt.
 
See pictures at  http://astro.cisco.ca/gallery3/index.php/st-peters


It features   -walls bowed out
                     -walls leaning in ( up to 3" )
                     -walls with mudsills  wandering up & down ( 1/2" in 4'), bowed laterally(to "fit" the walls)
                     -mudsill not bearing directly on concrete  or through the required shims 
                     -gaps in length of mudsill and missing mudsill
                     -mudsills sticking out past ICF by 1/2"       
                     -basement is wider and longer than the engineered plans dictated
                     -The ICF blocks separated both horizontally and vertically in many places
                     -The  waterproofing is installed incorrectly  top and bottom
                     -and more....

If anyone else has any advice for me or you notice something , please reply ..Thanks

Okay, this is probably not the place to look for advice on that project or your issue.

But as a suggestion only.

I would review all the plans and have the architect come and review and write a report
I would have your structural engineer come and review and write a report
I would contact your building inspector and get copies of all inspection reports
I would contact the ICF distributor and have him come and review and write a report
I would then armed with that information contact the installer and his insurance company and put them on notice

Now I would contact a construction defect attorney and get the ball rolling, not a real estate lawyer that is dealing with the lien, you need a specialist.

But be prepared...who was the GC? I assume you, correct? You have some liability too, you allowed it happen, you should have been monitoring the project and stopped them prior to it getting this far, If not you as GC, add him to the list
Why if you found defects did you place the house on top? By doing so you are accepting it, and the excuse I had to get it done...doesn't fly.

I'm not trying to be hard on you, just having you face reality.

I'm not going to comment on your 'features' I'm not there to personally review it

wow, this was the bracing?

http://astro.cisco.ca/gallery3/var/resizes/st-peters/St%20Peters%20House%20375.jpg?m=1304377827

Hi Beachboy , the interior bracing you see in http://astro.cisco.ca/gallery3/var/resizes/st-peters/St%20Peters%20House%20375.jpg?m=1304377827 is all the interior bracing . there was more bracing on the exterior . Since this post I've found out the footings generaly rise in the middle of a run (causing the walls to be high in the middle and lean  out at each end ) Note the inerior wall strapping in the picture . The Logix  ICF's are a fine product . The builder  didn't resolve these issues at the footing course and problems just compounded.

I'm curious as to what the effects of such sloppy work will be. Looks bad? The house will fall down?

gorden;

that about as ugly as they get, but the time for remediation is before you set a house on top of it,  not after, why would you do that?

Hi, jonr. Thanks for looking .The house will not "fall down" but will be and already has been damaged from lack of and uneven support, sitting on a mudsill that is not level and does not have direct bearing from the floor trusses through to the concrete.  The house is on trusses with no rim joints. The unlevel basement is/will continue to damage the house . The walls are not plumb, level, or straight which makes building the addition and finishing the basement difficult and much more expensive; it requires additional material and work to make straight walls over crooked walls. And what do you do with window bucks that lean in? The unlevel top and gaps make it difficult to seal the house thermally which is very important in our climate (+35C to -40C). The overall basement faults make all subsequent work difficult, expensive and affect the overall value of the house. How do leaning walls look to a future building inspection? not good. The house is already suffering damage from uneven & lack of support (cracking walls, broken ceramic flooring...)

Hi, cmkvala - good question. We were contractually obligated to remove the house by the RM ( think county ) from the previous site due to flooding potential.  We had already had several months extension and we waited to move the house until the last possible moment (1 week before spring road restrictions, 2 weeks before the access road was flooded out). The builder knew this and basically ran the clock out on us. They agreed to do remediation work per our engineer's instructions, then insisted that the engineers' modify the remediation plan to better suit themselves. When they finally did start to 'remediate' they did not follow the engineer's instructions at all. We had the engineer back to look at the 'remediation' and they grudgingly wrote up that we could move the house onto the basement and do the remediation work after the house was in place. The engineers did not want to advise us to move the house but they understood that we had to move the house: 'it is probably acceptable to move the house on to the foundation' and do remediation work afterwards.

Hi Chris. Thanks for your comments.
- we hired a structural engineering firm and they have written three responses: first one itemized the remediation work required to level the mud sill, second one was at the request of the contractor for alternate remediation instructions (they didn't want to do the first instructions), and third time was at our request to verify that the contractor did not follow the remediation steps from either report.
- I have contacted  the municipal building inspector,  have not received a response yet
- I have been in contact with the Logix regional manager, and he has been sympathetic but ineffectual so far...
- my lawyer has contacted the contractor's lawyer several times for further information over the past 4 months, and has not yet received any response .

See the posting to cmkvala. We had a contractual obligation to the RM (aka County) to move the house, and we had already extended as long as we could. The contractor knew our situation and took advantage by delaying their responses and basically running the clock out on us. Manitoba is experiencing serious flooding this spring and the Province of Manitoba has been preparing for this very serious flood since last fall. We had to move it or lose it .

-We have found no one yet interested in repairing someone else's shoddy construction.

Gorden;
 
I figured your back was against the wall, but it puts you in a worse legal position, in placing the home atop the foundation, to some degree is acceptance of the work even though it looks shoddy.

 I took the Logix training some years ago and decided to stick with an easier system like SIPs, but I can see from the photos that the walls were not braced adequetely allowing for malformation of the pour.

The installer should be ashamed of the work, I would hope Logix would ban them from future installs

Gordon, was the contractor bonded? What about going after his liability insurance company directly? Maybe they would be willing to settle to avoid a lawsuit.

Posted By gorden on 08 May 2011 01:44 PM
Hi Chris. Thanks for your comments.
- we hired a structural engineering firm and they have written three responses: first one itemized the remediation work required to level the mud sill, second one was at the request of the contractor for alternate remediation instructions (they didn't want to do the first instructions), and third time was at our request to verify that the contractor did not follow the remediation steps from either report.
- I have contacted  the municipal building inspector,  have not received a response yet
- I have been in contact with the Logix regional manager, and he has been sympathetic but ineffectual so far...
- my lawyer has contacted the contractor's lawyer several times for further information over the past 4 months, and has not yet received any response .

See the posting to cmkvala. We had a contractual obligation to the RM (aka County) to move the house, and we had already extended as long as we could. The contractor knew our situation and took advantage by delaying their responses and basically running the clock out on us. Manitoba is experiencing serious flooding this spring and the Province of Manitoba has been preparing for this very serious flood since last fall. We had to move it or lose it .

-We have found no one yet interested in repairing someone else's shoddy construction.

Unfortunately the situation you are in is the hurry and wait and game. I know the floods you are having and understand your dilemma, hindsight being 20/20 after moving the house it would have been easier to leave it suspended above the foundation til the repairs were completed as per the engineer and then set it down. The contractor was not necessarily rejecting the engineers first report and repair instructions, he may have had alternate ideas which were easier and preferred by him and the engineer would review and if satisfactory would allow them. I'm not defending your contractor, but we all receive plans from engineers and make requests for alternatives for builds we prefer. The problem with an RM inspector is he covers such a large area since permits are few and far between that even when you call for inspection he can tell you to carry on and he will look when he is in the area again...and usually at that point everything he should have inspected is covered and it's too late...that's why you should have had the engineer on site for inspections, if you pay him he looks after your best interests. Something sounds amiss with the lawyer...4 months without a response???!!! I'd be looking for a new lawyer. Unfortunately there is no bonding in Canada so your SOL there, but perhaps a call to the ministry of consumer and commercial relations may spark something and I would be asking your distributor to have a few words with the installers.

gorden;

since we do not know why the tapered block was supposed to be there for , you should ask the engineer that specified it

According to a floor designer I spoke with, Taper Top blocks are not necessary if the floor is designed without a Load Bearing Rim Joist (ie, the joists themselves can carry a load). If the floor is designed for all the weight to be carried on the rim joist, a Taper Top is a great Idea, since you have solid bearing directly below the sill plate at the point the rim joist is bearing on it.

That being said, the engineer obviously had a reason to spec this detail, so you are best to check with him/her.

The performance of the ICF contractor on this job is sub-par. So is the Manufacturers Representive.

My pet peeve is that the manufacturer supposedly trained this installer, but did not follow up with jobsite inspections
to ensure that the "Newbie Installer" was doing a proper job.
Perhaps this manufacturers represenative doesn't even know what a proper job is.

IMO manufacturers and their sales agents are entirely responsible for not doing pre-pour inspections with "New Installers" 

This customer bought a high- end engineered ICF System and got unprofessional results.

If we want the public to believe that ICF Systems are top quality, these occurances need to stop.
However, because of greedy salepeople and manufacturer mismanagement, these situations will continue to happen
until there is a proper Installer Licencing System in place.

My 2 cents.

Posted By cmkavala on 08 May 2011 02:02 PM
Gorden;
 The installer should be ashamed of the work, I would hope Logix would ban them from future installs

  Logix should "take the high road" and replace the entire foundation.... drop both the sales rep. and the installer, period.

  They should also re-imburse the homeowner for lost time and expenses.

  Maybe Logix should sue the distributor/rep and the installer both, for not performing to minimum standard.

  IMO  Manufacturers should "own up" in these situations.

  Too touchy for you guys to comment on ?

I agree with some of your points Eric,

All in all the installer is the guilty party along with the GC

The distributor is not liable but should shoulder some onus if this was a new installer, yes he should have been more proactive in overseeing the work that was being performed and even if a seasoned installer he should still periodically visit sites not just as a sales call but also as an overview since many times the head guy of the company stays the same but the employees change frequently.

The manufacturer relies on the distributor to ensure the proper people are purchasing and installing the product and is called on for specifics in regards to their products.

But to save face I understand where you are coming from...similar to a large commercial project almost directly south of this one about 4 years ago.

I'm not sure of your location Eric, but unfortunately in Canada there is no mandatory licensing of contractors, with the exception of mechanical trades. I wish there was a system...similar to California (That's the one I am familiar with) where anyone who owns a company must be licensed for the trade they perform, but that system is far from perfect as well since it protects the homeowner even if they knowingly contract with an unlicensed contractor.

Hard to figure out how the materials supplier could be responsible for the workmanship of the installer. Think about it for a minute. If a framing crew builds your walls out of plumb, are you going to sue the lumber yard? Georgia Pacific?

That having been said, this keeps going back to the same thing I've been talking about for a long time. You're choosing technology that it's tough to be successful with.We just poured a Polycrete basement the other day, there was a technical advisor at the jobsite every day. 10" thick forms, 10 feet high, 400 linear feet, and there was no adjusting of the bracing or re-plumbing the walls or any of that nonsense after it was pumped. Nice and flat, nice and straight. Pump it, clean up the brickledge, check it over just to be sure, and go have a beer cause it's done.

Bruce, I didn't know that a 2x4 wall was an Engineered sytem like ICF's are.
But if you trained the carpenter and let him loose to build my house out of plumb and out of square with wood,
 I'd be coming after you and him both. 
  
What specifically caused you to oversee the project you mention above ? 

Local to me an incompetant ordered up a trailer or two of Fox Blocks and proceeded to build at least 2 homes that are now in litigation.
One of the homes is standing condemned.
His company filed for bankruptcy to avoid dealing with the customers. How nice.
Did Fox have an installer training session or follow up with this idiot?
Not likely.

I have paid my dues in the concrete world and cringe at the mentality of the manufacturers who aim product at DIY'ers
 and unqualified buyers ad infinitem, only chasing for the money $$$$$

If the Industry will not act to control and certify installers, the damn Governments surely will.
Won't that be just peachy :-)

I guess we should all just "shrug our shoulders" and say to ourselves "not my problem"
 
Rant over.