Case Study 1 – Bank Lobby Renovations
This renovation project was a bank lobby in a major city in the State of Connecticut. The lobby renovations included considerable amounts of soffit work which was attached to the steel framing above. The construction disturbed the existing fireproofing in over 100 different locations.
Initially the drywall contractor tried to argue with the local fire official that if he made the cuts real tight with minimal disruption the connection between the protected steel and the top track would not have to be repaired. Having failed that argument, the economics of the situation came down to two options: repair the disturbed areas using UFP at a cost of $1947.00 using his own labor or, the second option hire a fireproofing applicator to make the repairs at a cost of $4,950.00.
Looking at the economics of the job a little more closely, the repair work as described translated in to a confirmed quote of $4,950.00. The UFP option, just coming to market at the time of this renovation, estimated a material cost of $267.00 and if we used the same number of labor hours (3 days), as outlined in the quote, the cost of labor would be $1,680.00. The total cost would be estimated at $1947.00. There would be no additional overhead as everyone was on site already. However, there would be additional labor saving with better utilization of available man hours (their own forces).
The economics are simple: incur a patching cost of $1,947.00 using UFP, or pay more, like $3,000 more for accomplishing the same job.
Case Study 2 – Luxury Condos
This renovation project was a community center in a mid-luxury condo project. The fireproofing work was pretty much limited to the one building. The construction schedule was in disarray and the damage to the installed fireproofing was severe.
Under stress, the construction manager blamed scheduling and coordination issues on anybody and everybody except himself, but ultimately the work was not going to be repaired without executed change orders.
The economics of the situation was that a basic bid for applied fireproofing in the amount of $57,500,00 grew to a contract of $164,332.65 and that didn’t include not getting paid for the last $6,000 on the project.
The economics are simple: you can absorb an additional cost of $106,832.65 or start by reducing that amount by 55%. The GM could have gone a bit further and said “if you damage it, you repair it – here’s how”: Universal Fireproofing Patch. The point of this case study is that if you let the damage get out of hand you will be facing a really big cost very quickly. Keep the damage under control and get it repaired as inexpensively as possible, but compliantly.
Case Study 3 – Public Library
This project was the installation of a mechanical unit at the public library in a major city in the State of Connecticut. Connections supporting the unit disturbed the existing fireproofing. The damage to the existing fireproofing had to be repaired.
The general contractor in this case had few options. It was a public facility so people and local officials viewed the process with a close eye. Ironically, some of the existing fireproofing had fallen off prior to the start of construction and was painted over in an attempt to conceal the obvious.
The repair work as described translated into a day rate of $1,650.00 plus tax. An option that was not available at the time was the Universal Fireproofing Patch. The material cost would have been $190.00 and using the same number of man hours (16) the labor cost would have been $720.00, for a total direct patch cost of $910.00 plus tax. There would be no additional overhead as they were on-site already and could have made better use of field labor hours for additional savings.
The economics are simple: there will be a cost incurred; isn’t $910.00 much better than $1,650.00?
Case Study 4 – Science Building
This project was an interior renovation of a state university science building. The originally applied material was known and identified as a medium density SFRM. During the completion of the construction several areas of the applied material was damaged and had to be repaired.
The prudent procedure would have been to contact the original applicator and have him make the repairs with the originally applied material and in compliance with that manufacturers patch and repair requirements. For the amount of repairs that had to be complete this would have taken about 4 hours for 1 man. A secondary option would use the UFP as it is also a medium grade material and it has been tested compatible with a number of existing SFRM’s.
The economics of this situation is that the PM thought he was saving a lot of money by doing the end around as he managed to purchase a bag of SFRM for $32 from a lumberyard/distributor. In addition to his time (say 1 hr), he had to send a driver to pick it up, say 2 more hours, + mileage; but being generous we can say his cost is only $165 +/- ($197 in total). He could have purchased UFP including delivery for around $155. His “savings” – really cost him $42.00 additional dollars while he inherited 3 violations; one, he patched a Cafco product with a Grace product; two, he patched a medium density material with a light density material; and three, neither were installed with a qualified applicator. None of these issues would have come up if he had used the Universal Fireproofing Patch. UFP (Universal Fireproofing Patch) would have been less expensive, more compliant (UFP is tested for compatibility with other materials), has a medium grade density, and is designed for self application. Plus, at the end of the day he still had to do the patching.