What Went Wrong? | Peeling Rubber

Peeling Rubber This Pacific Northwest building is approx. ten years old, and was constructed of concrete, masonry, and sand float stucco. Due to minor cracks in the stucco and masonry block, the owners decided to get a proper specification prepared, and obtain proper bids, and include a "Quality Assurance Program" in order to get the job done right.

The bids came in over budget. The owners asked the low bidder if he could "get down to budget". The contractor suggested cutting out the "Quality Assurance Program", cutting "here and there for "700-800", and reduced his price by about $1600. The owners agreed, and painting started the next week.

Two months after the project was completed, bubbles and blisters began to appear on the east and west walls of the building. The paint contractor blamed the specification and the product. The Association was asked to send out a certified coating inspector to examine the problem and report on the cause.

The certified coating inspector quickly determined that the coating applied to all concrete surfaces was a good quality elastomeric product on the "Approved Products List". In the absence of an appropriate "Quality Assurance Program", the contractor made up his $700-800 bid reduction by "saving" on proper surface preparation. The specification called for all glossy surfaces to be dulled down through the use of T.S.P. (trisodium phosphate) prior to power washing.

As is obvious from the photograph, this was not done, and the result was a lack of adhesion to the remaining glossy surfaces.

The $800 saved on the elimination of the "Quality Assurance Program" became a "nightmare" for the building owners.