CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Our two 25-story high rise towers need caulking replaced around all of the windows on the south elevations (sides). This'll be done with settlement funds from construction defect litigation against our developer. Leaks from the inadequate caulking has caused damage to about 20 units from minor to more extensive.
Our expert consultant, "Mr. A.," a construction contractor who advised us and our attorneys regarding estimated reconstruction costs during litigation, put together a prototype for one area. The work was done, It was water-tested, etc.,and was successful.
Our PM, Mr. A., and our litigation attorney (who actually has a great deal of expertise in window leaks) crafted a Bid Scope that along with the prototype results went to three firms, including Mr. A's firm. The three bids we received are identical regarding the methods and products to be used in the repairs. The only difference is pricing. The board will interview these vendors and select one.
Now, all of a sudden, our board VP, who negotiated contracts for a major public entity before his retirement, asserts that we need another opinion about the proposed repair method from an "expert" in the field. It cannot, of course, be Mr. A. The VP' argument is that w will not be practicing due diligence without an additional expert opinion. A new consultant, unfamiliar with our buildings, would want to review the building drawings, the litigation materials, go down the side of the building on a swing stage, etc. etc. This would cost us at least $2000. it would delay the repairs, and I'm concerned we wouldn't have the work done before the "rainy season" begins.
I argue that we have enough information from knowledgeable folks to approve a vendor.
How much expert advice do we need to practice our due diligence???
Our expert consultant, "Mr. A.," a construction contractor who advised us and our attorneys regarding estimated reconstruction costs during litigation, put together a prototype for one area. The work was done, It was water-tested, etc.,and was successful.
Our PM, Mr. A., and our litigation attorney (who actually has a great deal of expertise in window leaks) crafted a Bid Scope that along with the prototype results went to three firms, including Mr. A's firm. The three bids we received are identical regarding the methods and products to be used in the repairs. The only difference is pricing. The board will interview these vendors and select one.
Now, all of a sudden, our board VP, who negotiated contracts for a major public entity before his retirement, asserts that we need another opinion about the proposed repair method from an "expert" in the field. It cannot, of course, be Mr. A. The VP' argument is that w will not be practicing due diligence without an additional expert opinion. A new consultant, unfamiliar with our buildings, would want to review the building drawings, the litigation materials, go down the side of the building on a swing stage, etc. etc. This would cost us at least $2000. it would delay the repairs, and I'm concerned we wouldn't have the work done before the "rainy season" begins.
I argue that we have enough information from knowledgeable folks to approve a vendor.
How much expert advice do we need to practice our due diligence???