LCS roof repair

Kevin Cook

Active member
Apart from concern about the impact on our budget, £200k seemed extreme for the refurbishment/replacement of the roof on 1 – 11 LCS. As per my post on Deanery Mews, I did some investigation with other contractors.

I can confirm that for extensive repairs to roofs, 50% or more, Building Regulations 2022 now compel us to increase the insulation within (or upon) the roof to comply with today's standards, which are naturally more stringent than those of the year 2000 and will become more onerous in 2025. In this case the most obvious approach would seem to be to lay new insulation and the a new plywood deck over the existing roof structure, followed by one of the latest generation of membranes to the entire area, lapped up and over the parapet walls.

From Google Earth, I measured the roof of 1-11 LCS as 240 sq mtrs. And made inquiries on that basis (to include removal & replacement of paving slabs.
Additional sqm areas for 13 - 15 can be added pro-rata. Estimates have been assumed to be EX-VAT (as is customary) and so VAT has been shown and added.

A trusted roofing company in Hanham questioned the need to completely remove the existing sub-deck structure, but subject to visual inspection they may support the proposal to peel the existing membrane. They suggested that core samples show isolated spots and would need further investigation before condemning larger areas.

They doubted the need to replace extensive areas of sub-deck, but included the increased insulation and indicated a cost of £200 - £250 per sq mtr plus £5k for scaffold, all plus VAT.

That produced a guide price of £60k - £72k INC VAT. This, of course, excludes and management fees or mark-up from 3Sixty. I was subsequently advised that an independent project manager would typically charge £500 - £900 per day and that we should expect 15 working days as a guide. This adds £7,500 - £13,500 plus vat = £9k - £16k INC VAT, so an initial site-unseen estimate of £69k - £88k for 240 sqm.

Increasing the area to 420 sqm to encompass Nos 13 - 15 plus the triangular section of roof behind this row, We seem to be looking at £120k - £150k inc the project manager and VAT. Slightly lower than the costs projected by 3Sixty.

An alternative company from WSM called Proactive Flat Roofing were more expensive, but their preliminary guidance was the same, their prices (240 sqm) excluding a project manager were £110k - £140k INC VAT, so adding £9-£16k for a project manager and increasing to 420 sqm we go above the prices indicated 3Sixty.

I am shocked, by these prices BUT I still have an uneasy feeling about the quotes from 3Sixty. This is a HUGE amount of money for DRBML to find, how the heck do we finance this? If for nothing other than due diligence, we should investigate in greater depth.
  • I suggest we ask 3Sixty for sight of the lowest quote, under the guise that we want to understand the areas concerned and what work is proposed/included.
  • I would also like to know what other charges (IF ANY) will be imposed by 3Sixty for the expedition of this project.
  • I feel that we stumble blind and isolated from the project tendering and management process, being presented with minimal detail in both phases.
  • If the scaffold is still in place, I could ask one or both of theses contractors to carry out a more detailed inspection, or if we arrange a scaffold tower, or access over the wall from a 2nd floor apartment, we could get this done soon at little or no cost.

From a personal perspective; I am greatly concerned by the gravity of this financial outlay and the impact, given that cores 1 & 2 are probably not far behind.

I am happy to research, gather technical information and ask for comparative estimates and indeed, for 3Sixty to see me doing so, but I am conscious of the scale both in funding and the value of such contracts. These factors combine to leave me feeling somewhat out of my depth, so the availability of neutral wisdom would be of great help.

Any thoughts ????????

Regards .............. Kevin
 
I’m just back from holiday and happy to input which would be better on teams or face to face as we did on building insurance.

Just some quick observations

1. A PM would charge c. 10% of the value of the works

2. Probably need some H&S support - suggest the PM incorporate it in their fee

3. Does the m2 rate include preliminarily items such as management, scaffold, site welfare, overhead and profit, etc

4. Is their a specification that was sent to tender as I can see it in the email trail

5. Are we comparing like for like eg product and specification

6. What is the warranty position eg 10 years, 20 years, insurance backed, workmanship and materials, etc

Regards

Martin




Thanks for your input Martin, most welcome. I will transfer your comments and mine below onto the Forum thread.


1. Had originally been told PM fees would be 10% of project value, which makes 3Sixty more reasonable, but was later told £500 per day for a PM.
2. H&S would no doubt be agreed between the PM and the installer.
3. £5k allowed for scaffold.
4 & 5. I have no sight of the specification, as yet, so can’t comment on exact like for like, but a valid point. I assume we want the lowest-cost long-term solution, even if that differs.
6, It was suggested we would attract a warranty of 20 years, unsure if this is insurance backed, but obviously another key performance standard.

Regards ........... Kevin
 
I believe one of the leading flat roof companies locally is called ROOFWORX.
May be worth contacting to see if they are in a position to quote for job.
Within their group they also have a fire door company, and a carpentry company ( balconies ??)
contact is Matt Coupes. 0117 3018152.
 
Thanks Tony, with no offence intended toward 3Sixty, I also feel obliged to research as many options as reasonably possible on behalf of leaseholders. Any information could then be shared with 3Sixty.
We would obviously need the agreement of fellow directors and a safe means of access for any estimating contractors, scaffold, scaffold Tower or access via a 2nd floor terrace to the rear of Deanery Road.
This message is issued in search of comment by others.
 
Kevin has very generously offered to obtain directly alternative quotes. Kevin and Tony and I have agreed to progress this.

From Kevin: 2 companies coming to quote, James & Sam of Bristol Flat Roofing Co on Thursday at 12.30 and Ben of Flat Roofing Co on Friday.
@Kevin Cook : I reckon that we should tell 3Sixty so that we don't suffer the misfortune of the scaffolding being taken away in the meanwhile. Would you like me to message Alex to that effect?
 
@Alex Rush @Edward Hamilton, with apologies for my lack of clarity and to increase my level of information, along with that of other board members, in preparation for our meeting on Tuesday, could you advise which buildings are being included in the discussion re replacement roof to LCS ?
  1. I assume the 4 maisonettes, Nos 1 - 15 LCS, but are we also including the three townhouses in SDM and the triangular section of roof over the car-park behind those townhouses ?
  2. Is the larger L-shaped section of roof above the car-park entrance & ramp to be included ?
  3. I don't recall any/many complaints of roof leaks to the SDM townhouses, is this a reasonable interpretation ?
  4. I don't recall any/many complaints of roof leaks to the car-park, (setting aside other routes of ingress) is this a reasonable interpretation ?
  5. What specification has been established for the LCS roof replacement, inc additional insulation?
  6. I presume that any areas of roof above the car-park or ramp have been excluded from the need for more insulation?
  7. I believe that Ed has stated that the patio-slabs must be reinstated as ballast, which suggests that the existing/proposed roof is of un-bonded design/construction, id this interpretation correct ? Many thanks ........... Kevin
 
Met with Flat Roof Contractors at LCS this lunchtime, Tony joined us also. They carried out an inspection and found several new indicators/clues.
  • This contractor has been called to this roof several times before, but never carried out any work, because he was always asked to patch and make-good, without thorough investigation. They had decided, on arrival, that if we asked for repairs, not full membrane replacement, then they would decline the work.
  • This contractor strongly suggests removal and disposal of the concrete slab paviors, they say that a protective layer should be applied above the membrane if slabs are to be reinstated to reduce the abrasive effect of dust grit under the pedestal feet with thermal movement. He advises that the lack of such has contributed to premature failure of the membrane. They can reinstate the slabs but there will be additional cost for the protective layer and the labour for replacement of the slabs.
  • The front facade of most of the LCS maisonettes is showing egress of salts through the render indicating that moisture has penetrated the walls there.
  • The flashing between different levels of the roof (car-park to LCS) was not correctly fixed down, it can be lifted easily by hand (and gusts of wind) to allow ingress of rain. The plywood behind is discoloured and wet.
  • This contractor hopes that the terraces to the rear of Deanery Rd are in good order and the person with the hose-pipe should reasonably expect the terrace floor & car-park roof to cope with a hose-pipe.
  • They did, however find a design defect in the way that the upright posts of the glass balustrade to the Deanery Road terraces has been fitted. There is a clear channel for water ingress at the base of each post, taking the water underneath the water-proof membrane of the car-park roof.
  • They are agents/installers for SIKA, from whom one of 3Sixty's contractors took advice and so they will try to trace the person who attended for SIKA. They added that although SIKA are a very large company, they are not as competitive as they might be.
  • The warranty offered by SIKA and several others is not insurance backed, although this can be provided, but it does add to the cost. This is a judgement call for DRBML Directors.
 
I have the name of FRC Roofing, they have worked for my stepson several times. There are many flat roofing companies with names varying around the obvious initials of F R & C, so I will check.
 
@Mark Brough @Tony Bath Good morning chaps, I have an appointment at 10.30 tomorrow Tuesday 29th with a representative of Danosa, a roof membrane manufacturer, who will write a specification for the remedials to the LCS roof. I can be there and I can bring a ladder to access the scaffold, if necessary, I will also ascend to the roof to discuss and understand the issues in more depth, but I wondered if either of you chaps would be around to accompany the Danosa man, if my arthritic knees complain about climbing a ladder?

Regards ........... Kevin
 
Kevin,
Sorry I am away tomorrow so can't help.
I would add that at 81, I don't climb ladders anymore, I just hold them for others to climb.
Tony
 
The visit by Scott Kirkwood of Danosa arranged by Kevin - most profitable. 3Sixty arranged a visit by an independent consultant some weeks ago. A report was produced, but it has not been shared with the board. Kevin has seen it and believes it to be of low quality. Kevin is requesting for it to be shared to us all here. ("Management" forum.) We do not know what we have paid for that independent report.

@Robin Williams please secure agreement from the board before approving payment of any invoice for this report. Following the debacle of the £5,000 payment for the slapdash PMM report, DRBML now has a particular obligation to show due diligence when paying for reports which may be sub-standard.
 
Alex has now published one of the two the core-sampling reports on the other forum. Seems reasonable to me, so long as we have paid reasonably for it. My comments:
  • It doesn't say a lot, but then it probably cannot say more than it does.
  • @Kevin Cook you may want to forward it to Danosa.
  • The report says nothing about two other concerning aspects of the LCS leak situation: (a) the long-term suspicion that drip trays within the cavity wall are deficient and (b) the cause of the blistering on the front elevation. I have put further questions about these two issues to Alex.
  • At the recent board meeting, we explicitly asked about the membrane above cores 1 & 2. We (Robin I recall?) explicitly asked if there have been reports of damp from residents in cores 1 & 2. Alex responded that there have not. And yet this report does speak of damp problems under this membrane (cores 1 & 2).
  • The report also describes a problem with a membrane at flat 97DR, which we have never been advised about.
 
Mark:
1. re: 'secure agreement'...I think I am right to state this report was from Sika..June last year. I will check with Slex as to what, if anything, we paid for the report..and advise.

2. flat 97 DR is...mine! Am about to post on the management forum ref; this..
 
Good morning chaps, In a conversation with one of Sharon's Architect clients, I have a possible contact route to one Dave Williams, who used to work for the Estates Management Department of United Bristol Health Care Trust covering buildings management but as a specialist in roofs, including flat roofing.

He has since set up his own company and might be willing to carry out an inspection and/or to offer advice re LCS/DM and Cores 1 & 2.

Expanding further he might be able to offer consultancy services to us should we wish.

Although I have asked for his contact details, I have not yet made contact. Do my fellow Directors feel this would be worthwhile or are we happy with the report from Scott at Danosa for the time being ? Unlike the report from Danosa, we must expect an invoice if we introduce Dave Williams.
 
Thanks Kevin. If Dave Williams has the right sort of training and expertise pertinent to our situation then I would be very keen to establish a relationship. Either paying him for one-off tasks, or paying him a small retainer for the next couple of years.

We were lucky last week with Danosa, and we have no requests for DW just now, but I'm confident a situation will arise in the next months which we are not equipped to handle.
 
Back
Top