Mr. Brian Robbins DPR Construction One N. Dale Mabry Hwy., Suite 820 Mobile Phone: Tampa, FL

Transcription

1 INNOVATIVE BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURE CONSULTANTS September 16, 2016 Mr. Brian Robbins DPR Construction One N. Dale Mabry Hwy., Suite 820 Mobile Phone: Tampa, FL Project: Subject: Tempo at Encore Dear Mr. Robbins: IBA Consultants has performed a review of the construction documents and an assessment of the asbuilt conditions at the Tempo at Encore project. Our review and assessment is limited to the waterproofing and roofing, glass and glazing, and exterior wall components of the building envelope. The basis for our review and assessment focuses on the requirements of the Florida Building Code, 2010 edition, applicable national standards and accepted industry practices. References to drawings, details and specifications listed in this report are for explanation purposes only and are not intended to be the sole location for our concerns or recommendations. Further, IBA s recommendations are made for the sole discretion of our Client. IBA presents the following comments and recommendations without prejudice so that the Designer of Record can optionally include all or part of the recommendations into the project documents. General 1. Reference Documents: Refer to Appendix A of this report for all submitted items relevant to the building envelope. 2. At the time of our review and our assessment of the as-built conditions, the installation of the building envelope components was approximately 90 percent complete. 3. Building design pressures for the roofing and components of cladding of the subject project are included on the structural drawings, Sheet S-002, as required by the Florida Building Code (FBC). 4. Per Sheet G001, the project is being constructed under the Florida Building Code, 2010 edition. 5. Energy Calculations: IBA recommends a compliance report is provided for review or provide confirmation the project will comply with the prescriptive requirements of the FBC Energy Conservation Code. 6. Specification section refers to a geotechnical report prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. dated November 18, The report is included in the project manual.

2 Page 2 of 25 Below-grade Waterproofing 7. The first floor plan, on sheet A101, indicates three elevator pits. a. The elevator details on sheet A310 calls out for a waterproofing membrane as shown in the detail to the right. b. Waterproofing submittals -- 37, and approve the waterproofing application of Grace Bituthene 3000 Membrane for the elevator pit. c. The dotted line indicated in the architectural detail and the photographs provided in the submittal suggest the waterproofing is not installed at the underside of the slab in the elevator pits. i. Installation of the waterproofing at the underside of the slab is appropriate and applicable if hydrostatic conditions are anticipated. Per the geotechnical report noted in item 6 above, ground water is noted at nine feet below-grade. If the elevator slab is below nine feet, the waterproofing should be installed below the slab. ii. This Grace Bituthene 3000 is not typically used for elevator pit waterproofing but is in accordance with the specification section Self-adhered Waterproofing. iii. The primer required for the Grace Bituthene 3000 is not included in the approved submittal, suggesting a primer was not used in the application. iv. The protection board included in the approved submittal is not in compliance with the manufacturer s required details or products for this application. v. IBA could not verify the waterproofing application at the elevator pits as they were completed prior to our assessment. The elevator pits at the time of our assessment were found to be relatively dry with no evidence of water intrusion from ground water. vi. IBA recommends Grace review and confirm the products used for the elevator pit waterproofing application and the as-built details are in accordance with their requirements and warranty. d. The Architectural Drawings, sheet A501, Waterproofing details provides the product data for Tremco Saltwater Paraseal bentonite sheet membrane for below-grade waterproofing applications but does not specify the intended use for this product. IBA recommends the Architect clarify the material application.

3 Page 3 of 25 e. The geotechnical report recommends a vapor barrier be installed under the slab-on-grade on 6 inches of clean sand to provide a capillary break. No submittal was provided for this application. i. IBA observed a plastic sheet (vapor barrier) is installed below the slab-on-grade. This was observed at the pour-stop of the uncompleted slab-on-grade; refer to the photograph to the right. ii. Slab-on-grade was not completed in the SE retail area and the parking area at the time of our assessment. f. A vapor barrier is required at slab-on-grade; refer to wall section 1, sheet A305, and observed as noted in item e above. Specification section Cast-in-place Concrete requires a vapor retarded/barrier sheeting below the slab-on-grade but does not specify a product or define performance criteria for the material. 8. Damp-proofing is required at the building s perimeter, below-grade foundation walls; refer to the architectural drawing sheet A304. a. The bituminous damp-proofing indicated in Specification section is an appropriate product for the application. b. The bituminous damp-proofing products cannot be exposed to UV. Wall section 2 on sheet A305 indicates the damp-proofing is to extend above-grade, leaving it exposed to UV. c. IBA reviewed the at grade, exterior wall termination around the perimeter of the building at random locations. IBA noted the following items of concerns: i. The exterior sheathing and stucco on the framed wall assemblies extend down below-grade. This condition will cause the decay of the exterior sheathing and allow water to wick-up the sheathing. Deterioration will occur behind the stucco and more likely than not, allow water intrusion at the floor-to-slab transition. This condition does not comply with the FBC or the industry standards, such as ASTM C926 and ASTM C1063; refer to the photographs at right.

4 Page 4 of 25 ii. iii. iv. IBA recommends: 1- Exterior sheathing should not extend beyond the stucco finish. 2- The base of the stucco wall must have a weep screed installed. 3- Weep screed at stucco termination should occur below the wall-to-slab transition a minimum of 1 inch. 4- Weep screed at stucco termination should be installed a minimum of 4 inches above earth and 2 inches above paved areas. 5- Sealing the joint between the exterior sheathing and the slab-on-grade prior to the stucco application. IBA could not visually confirm this was provided at the time of our assessment. The stucco at the CMU walls terminates below-grade and as such, does not comply with the requirements of the FBC or industry standards, as noted above. IBA recommends the stucco termination at-grade be reviewed and corrected to comply with industry standards and to ensure a water-tight flashing detail at the slabon-grade to wall transition. This will require the removal of the existing stucco assembly installed at the floor-to-wall transition. Exterior Wall Assemblies 9. Two types of wall insulation are indicated in the drawings. Batten insulation between studs in the framed-wall assembly and rigid insulation behind the CMU in the block wall assemblies. a. The submittals for the project received by IBA did not include product or performance information for the batten or rigid wall insulation. b. The specification section Building Insulation requires the batten insulation to comply with ASTM C665, Type III. Kraft faced batt. i. The specification has a discrepancy as the Type III insulation would be foil-faced batten. ii. iii. Per the Architectural drawings, sheet G001, the building is a Type 1B construction. The foil-faced insulation is not typically permitted in this type of construction. Our assessment noted un-faced batt insulation. IBA observed wetted batten insulation and drywall in the process of being removed during our assessment. c. Wall Type 16, sheet A701 (non-rated exterior metal stud wall) indicates 6 inch batten insulation (R-19) within the stud wall. IBA observed EcoBatt R-19 insulation on the project. i. Per ASHRAE, Table A9.2B, 6 inches of R19 batten insulation installed between studs at 16 inches on-center has an effective R-value of R-7.1. ii. iii. Architect to confirm the required R-value for the wall assembly. Refer to item 5 above. The insulation used at drywall areas that was not removed during the water remediation should be checked for moisture content.

5 Page 5 of 25 d. Specification section Building Insulation defines the basis-of-design for the ridged insulation as Dow Corning Thermax or Styrofoam brand Walmate. i. Both of these products are considered impermeable. ii. IBA does not recommend impermeable wall components in warm-humid climates. Instead, IBA recommends permeable products (perm ratings greater than 10). iii. IBA observed the use of the Dow insulation board at one location on floor seven, southeast corner. The insulation is exposed. The wall consists of CMU with metalstud framing to the interior. The metal studs have batten insulation installed against the CMU with Dow Thermax installed on the interior side of the wall assembly; refer to the photo to the right. iv. This wall assembly has a non-permeable vapor barrier (Dow Thermax) on the interior side of the wall assembly. As noted above, this is not recommended and will more likely than not allow the development of condensation within the wall assembly. v. IBA recommends a hygrothermal analysis be performed on the wall assembly to evaluate the potential for condensation within the wall assembly. e. IBA noted random exterior wall locations that have no evidence of insulation within the wall cavity. This was confirmed through holes in the drywall, electrical outlets and uncompleted window returns; refer to photographs below. f. After the damaged drywall and insulation has been removed, and prior to any replacement, IBA recommends the following be performed but not limited to: i. Determine the required R-value for the exterior wall assemblies. Refer to Item 5 above. ii. Perform a complete survey of all remaining exterior walls to determine the components of the wall assembly, specifically insulation used within the wall assembly. This survey may require some deconstruction; such as probing or cutting through the interior drywall. iii. Confirm if the existing insulation meets the required R- values at all locations.

6 Page 6 of 25 iv. Perform a hygrothermal analysis of the wall assembly to evaluate the potential for condensation within the wall assembly using the non-permeable vapor barrier. v. Upon completion of the above items, a course of action can be created for installing insulation at the uncompleted or deconstructed exterior wall assemblies as well as creating a course of action for addressing any issues with the existing wall assemblies. 10. Exterior sheathing: No specification section is included in the project manual for the exterior sheathing. a. IBA observed the use of Continental brand exterior sheathing used on the project. This is not in compliance with the stucco submittal 56, which identifies Gold Bond brand EXP Extended exposure sheathing. b. Wall sections on the south elevation will have the exterior sheathing exposed to weather for an extended period of time as the stucco is was completed prior to the stop of construction. IBA recommends these walls be evaluated by the manufacturer to determine if the exterior sheathing requires replacement due to the amount of moisture and rain exposure over the past few months. 11. Stucco: Specification section Portland Cement Stucco is included in the project manual but does not address application over framed-wall assemblies, as indicated in the architectural drawings. a. The drawings appropriately identify 5/8 inch stucco over masonry assemblies. b. The details on the architectural drawings appropriately identify 7/8 inch stucco -- over wire lath -- on the framed wall assemblies. i. One layer of building paper is indicated on the details for application over exterior sheathing. ii. The FBC states: Where stucco is to be applied to lath over frame construction, measures shall be taken to prevent bonding between the cement plaster and the water resistive barrier. A bond break shall be provided between the water resistive barrier and the stucco consisting of one of the following: 1- Two layers of an approved water resistant barrier or 2- One layer of an approved water resistant barrier over an approved plastic house wrap, or 3- Other approved methods or materials applied in accordance with the manufacturer s installation instructions. iii. During our assessment, IBA observed two layers of building paper is provided over the exterior sheathing, prior to the metal lath; as such, in general compliance with the FBC requirements.

7 Page 7 of 25 c. Stucco submittals included in the project documents are 56 and 62. i. The two (2) submittals list different products for the components of the stucco wall assembly. ii. Submittal 56 includes Tyvek building-wrap as part of the assembly. Per ICC-ES report ESR-2375, this product is not acceptable for use in building over 40 feet. Based on IBA s limited assessment of exposed areas, IBA did not observe this product in the exterior wall assembly. d. The stucco application appears to be installed in compliance with industry standards at both the CMU and framed-wall assemblies. IBA did note the following issues that should be addressed: i. Stucco cracking was observed in several of the completed exterior walls. ii. iii. Cement siding / Stucco: No apparent control/expansion joints were observed; Expansion and control joints are required under ASTM C 926 Standard Specification for Application of Portland Cement-Based Plaster. IBA did not determine the products used for this application; refer to the photo to the right. iv. The interior walls of the top floor of the garage do not have expansion/control joints installed as required. Refer to the photo to the right. 12. Cement siding is indicated on the Architectural drawing elevations, but not called out. a. The project manual includes Specification section Horizontal Fiber Cement Siding. b. No submittals were provided for this application. c. The wall sections in the architectural drawings do not show this application. d. IBA could not determine the materials used to create the lap siding look on the building façade. IBA recommends a detailed assessment be performed including deconstruction to determine the as-built conditions.

8 Page 8 of Thin Brick Veneer is indicated in the Architectural drawings on the elevations. a. The project manual does not include a specification section for this application. b. Submittals 65 and for the thin brick veneer were included in the project documents. The submittal does not specify the specific assembly to be used on this project. c. Wall section 3, sheet A305 in the architectural drawings. Indicates this application. i. The wall section indicates the brick veneer set in mortar over building paper on 5/8 inch sheathing. ii. The laticrete thin brick veneer system included in the submittal requires the use of a cement backer board and cannot be applied over the exterior sheathing as noted iii. above. IBA observed the thin brick veneer assembly is direct-applied over the CMU and is not used over exterior sheathing. IBA did not verify materials used for this application. 14. Single Hung windows (Window Schedule sheet A604) a. The project manual includes section Vinyl windows. b. Submittals 41, and for the windows and storefront were included in the project documents provided to IBA. c. The product data submitted for unit types have a U value of 0.36 and a SHGC of Window stickers indicate a U-value of.33 and a SHGC of.28. IBA has not received the compliance report requested report ion item 5 above to confirm the required values for the windows. Further, test reports or certifications were not provided in support of the indicated u-values and SHGC. d. The architectural drawings and submittal are silent on the glass type to be provided. e. The submittal includes Florida Product # for the single hung windows. i. The submittal indicates Doers 3040 single-hung window system, but the Florida product approval is in support of the Doers 4450 single-hung window system. ii. iii. iv. IBA observed evidence that the Doers 4450 single-hung window is installed on the project. The 4450 single hung window system is missile-impact rated, as required. The Architectural drawing, sheet A806, includes the Florida Product approval for the single-hung window to be used on this project. Florida Product approval 16177: Custom Windows systems SH-8100 PVC single-hung window. This does not correlate with the submitted documents or the products observed in the field. f. The design pressures noted in the Florida Product Approval for the single-hung windows meet the wind load requirements noted on sheet S-002 of the structural drawings. The design pressures listed in the structural drawings are ultimate loads; per the FBC the ultimate loads are multiplied by 0.6 for the allowable stress design. g. The single hung window system offers a 2 ½ inch sill riser that can be added to increase the water resistance performance. However, IBA did not observe the sill riser installed on the single hung windows. IBA recommends considering adding this accessory to increase the windows ability to prevent water infiltration.

9 Page 9 of 25 h. The window dimensions indicated in the window schedule and in the submittal are within the maximum dimensions allowed in the submitted test reports. i. The wood buck attachment to the structure varies throughout the building. In addition, the number of and thickness of the wood bucks varies; refer to photograph at right. ii. Per the Florida product approval for the single hung window, the wood buck attachment is the responsibility of the Architect or Engineer of Record. iii. IBA observed numerous window locations that have less than the required 2x wood bucking. Some locations are found to have as little as ½ inch wood bucking. The picture to the right reflects an inappropriate ½ inch wood buck. iv. This inappropriate thickness of the wood buck does not provide sufficient embedment for the perimeter fasteners or the mullion attachments. v. IBA recommends a structural engineer review the wood buck installation and attachment; and provide written confirmation the wood bucks can withstand the loads imposed by the windows. i. The windows are fastened using the nailing fin option, as noted in the Florida product approvals. i. The nailing fin is attached to the wood buck using 1 ¼ inch, # 8 self-tapping sheet metal screws. The Florida product approval requires the use of # 8 wood screws for this application. ii. The fasteners are installed 6 inches from each end and 6 inches on-center, in compliance with the submitted Florida product approvals. iii. The Florida product approval requires the nailing fin fasteners are installed with a minimum embedment into the wood buck of 1 ¼ inch. In the framed wall construction where the fasteners are installed through the exterior sheathing into the wood buck, the required embedment is not achieved. 1 ¼ inch fastener 5/8 inch estimated sheathing thickness = approximately 5/8 inch embedment into the wood buck.

10 Page 10 of 25 iv. Further, the Florida product approval requires the nailing fin fasteners are installed with a minimum edge distance of 7 /16 inch to the edge of the wood buck. Refer to the detail at right. In most cases, this edge distance requirement is not achieved when the wood buck is 1 inch or less. v. In addition, at many locations the fin fasteners miss the wood buck completely. This occurs at the thin buck locations and at the corners where bucks are pieced together; refer to the photographs at right. vi. The nailing fin is sealed to the exterior wood buck and sealed to the exterior sheathing using MFM building product Window Wrap ; refer to the photographs at right.

11 Page 11 of 25 vii. The same sealant and flashing procedure is used in the concrete opening, but the window nailing fin is sealed to the wood buck. The type of flashing tape was not verified; refer to the photographs at right. j. The window flashing as described above is susceptible to water infiltration. Further, the flashing is not installed in accordance with the manufacturer s requirements and does not address the open ends at the top and bottom of the mullions; as seen in the photographs at right. k. IBA recommends field water testing be performed on the completed window installations to evaluate the water resistance capabilities of the as-built conditions. l. The glass installed in the single-hung windows was observed to be insulated with 1/8 inch tempered on the exterior and 1/8inch annealed ;laminate; and1/8 inch annealed at the interior, in accordance with the Florida product approval. Refer to window sticker in the photograph at right. m. IBA recommends a structural engineer review provide a written review of the glazing system, including the anchoring issues noted above, glass analysis in accordance with ASTM E 1300 and the wood buck wood buck installation. 15. Fixed windows (Window Schedule, sheet A604) a. The project manual includes section Vinyl Windows. b. Submittals 41, and for the windows and storefront are included in the project documents provided to IBA.

12 Page 12 of 25 c. The product data submitted for unit types provided have a U value of 0.36 and a SHGC of Window sticker indicates as U-value of 0.31 and a SHGC of IBA has not received the compliance report requested in item 5 above to determine the required values for the windows. Further, no documentation was provided to support the u-value or SHGC values for the products. d. The architectural drawings and submittal are silent on the glass type to be used. e. The submittal includes Florida Product in support of the Doers 4650 fixed windows. i. IBA observed evidence the Doers 4650 fixed window is used on the project. ii. iii. iv. The 4650 fixed window system is missile-impact rated, as required. The Architectural drawing sheet A805 includes the Florida Product approval for the fixed window to be used on this project. Florida Product approval R1: Custom window systems PW-8151 PVC fixed window. This does not correlate with the submitted document or the products found on site. The design pressures noted in the Florida Product Approval for the fixed windows meet the wind load requirements noted on sheet S-002 of the structural drawings. The design pressures listed in the structural drawings are ultimate loads; per the FBC the ultimate loads are multiplied by 0.6 for the allowable stress design. f. The fixed windows were observed installed on floors 6 and 7 facing the interior garage area. All the windows had been installed and the stucco had been completed. The exterior window flashing and caulking could not be verified. g. The wood buck attachment to the structure appears to be in general compliance with the requirements noted on page 5 of the applicable Florida product approval. h. IBA observed numerous window locations that have a 1 inch wood buck; refer to photograph at right. This is supported by the Florida Product approval but is an issue with the mullion attachment noted later in this report. i. IBA removed the interior snap covers at one window location and did not observe the required perimeter fasteners. Refer to the photograph and detail cut from the Florida product approval included in the submittal.

13 Page 13 of 25 j. IBA believes the wrong Florida product approval ( ) was submitted for the installation. Florida Product approval includes a nailing fin on the exterior. This attachment was not verified due to the completed stucco application. IBA recommends the fastening of these windows be confirmed. k. IBA could not directly access the exterior of windows. However, IBA s observations from the roof noted at least one window is installed upside down -- the weeps are at the head of the window (typically at the sill); refer to photograph at right. IBA recommends all fixed windows be reviewed and installed with the weeps at the sill, as required. l. IBA also noted that some of the fixed windows did not have the exterior mullion cover installed. IBA recommends all fixed windows have the mullion covers installed as required. m. IBA recommends field water testing be performed on the completed window installations to evaluate the water resistance capabilities of the as-built conditions. n. The glass installed in the Fixed windows was found to be insulated with 1/8 inch annealedair space and 1/8 inch; laminate; 1/8 annealed, in general accordance with the Florida product approval. IBA did not verify if the laminated glass was on the interior, as specified in the product approval; refer to window sticker seen in the photograph at right. 16. Mullions are included in the submittal for used in conjunction with the fixed and single Hung windows. a. The submittal includes Florida Product for the aluminum vertical mullions. b. Per the test report, these are for use in wood or concrete openings. Minimum wood buck required to be 2 x buck.

14 Page 14 of 25 c. IBA observed evidence the mullion used is the 4100 mullion as indicated in the Florida Product approval -- but we did not verify if the optional reinforcing had been installed within the mullions. Based on the building design loads and the load charts in the Florida Product approval, the mullion without reinforcing is sufficient for use on this project. d. The mullions were observed attached to the (2x) wood bucks using 1 ¼ inch self-tapping sheet metal screws. The Florida product approval requires the use of #10 x 1 ½ inch FH wood screws for this application; refer to photograph of fastener at right and detail cut from the Florida product approval. e. The Florida product approval requires the use of 3/16 inch ITW concrete fasteners to attach the mullion clip if a 1 inch wood buck is used. IBA observed the same #8 x 1 ¼ inch self-tapping sheet metal screws are used in locations with 1 inch wood bucks; refer to detail at right. f. IBA noted corroded mullion fasteners; refer to photographs below.

15 Page 15 of 25 Window attachment to the mullions appears to be in general compliance with the Florida product approval. However, the fastener type was not verified. Refer to the photograph at right. g. IBA recommends a structural engineer review and provide written confirmation the anchoring issues noted above are appropriate and applicable. 17. Exterior Swing Doors are included in the elevation and unit types of the submittal package. However, product data or Florida Product approvals were not included in the submittal. a. The unit and elevation indicates Florida product approval and for Plastpro Onelite series inswing outswing doors. b. The Onelite series doors are impact resistant as required. c. The Architectural drawings, sheet A801, includes the Florida Product approval for the French Doors; Florida Product approval 9390-R2: Builders Hardware, Inc. glazed fiberglass door. This does not correlate with the submitted documents. d. The product data submitted for unit types provided have a U-value 0f 0.36 and a SHGC of IBA has not received the compliance report requested in item 5 above to determine the required values for the swing doors. Further, no test reports or certification were provided to support the values for the French door. e. The assessment of the swing doors was limited due to lack of balcony access at the time of the assessment. f. The wood buck attachment to the structure could not be verified. g. Further, the number of and thickness of the wood bucks varies throughout the building. i. The Florida product approval provides requirements for the attachment of the wood buck up to a (2x) wood buck. ii. IBA recommends a structural engineer review the wood buck installation and attachment and confirm in writing that the wood bucks can withstand the loads imposed by the windows. h. Perimeter anchorage of the swing doors was not verified during our assessment.

16 Page 16 of 25 i. The door thresholds were observed covered with dirt and construction debris. Further, the thresholds are not properly sealed to the slab; refer to the photograph at right. The door thresholds do not meet ADA requirements. IBA recommends confirmation that the doors are not required to be ADA accessible. j. No flashing was observed at the rough opening for the door frame. This causes a breach in the air/weather membrane behind the stucco. The wood bucks and the edge of the exterior sheathing will be exposed behind the stucco system; refer to the photographs at right. i. IBA recommends the doors be removed to allow for proper flashings. This installation is susceptible to water infiltration and will allow water damage to the exterior sheathing, wood blocking and the components of the wall assembly. ii. IBA recommends a primary sealant application be provided from the rough opening flashing to the door frame and a secondary sealant application from the door frame to the stucco. iii. iv. Perimeter sealant is not installed at this time. IBA recommends field water testing be performed on the completed door installations to evaluate the water resistance capabilities of the as-built conditions. k. The architectural drawings and submittal are silent on the glass type to be used. l. IBA observed the swing-door glass is a single layer of tempered glass on the exterior with the laminated glass installed to the interior side, as required by the Florida product approval.

17 Page 17 of 25 m. The window sticker indicates the tempered glass side is to be glazed to the interior, but that does not comply with the Florida product approval; refer to the photograph at right. The configuration of the glass was not verified during our assessment. 18. Exterior Sliding Glass Doors are included in the elevation and unit types of the submittal package. However, no product data or Florida product approval are included in the submittal. a. The unit and elevation calls out Florida product approval for the Doers Series Jazz sliding patio door. This does not match the door installed on the project. b. IBA cannot complete the review of the door installation until the product installed is verified. c. The Architectural drawing, sheet A804, includes the Florida Product approval for the sliding glass to be used on this project; Florida Product approval R1: Custom window systems SGD-8900 sliding glass door. d. The product data submitted for unit types provided have a U value 0f 0.36 and a SHGC of IBA has not received the compliance report requested in item 5 above to determine the required values for the sliding glass doors. Further, test reports or certifications were not submitted to confirm the products meet these values. e. The assessment of the sliding glass doors was limited due to required fall-protection at the doors. f. The wood buck attachment to the structure could not be verified. Further, the number of and thickness of the wood bucks varies throughout the building. Refer to the photograph at right. g. IBA recommends a structural engineer provide written confirmation of the window and wood buck installation and attachment, confirming the wood bucks can withstand the loads imposed by the windows.

18 Page 18 of 25 h. IBA observed the sliding glass doors at ground level have a nailing fin attachment with window wrap flashing at some of the doors inspected; similar to the single hung windows. Refer to the photographs at right. This ground floor condition needs to be assessed further to assure a water-tight flashing detail is achieved. Further, this correlates to the stucco weep screed termination noted above. i. The architectural drawings and submittal are silent on the glass type requirements. i. IBA cannot confirm the glass type used is appropriate until the door product is determined and a Florida product approval is provided for the sliding glass doors. ii. IBA noted the glass is installed with laminated glass on the exterior of the operable panel and the interior of the fixed panel; one of these conditions will most likely not be in compliance with the test report. j. The sliding glass door sills do not meet ADA requirements. IBA recommends confirmation be provided that the doors on the ground floor are not required to be ADA accessible. k. IBA recommends field water testing be performed on the completed sliding glass door installations to evaluate the water resistance capabilities of the as-built conditions. 19. Exterior steel entrance doors are included in the submittal package 67. a. The Architectural drawing, sheet A803, includes the Florida Product approval for the steel entrance doors to be used on this project; Miami Dade Notice of Acceptance : SteelCraft series H16-4 commercial steel door w / Mortise Lock set. b. The SteelCraft doors are impact resistant, as required. c. Doors are not installed at the time of our assessment. 20. Louver are indicated on the elevations, but no submittal for the louvers were provided. a. The specifications do not include a section for Louvers. b. The Architectural drawing, sheet A807, includes the Florida Product approval for the louvers to be used on this project; Miami Dade Notice of Acceptance : Industrial Louvers Inc. Model 653XPDC 6 inch. c. Louvers were not installed at time of our assessment. 21. The architectural drawings, elevations, indicate a mock-balcony at the Sliding Glass doors above the first floor. a. These railing are not installed at the time of our assessment. b. IBA recommends an appropriate sealant detail be provided for the anchoring and sealing of the railing attachments through the completed stucco application.

19 Page 19 of Aluminum sun shades are indicated on the elevation drawings and addressed in the Specification section Exterior Sun Control Devices. a. No submittal is provided for the sun shades. b. The sunshades are not installed at the time of our assessment. c. IBA recommends appropriate anchoring and sealing of the sunshade attachments through the completed stucco application. 23. IBA observed the vertical expansion joint at the interior garage walls is not sealed at the time of our assessment. Further, we noted the expansion joint in the courtyard area is covered by a stucco accessory; refer to the photographs at right. This does not comply with the architectural drawing details, sheet A508; refer to details below. a. IBA recommends all vertical expansion joints be reviewed and a water-tight joint be designed that can accommodate the anticipated movement of the joint.

20 Page 20 of 25 b. Further, IBA recommends sealing the joints in the precast slab and around the perimeter of the top floor of the parking area to prevent water from migrating to the parking levels below. Refer to the photograph at right. A vehicle traffic coating should also be considered for this level of the parking deck. 24. Liquid-applied waterproofing is indicated at the balcony decks; refer to wall section 2, sheet A304, of the Architectural drawings. a. The project Specification does not address the liquid-applied waterproofing. b. Further, no submittal is provided for this application. 25. Waterproofing is not applied to the balconies. This includes the terrace deck at floor 3, south elevation. a. Industry standards and the architectural drawings, detail 9/A507, require the waterproofing to extend vertically on the CMU, prior to the stucco application. In addition, manufacturer s require a sealant bead at the vertical-to-horizontal transition prior to stucco. b. Without this waterproofing flashing detail, the floor-to-wall transition is susceptible to water infiltration; this applies to the slab-on-grade to wall transition as well. Refer to the photographs below. c. IBA recommends the stucco be cut back to allow for the installation of an appropriate floorto-wall transition waterproofing.

21 Page 21 of TPO Roof a. Specification, section Thermoplastic Membrane Roofing is included in the project manual. b. Specification identifies Firestone Ultraply 80 mil TPO as basis-of-design. The Ultraply NOA is included in the Architectural drawing, sheet A809. c. GAF Everguard 80 mil TPO is submitted and materials consistent with the submittal were observed on-site during our assessment. d. A Florida Product approval or Miami Dade NOA was not provided for the roofing system in the submittals. a. IBA cannot complete the assessment of the existing roofing assembly without a Florida product approval or NOA in support of the installed system. e. The roofing system is partially installed at the time of this assessment, with uncomplete areas throughout the entire roof assembly. This includes but not limited to; incomplete copings, unsealed penetrations and unsealed terminations between completed work areas and incomplete work areas. Refer to the photos below for typical conditions. i. These conditions more likely than not have allowed water infiltration into the roof insulation and to the underlying concrete deck. ii. This could cause loss of bond between layers of insulation, and between the insulation and the concrete substrate. iii. This is in addition to causing damage and warping of the insulation.

22 Page 22 of 25 f. Many of the scuppers are not completed on the exterior face. IBA noted one secondary scupper hole location on the exterior wall is missing in the roof assembly; refer to the photograph at right. g. IBA noted the TPO roof membrane is adhered to plywood substrates. The wood is water damaged at many locations. Refer to the photographs at right. i. All damaged wood should be removed from the assembly. ii. These conditions will need to be reviewed for compliance with the manufacturer s allowable substrates and application procedures, as well as the Florida Building Code restrictions on wood within a roof assembly. h. The TPO roofing membrane in the completed areas of the roof appear to be installed in compliance with the manufacturer s installation requirements. Refer to the photographs at right.

23 Page 23 of 25 i. IBA recommends a detailed assessment of the TPO roofing assembly be performed including but not limited to the following; i. Determining the applicable Florida Product approval or NOA that supports the system installed. ii. Confirm roof meets the uplift requirements for the project. iii. Deconstruct the roof assembly at random locations to determine the make-up and attachment methods. iv. Survey the entire roof assembly mapping out each incomplete area and deficiency. v. At locations with possible water infiltration into the system, determine the extent of the water damage by deconstructing the roof assembly. A procedure should be developed for the removal and replacement of damaged roof materials at each of the locations. vi. Further, the manufacturer should review and approve of the remediation procedures to maintain any warranties. 27. The shingle roof system is addressed in Specification section a. No submittal is provided for the shingle roof system. b. The Architectural drawing, Sheet A808, includes an NOA for GAF Timberline Shingles. c. IBA could not verify the product are installed on site. d. The radius roofs on the corners of the building have asphalt shingles at the time of our assessment. Each of the roof areas have one small area that is not complete at the top of each roof. This condition allows water to the underlying wood substrate as seen in the photograph at right. e. Other shingle roof areas are not installed and damage to the plywood substrate is evident. Refer to the photograph at right. f. All damaged wood should be removed from the assembly. g. IBA recommends a detailed assessment of the shingle roofing assembly be performed including but not limited to the following: i. Determining the manufacturer of the asphalt shingles installed and what Florida product approval or NOA supports the system installed. ii. iii. Confirm roof meets the uplift requirements for the project. Deconstruct the roof assembly at random locations to determine the make-up and attachment methods.

24 Page 24 of 25 iv. At locations with possible water infiltration into the system, determine the extent of the water damage by deconstructing the roof assembly. A procedure should be developed for the removal and replacement of damaged roof materials at each of the locations. Further, the manufacturer should review and approve the remediation procedures to maintain any warranty. Please do not hesitate to call us should you have questions or concerns regarding the above items. Respectfully submitted by, Reviewed by, Mike Presciti Senior Consultant IBA Consultants, Inc. Ken Pangborn Senior Consultant IBA Consultants, Inc. The information contained herein has been prepared subject to the terms and conditions of an Agreement and is not intended for use by any recipient other than the party to the aforesaid Agreement. IBA Consultants, Inc. is not the Engineer or Architect of Record. Accordingly, IBA Consultants, Inc., its affiliates, agents, representatives and assigns do not make any representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or suitability of the statements, conclusions, information, products, services, or related graphics, charts, tabulations or photographs contained herein for any purpose whatsoever other than that which is contained within the aforesaid Agreement. Any reliance that the recipient places on such information is therefore strictly at the recipients own risk. In no event will IBA Consultants, Inc., its affiliates, agents, representatives and assigns be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from, out of, or in connection with, the use of the materials contained herein by any recipient of this information who is not a party to the aforesaid Agreement.

25 Appendix A Submitted Documents Page 25 of 25 Submitted Documents Item Document Number Document Description Number Date of Pages A-1 Architectural Drawings 100% CD drawings 12/20/ A-2 Project manual / Specifications/ Volume I 12/20/ A-3 Below grade WP submittals 37, 37.01, Various N/A A-4 Roof Submittal # 74 11/23/15 82 A-5 Expansion Control device submittal # /22/ A-6 Stucco submittals # 56 and 62 Various N/A A-7 Window/Storefront Submittal #41, 41.01, Various N/A A-8 Entrance door submittal # 67 9/14/ A-9 Thin Brick Veneer submittal # 65 and Various N/A Comments