Re-using drywall and cove base removed from the walls on a project in the build-out of the new space configuration?
Jack GaynorPPM II| HUD-PIH REACTampa, Fl, United States
I am a Government Project Manager with over 27 years in construction (20 year as a DOD GC / 7+ years as a Gov PM). Recently I was reviewing submittals and discovered drywall, studs and cove base were missing. When I asked the GC why he had not submitted these required documents he said his company planned on re-using the demoed drywall and cove base in the build-out so there are no submittals required. He then said he has been doing this for over 7 years on government contracts and claimed it was the current industry standard. Is this really a new practice? There are countless reasons why such a practice is flawed, however a GS-15 Supervisor stated he saw this practice as a way of meeting a waste reduction measure. Let me know what you think. Saving Changes...
I am not a proper person to answer your question since I don't have much idea about characteristics of materials in the home or commercial building construction.
However, it might be viewed as a conflict with which you should deal, and of which you should find out the best option for your project. There might be contractual backgrounds when the contractor exercises unfamiliar practices like re-use of materials removed from existing structure. Re-use in the build-out might be an example of contractual fulfillment if the contractor planned accordingly based on any form of agreement (contract) or even bidding documents.
In my opinion, if demobilized materials are re- used to deliver the Permanent Works for the reduction of waste purpose, it should be technically supported and documented, and the relevant clauses in the contract documents should be sources of this practice.
The other thing is that there is no reason to accept this practice only because this practice is allegedly considered as the standard practice by the GC. Even though this is standardized practice, standards are not bound to lead to contractual claims or legal actions if there are acceptable reasons by concerned parties not to apply the specific portion of standards, while regulations or relevant laws, if applicable, are strictly to be kept during any stage of construction project unless exclusions are applied. In case of any illegal things in the contract documents, the contract might be no longer effective.
My suggestions:
1. You might consult with relevant documents bound by law,
2. You might request the GC to provide technical calculations to support re-use, in case that there are no clear stipulations for re-use in the contract but re-use is legal.
3. Various opinions from the consulting professionals who have expertise might be helpful,
4. Hold a meeting with the stakeholders to discuss and find out the best option for your project
Personally I am not a fan of "to-be-reused type of materials" for the Permanent Works since it is very hard to control the quality of the Works and to ensure the quantity of reusable materials is correct from the secured removal to the qualified installation for re-use.
Regards, Saving Changes...
Jack GaynorPPM II| HUD-PIH REACTampa, Fl, United States
The specifications are clear the GC is not to re-use drywall or cove base. In fact this is an IDIQ Line Item contract where the government stipulates the quantity of drywall and cove base to be removed and replaced using four separate line items (1.0 Remove drywall, 2.0 Install new Drywall, etc...). There is also the fact that the GC is being paid for each line item listed requiring them to complete the work as scoped.
What I am really asking is how many Project Managers have actually allowed their Drywall subcontractor to install drywall removed by the demolition crew and what justifies accepting the risk for such a practice. Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
Do I understand, Jack, that the sub-contractor is paid as though putting new drywall? If that's the case, I would go ahead and force the sub-contractor to put in new drywall, regardless of past practice.
If, on the other hand, they discount the billed price when re-using dry-wall, you can decide which way you want to go. Saving Changes...
Jack GaynorPPM II| HUD-PIH REACTampa, Fl, United States
Yes the GC is being paid for the new material and installation. No discount was offered and as the government project manager I am not authorized to negotiate one. Only a government contracting officer is authorized to change a specification requirement, negotiate pricing, and provide a modification to the contract for such a change.
What I am looking for is input from Project Managers that have allowed the re-use of drywall and cove base on projects coupled with the reason for their decision. Thank you for your response,
...
1 reply by Stéphane Parent
Dec 08, 2016 2:07 PM
Stéphane Parent
...
I've worked in and with the federal government. I understand the procurement process and restrictions that you are under.
Let's say you do find other government project managers that can verify the practice. (I truly hope not.) Would you have to go back to your procurement officer to get some kind of waiver?
Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
Dec 08, 2016 1:58 PM
Replying to Jack Gaynor
...
Yes the GC is being paid for the new material and installation. No discount was offered and as the government project manager I am not authorized to negotiate one. Only a government contracting officer is authorized to change a specification requirement, negotiate pricing, and provide a modification to the contract for such a change.
What I am looking for is input from Project Managers that have allowed the re-use of drywall and cove base on projects coupled with the reason for their decision. Thank you for your response,
I've worked in and with the federal government. I understand the procurement process and restrictions that you are under.
Let's say you do find other government project managers that can verify the practice. (I truly hope not.) Would you have to go back to your procurement officer to get some kind of waiver? Saving Changes...
Jack GaynorPPM II| HUD-PIH REACTampa, Fl, United States
No even if another government PM or group of PM's state this was a common practice in the Agency I serve I would not be obligated to change my technical evaluation of the GC's request. If on the other hand I agreed with such a group or practice I would have to request a modification to remove the requirements for new materials from the original contract specification. Even if the GC went directly to the Contracting Officer (CO) for such a waiver it would be difficult for the CO to make such a change to the contract without a technical evaluation and concurrence from myself or another member above my position and pay grade to make it actually happen. Saving Changes...
