The National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) announced the 151 Regional CotY (Contractor of the Year)^TM Winners in the 2012 competition, of which, 6 winners and one honoree are members of the NARI Greater Dallas chapter representing the Dallas metroplex. Judging for the regional projects took place at NARI’s national headquarters inDes Plaines,Illinois, in the second week of January. Regional CotY Winners will now advance as finalists at the national level.

Contractors from seven regions around the country vie for CotY Awards on an annual basis, and all regional winners will now be eligible for National CotY Awards and will be honored at NARI’s Evening of Excellence^SM on Saturday, April 21, 2012 at the Gaylord Texan Hotel andConferenceCenter, located in Grapevine (Dallas),Texas.

NARI Greater Dallas Regional CotY Award Winners are:

Graf Developments – Residential Kitchen $80,001 to $120,000

Traver Construction, Inc. – ResidentialBath$30,000 to $60,000

Key Residential, Ltd. – Residential Addition over $250,000

Southwest Fence & Deck – Residential Exterior under $100,000

R.H. Residential Renovations, Ltd. – Residential Exterior Specialty

Provenance Builders – Residential Historical Renovation/Restoration

Euro Design/Build/Remodel – Universal Design Project Honoree

Indoor Air Quality was the first priority for TerraCourt at Montgomery Farms in Allen

Lee Hall of Sustainable Structures of Texas says YES it can. Hall claims that too many people put emphasis on building a tight structure without giving thought to the effect that can have on indoor air quality.

Indoor environmental quality was a focused concern in the construction of TERRAcourt which includes a whole-house ventilation system and was finished using only low VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) paints and adhesives.  Putting air quality as the primary concern demanded a consistent, durable quality of construction, and energy efficiency became a bi-product of the measures taken.  As a result, the home became the first LEED Gold certified home in Collin County and received the EPA’s Indoor airPlus designation, a new and rare distinction in the market.

Striving to attain these ultimate ratings while building a comfortable and desirable home that didn’t break the bank to build, Hall opted not to use special technology or unusual materials.  He said the home’s advanced framing techniques were key to the home’s energy performance rating; it scored a 49 HERS (Home Energy Rating System) which is 43% more efficient than the Energy Star requirement of 85, and a tightness coefficient of .08 which is 76% tighter than the industry norm. Using less wood more efficiently is not only more environmentally friendly, but also negates thermal bypass.  Best of all, the reduced cost on using less wood for framing can then offset some of the additional insulative measures needed to attain premium energy efficiency ratings.

Hall used a combination of polysealing, spray foam and cellulose applications for the home.  Other sustainable features of the home include a 2000 gallon bioswale for rainwater collection.

TerraCourt is located at Montgomery Farm(R) in Allen, which is garnering a national reputation as a model of 21^st Century smart growth, green building and environmentally-conscious neighborhood design.

Those of you wondering why you had to pay the fees to take the Lead Renovator Training class and to file with EPA and others seem to be getting away with not doing it may be interested to know that EPA is flexing its muscle.  Window World of St. Louis Inc., has agreed to pay a $19,529 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to notify owners and occupants of at least 20 St. Louis-area residential properties built before 1978 of lead-based paint risks prior to performing renovation work at those locations, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

According to an administrative consent agreement filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., the window replacement company, located in Maryland Heights, Mo., was legally required to provide owners and residents of the properties with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet before starting renovations at the properties.

The next thing to watch out for will be OSHA. They will begin enforcement of new residential fall protection guidelines on June 16, 2011.  Residential builders will be required to take measure to ensure that employees working six feet or more above the lower level of the site to use guardrails, safety nets or a personal fall arrest system.  A personal fall arrest system includes a full body harness, a deceleration device, a lanyard, and an anchor point, and must be rigged to prevent a worker from reaching the fall hazard and falling over the edge.

It does seem like the government agencies are trying to come up with ideas to make money. Just wish they wouldn’t do things drive up costs for builders and remodelers in these delicate economic times.  Those contractors that are paying the fees and taking the courses to comply with new requirements at least deserve some acknowledgement. After 19 years of publishing ou magazine for the residential construction industry, we have launched a new website www.buildersavvy.com to help consumers do a better job of selecting a contractor to build or remodel their home. Some of the recommended criteria includes: Is your builder a member of a professional industry association? What types of continuing education has he/she taken.  We will make an announcement soon about the Builder/Remodeler directory being developed on this site and your opportunities to list on it.

In August of this year, the Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a manufacturer of a product is responsible to indemnify a subcontractor under the Texas Products Liability Act (TPLA) for damages caused by the product after it was incorporated into a home.  Before the Supreme Court was the case of Fresh Coat, Inc. vs. K-2, Inc. where Fresh Coat was the subcontractor who purchased K-2’s exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS) for installation in approximately ninety homes constructed by the builder.  The purchasers of ninety homes sued Life Forms, Inc. (the builder), Fresh Coat, Inc. (the subcontractor), and K-2, Inc. (the manufacturer) alleging the EIFS was defectively designed and allowed water penetration that in turn caused structural damage, termite problems, and mold.

Prior to commencing the work, Fresh Coat signed a contract where it agreed to indemnify the builder from any damages assessed against the builder regardless of fault.  Ultimately before the case went to trial, the builder, Fresh Coat, and K-2 settled with the homeowners.  Fresh Coat paid the homeowners just over $1 million.  Fresh Coat also settled with the builder, paying $1.2 million to cover part of the builder’s payment to the homeowners.  The case ultimately proceeded to trial on various claims K-2 and Fresh Coat asserted against each other.  The Trial Court entered judgment in favor of Fresh Coat for all damages requested.  K-2 appealed arguing that Fresh Coat was not entitled to indemnification for the payment Fresh Coat made to the builder because EIFS was not a “product” and Fresh Coat was not a “seller” as those terms are defined under the TPLA.

The TPLA provides that a manufacturer shall indemnify and hold harmless a seller against loss arising out of a products liability action, except for any loss caused by the seller’s negligence, intentional misconduct, or other act or omission, such as negligently modifying or altering the product, for which the seller is independently liable.  Generally, this means that a manufacturer of a product must indemnify the seller of its products so long as the loss was not caused by the seller’s actions.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected K-2’s argument that Fresh Coat was not a seller and the EIFS was not a product.  In fact, the High Court held that EIFS and its components were a “product” (i.e., something that is distributed commercially for use or consumption and that is usually tangible personal property, the result of fabrication or processing, and an item that has passed through a chain of distribution before consumption), notwithstanding the fact that the EIFS was incorporated into the construction of a wall.  Further, the Court noted that nothing within the TPLA excluded EIFS from being the type of defective product that can give rise to a products-liability action.

Regarding K-2’s argument that Fresh Coat was not a seller, the Court again rejected such argument.  The TPLA defines seller as a person who is engaged in the business of distributing or otherwise placing, for any commercial purpose, in the stream of commerce for use or consumption a product or any component part thereof.  The Court held that Fresh Coat was a seller as it distributed the EIFS into the stream of commerce for consumption or use.

Ultimately, the Texas Supreme Court held that the EIFS was a product, Fresh Coat was a seller, and K-2 was obligated to indemnify Fresh Coat for the settlement payment Fresh Coat made to the builder.  Consequently, the TPLA does not limit the term “product” to exclude items that become incorporated into a home.

With respect to subcontractors, the effect of this case is quite clear.  Subcontractors will benefit from the manufacturer’s obligations to indemnify them for all damages arising out of products liability actions.  Some commentators are even of the opinion that this case provides a form of free insurance to subcontractors.  The Fresh Coat case could realistically lead to manufacturers assuming the subcontractor’s defense in future cases.  By manufacturer’s assuming such defense, subcontractor’s can avoid the cost of litigation and benefit from the indemnity provision, while manufacturers could reduce the cost of litigation and their ultimate indemnity obligations.

Given the Fresh Coat opinion, the obvious next question is: Will its holding and the indemnity requirement extend to general contractors and homebuilders?  In this author’s opinion, the answer is yes.  Clearly, the EIFS would remain a product regardless of whether the case is reviewed from a contractor or subcontractor’s perspective.  Moreover, it is likely that general contractors and homebuilders would be considered a “seller” under the TPLA and entitled to the same indemnity that Fresh Coat received from K-2.  Specifically, it would appear that a homebuilder who constructed a home with EIFS engaged in the business of distributing or otherwise placing, for any commercial purpose, in the stream of commerce for use or consumption a product or any component part thereof.  The indemnity provisions of the TPLA, and possible assumption of a defense, will likely benefit general contractors as well.

The Fresh Coat case will ultimately have application to general and subcontractors for all manufactured products.  Fresh Coat is an actual game changer that can effectively require the manufacturer to indemnify contractors for all liability arising from the product, regardless of whether the product was incorporated into a component or system of a home.  In the future, contractors who are defending construction defect claims that are premised on defective products (i.e., EIFS, pex, fixtures, etc.) should consider Fresh Coat and potentially pursue indemnity from the product manufacturer.

It is critical to follow the manufacturer’s recommended fastener spacing and fastener type. In this example fasteners are completely missing from the bottom of the window unit.

In one episode of the popular TV show Home Improvement, Tim Taylor (Tim Allen) was attempting to install a particular product when he became frustrated with the instructions provided by the product’s manufacturer. In his frustration, Tim stated, “Instructions are just the manufacturer’s opinion on how to install it.” He implied that he might have a different, even better opinion of how to install the product. These comments made for a good laugh then and now, but more importantly bring to focus the question of whether or not we take the time to learn the manufacturer’s intended installation method or whether we allow our subcontractors to substitute their own.

Tim’s installation experience lives on as a reminder of the choice that is made each time a manufactured product is installed. Do we or our installer take the time to gain the manufacturer’s insight, or do we install construction components without the benefit of the manufacturer’s knowledge and experience? Someone on the jobsite is making the choice of how they will install each product, whether by default or through conscious choice.  In the arena of construction, it is important to recognize the benefits of following the manufacturer’s installation instructions as well as the risks of installing products according to our limited understanding and experience.

It is significant to understand that following the manufacturer’s installation instructions is often a requirement of the International Residential Code (IRC). In multiple instances the IRC incorporates the manufacturer’s installation instructions, making these instructions requirements of the code. Examples of IRC reference to manufacturer’s installation instructions include products such as: factory-built chimneys, HVAC equipment, water heaters, appliances, whirlpool tubs and so on. The IRC often contains general minimum requirements associated with installation of such products, but recognizes the value of the manufacturer’s experience and testing. In other instances the IRC does not mention products specifically, yet requires products to successfully perform a particular task which indirectly implies proper installation. More often than not the manufacturer has knowledge and experience that we don’t, making them the most qualified of all parties to determine how their product is best installed. In addition to code compliance, other benefits of installing construction components according to the manufacturer’s installation instructions include:

Reduced exposure to construction litigation – Construction components installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions greatly reduce the risk of product failure and consequential damage that often results. If a particular product fails and yet was installed correctly, the manufacturer is likely to share remediation costs. If proper installation of construction products is verified by a third-party inspector, this is an added layer of insulation against loss from litigation.

Reduced warranty callbacks – Properly installed products help reduce callback expenses, which makes  “doing it right the first time” always the most cost-effective method. We are also aware that fewer callbacks translate to happier customers through improved customer satisfaction scores, ultimately translating into referrals and sales.

Enhanced product performance –  The degree of compliance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions often determines the level of performance that a product is likely to yield for the life of the home. With performance products, such as wall insulation, this translates to lower utility bills and savings make for happier customers.

Better product lifespan – Correctly installed products typically last longer when installed per the manufacturer’s instructions. A prime example of this is air conditioning condensers which, if installed and maintained in a level position, permit the oil in the compressor to properly lubricate the compressor’s moving parts and keep the compressor in service for a longer period of time. A level condenser also reduces wear of the fan motor bearings.

Improved appearance – Manufacturers of products with elements of aesthetic value are concerned with the appearance of their product. Consequently, following the installation instructions is likely to result in a better looking installation. Examples of such products are roofing and siding.

The greatest opportunities for improvement with manufactured products that we encounter include: windows, window flashing, housewrap, sheathing, siding, I-joists, roof decking, shingles, and drop-down attic stairways. Other manufactured components such as HVAC equipment, fireplaces and appliances are occasionally found with defect; nonetheless, there are fewer instances of defects as these installers are generally better trained.

What measures can be taken to insure compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions? The first step is to do an inventory of the products currently in use, obtaining the manufacturer’s installation requirements for each. This is often an eye opener as we learn things that we were simply not aware of. Not all products will have installation instructions from the manufacturer or mill, but most will, or, installation instructions can often be obtained through an association standard such as with engineered woods through the APA (The Engineered Wood Association). The manufacturer’s installation instructions should also be obtained for any new products that are introduced. Secondly, all installation instructions should be passed along to the installers on the jobsite and accountability should be established. A lack of attention to detail by a subcontractor could very well drag you into court at a later date. Finally, these products should be carefully inspected, after installation, before cover-up, by a qualified person other than the installer.

Having a better knowledge of construction products and adhering to the proper installation of these will keep you ahead of the competition.

Construction in North America today is a bilingual industry, however most people aren’t bilingual. To address this issue, bilingual author and Civil Engineer Michael Devloo has published (in book format and online) several useful tools to help the English-speaking contractor bridge the language gap with the Spanish-speaking labor force.  The Casa Construction text is designed to serve as a standard field reference for the building construction industry. For example, Casa Construction, Exterior provides a quick and organized reference for terminology and concepts for residential construction projects in a side-by-side dual language format.  We have a few copies of this book available at a special price.  Email Beverly@buildingsavvy.com for information.

Other products like Devloo’s Guide to Hiring Spanish Speaking Workers for Construction are designed to break down the language barrier and make English-Spanish communication possible for non bilingual people in today’s bilingual construction industry.  Visit CasaConstructionBook.com for more information and ordering info, including the ability to view a sample chapter from the book in PDF format.