← Back to Insights Strata

Before the Committee Tenders Remedial Waterproofing, Put the Record in Front of It

The situation is usually the same. A lot is leaking into the one below. The owner has an opinion, the committee has another, and there are quotes for works on the table. At least one of those quotes was written by the trade who is also the only person to have looked at the problem. The manager has to put something to the committee, and someone has to decide what to fund.

Most of what goes wrong from here goes wrong because two different questions have been folded into one.

Two questions, two owners

The first question is what is there. The condition of the wet areas in the affected lot and the one below, the falls to each waste, the junctions where two systems meet, the visible water paths, the products where they can be identified, and the limits of what can be seen without opening anything up. That is a record. It is made by someone with no interest in which quote gets accepted, and it is the same document whoever reads it.

The second question is what to do about it. The cause of the leak, the minimum works, whether a membrane is defective. Those belong with an engineer or building consultant who puts their name to them. Who is responsible for the repair is a question for the owners corporation and its advisers. They are not something an inspection produces, and they are not something a quote should be standing in for.

RKOps does the first. The engineer or consultant the committee engages does the second. Keeping them apart is what makes the second one defensible.

Why a tender written from a quote goes wide

When the only assessment of the problem is the quote for fixing it, the scope of works and the scope of the problem are the same document, written by the same party. The usual result is that the scope grows to cover uncertainty. Nobody knows whether the membrane has failed along one edge or across the whole floor, so the quote covers the whole floor. Nobody knows whether the lot below is affected by one water path or three, so the works cover three. The committee ends up tendering for the largest version of the job because it is the only version anyone has described.

A record made before the scope is written gives the engineer the evidence to narrow that. Falls measured with the instrument in the frame say which way the water goes. Photos of visible junctions show where two systems meet at the surface. The lot below, recorded on the same day, says where the water is arriving, not where it might be. The engineer writes the scope from that, and the quotes are then for the same defined job, which is the only way to compare them.

What the record contains

• The lots and areas inspected, including the lot below and any common property between them.
• In each area: the condition of the wet-area surfaces, the falls to each waste measured with the instrument in the frame, the products where identifiable, the junctions, the visible water paths, and the fixtures and penetrations. Internal wet areas are recorded against AS 3740; where balconies or other external above-ground areas are in scope, AS 4654.2. The record notes what is observed against the relevant standard and the manufacturer’s product data sheet, and says where the two speak to the same item.
• What could not be verified without opening up, stated as a list rather than left implied.
• A photographic record indexed by lot and room, each image numbered and captioned, so the engineer, the manager and the committee are looking at the same photograph when they discuss it.
• A written report in the same order as the scope, usually the same or next business day once the inspection is complete; timing for multi-lot jobs is set in the quote.

What it does not contain

It does not say why the leak is happening, what the minimum repair is, whether anything is defective, or who is responsible. The engineer or consultant addresses the technical questions, on the strength of the record, with their name attached; responsibility is for the owners corporation and its advisers. Where a party wants more than what can be seen, a defined test can be run: a plumber conducts it, the record captures it, and the engineer certifies on the result, or does not. RKOps records the test and never certifies it.

Where it sits in the chain

1. Before the scope. The record is made first, so the engineer’s scope of works is written from what is there.
2. In the tender. The record goes out with the scope, so every tenderer is pricing the same defined job rather than their own reading of the problem.
3. During the works. The stages that disappear under the finish (the membrane before it is covered, the screed before the tiles) are recorded at the hold point, because afterwards they cannot be.
4. At the end. If certification is required, the engineer issues it on the evidence, and the evidence exists because it was recorded when it could be.

What to put to the committee

The committee approves what is written, so write the scope in the same terms the report will use:

• Which lots and common property will be inspected.
• What will be recorded in each, and what will not be determined.
• The deliverable: a photographic record indexed by lot and room, measurements with the instrument in frame, a written report, with the timing set in the quote.
• Access: who contacts each occupant and when, so it is one visit.
• Who receives the report: the manager, the committee, and the engineer or consultant the committee has engaged or intends to.
• The cost, quoted up front.

A scope in those terms leaves the committee little to argue about. Nobody on the committee is being asked to accept a diagnosis. They are being asked to fund the kind of record an engineer works from.

Practical takeaway

Put the record in front of the committee before it approves quotes for works. It costs one visit, and it is written by someone with no stake in which quote is accepted.