You are on page 1of 7

Response to Eiermann Report

I have annotated Mr. Eiermanns finding so you may follow my response

1. Change Orders
1.1.I found no record of Change Orders as requested by the bank and as noted
in the contract. I also noted the owners were complicate in this practice,
recognizing that in all five draw requests the approved; change orders
were not presented to the bank per their agreement for items they
requested or changed or that may have had the potential to exceed the
contract cost.

2. Windows
2.1. Article 7 in the contract states that specifications shall control the
plans. The Description of Materials provided Umpqua Bank and signed by
Tom and Gloria Meyers 2/26/16 states Single Hung Windows
NO action required

2.2.There is reference to the temp toilet is in this division. The toilet was for
temp construction use, there are no red tags or notices from the county
during any of the multiple building inspections. The toilet would have been
removed previous to the Well inspection. The use of this temp toilet saved
the Meyers hundreds of dollars, and provided a pleasant sanitary and
enjoyable toilet (rather than the Johnny on the Spot variety) for all to use
when onsite No corrective action currently required

3. Decks
3.1. DTT2Zs are not in place, yet are quite able to be installed in multiple
manners. It is a contractors choice when he chooses to install and is not
deeded defective work. This is Pick up Work and a balance of funds in
the framing will cover this cost
3.2.The joist size installed is not per plan. The Contractor may submit a
differed submittal from engineering to the County to substantiate the size,
or replace them. Joist hangers shall be replaced with corrosive resistant
hangers per spec. This is Corrective Work and will require a estimate to
Repair of Replace R&R
3.3.The plans are in conflict on this item.
Per the approved plans Sheet S2 - Key Note 6, the posts are specified as
4x6 posts (dimensional lumber) attached per key note H19 and H20 with
ACE46 and ACE44 not logs. Also on the same sheet S2 a bubble section
refers to Detail 2 / D3 that calls for log post and rail
Then on Sheet D2, detail 4B, also has the stair posts as 4x4 bolted to the
Stringer with 2x rail. Yet on Sheet D3, detail 2 the posts are shown as log
posts and rails.
I could go further yet both the Detail sheets and S sheets provide drawing
for either option
This is an item that may have had owner and contractor agreement as to
the expectation of what would have been built.
Contractor assumed dimensional lumber

3.4.The Piers are not poured per plan, and must be replaced. The entry may be
replaced without the removal of framing. This is Corrective Work and
will require a estimate to Repair of Replace R&R
3.5.Estimate-- the stair concrete landings are covered in 303 Slab concrete
$900. The deck(s) posts and rails are not Log Posts and Rail. The estimate
suggested to repair and complete the decks was premature to material
findings and control bids.

4. Interior Frame
4.1.These walls are often installed subsequent to a meeting with owner and
cabinet maker after the countertop, backslash and resolution of the
cabinet is finalized, they may even remove the kitchen wall in lieu of a
finished end panel This and the electrical work is Pick up Work and a
balance of funds in the 401/402 framing will cover this cost.
4.2.The platform is Pick up Work
4.3.Relocating gas and water --This is Corrective Work and will require a
estimate to Repair of Replace R&R
4.4.The floor drain is scheduled to be placed with the engineered floor so as to
not fall in a seam. The Contractors plumber would complete at Finish
4.5.Same as above yet a hole will be required to be drilled through the
foundation. This is Corrective Work and will require a estimate to
Repair of Replace R&R
4.6.Platformthe radius is Pick up Work and a balance of funds in the
framing will cover this cost
4.7.TRUSSES the truss engineering specifies 3.5 inches of bearing. The trusses
are correctly placed and anchored with a full 3.5 inches of bearing directly
under the vertical support .. NO action required
4.8.There is a leak in the south west corner of the home that appears to be
entering in the transition between the full log wall below and the upper
gable log siding that slightly protrudes. The siding needs to be made water
tight and the stain logs at the base cleaned with oxalic acid. This is
Corrective Work and will require a estimate to Repair of Replace R&R

5. Foundation .
5.1.Mudsill -Details 5,6,7,8,9,and 10 on sheet D@ call out 2X Mudsill .Details
supersede notes-- approved by Jim Gleixner engineer of record .
(engineering attached ) NO action required
5.2.It appears water has entered the underpinning through the two holes in
the foundation that two water pipes enter. This must be remedied by
digging out the surrounding dirt, filling the gaps with water stop material
and compacting the soil . This is Corrective Work and will require a
estimate to Repair of Replace R&R
5.3.The finish grade outside the building requires positive grade away from the
building with a swale directed to south east corner. The cost to do so
remains in # 201 Excavation
6. Joist frame
6.1.Items requiring remediation 48 inch blocking per D2 6/9 . 2 OC bloking
under parallel walls This is Corrective Work and will require a estimate
to Repair of Replace R&R
6.2. The single LSL works for all interior and exterior crawlspace needs per
Engineer of Record

7. Electrical
7.1.Please reference attached letter from the installing Electrical contractor re
the Letter from Jacks Electric, and the numerous changes and additions
requested by the owners, along with a detailed recounting of the
contractor stating ---all was done--- per owners wishes. It also stated the
owner agreed to a final walk thru before the walls were covered,
purportedly to address additional items and approve final placement. This
did not occur due to their lock out of the contractor. All items listed in the
Eiermann report are in question, and the contractor has valid change
orders for additional work requested.
7.2.Please note picture of switch and receptacle method of install. Due to the
structural method of securing the logs to each other a full depth switch or
plug box is not acceptable. The standard application as shown in the photo
is recommended

8. Rock Chimney
8.1.Per contractor owner and contractor fully discussed the removal of the
rock from the chimney and they would utilize the funds for the new raised
hearth sides and floor finish. The owner requested the pipe to be painted
The hearth per plan is detailed flat on the floor, it is now raised per owner
request, and with it raised the owner agreed to move the cost of rock from
the chimney to the interior hearth. The funds for these surfaces shall come
from #905 Brickwork and are still available.
Line item #605 is the budget for the Woodstove a balance is still available.
The radius front is a pick up item addressed earliar
This agreement need to be detailed as it also include the relocation of wall
plugs to the raised hearth wall

9. Fire Sprinkler System Rough Frame Inspection

9.1. Per Contractor--- the control system was relocated with
owner concurrence. It is behind the master closet door. Revised
Plans have been re-submitted to the County. The County re-
inspected the project and it has passed Rough inspection.
No action required

10. Exterior Siding

10.1. The exterior log siding is correctly installed to the base of
the mudsill per Detail 5, 6, 8 and 9 on Sheet D2 and the
elevations on Sheet A2
No action required
10.2. The contractor installed the hood fan exhaust with 10
ducting through the wall thinking it to be the better location. The
Owner found it esthetically displeasing and requested it to be run
through the roof. The contractor reinstalled the piping through
the roof per owner request. The plans are silent on the location
of Duct. The original install was functionally correct, and the cost
of this repair typically be applied to contingency as no fault is
No Action required
11. HVAC
11.1. The Eiermann report states that due to the stage of HVAC
completion of the Job owes the Meyers $7000 dollars This is a
misunderstanding of the Progress Payment system. The payment
due the contractor is the aggregate total of all the line item
percentages, equaling the net total Percentage of Completion of
the project . One could continue with ---the Meyers owe the
contractor $7420 for the paint, and $10,200 roof --that is
completed. If any each line item is looked at, one could debate if
that line over or under drawn. This is the nature of the system yet
with multiple inspections and approval it comes closest to the
actual value and cost to date. This is Fixed Fee Contract the bank
or owner is not bound to pay any funds greater than the Contract
and Change orders. It is my experience, as discussed in the
Progress Payment section of this Report that the due to the lag
time in disbursements a Contractor is rarely paid beyond the
value of work in place.
12. Percentage of Completion, Bids , and Receipts
12.1. The Eiermann report has no basis or documents to validate
its projection of the Percentage of Completion and is incorrect
12.2. Paid receipts for the previous draw requests are required
per contract if the owner requests. I agree that the
misunderstanding of the payment system, and invoices required,
was a contributing factor breakdown of the relationship
12.3. The Contract is a Fixed Fee Contract and does not require
the presentation of subcontractor bids. This does not go against
industry standards.