If the slab was never inspected or approved; JCC is within their rights to require any structure attached to it be removed until the inspection is done and passed. Basically, they could require them to start all over.
Large Event & Storage Facility Planned South of Festhaus Park
- Thread starter gforce1994
- Start date
I still think a building without walls seems ridiculous for this purpose. That said this is just embarrassing.
If it were a worse relationship I’d would agree. But JCC/BGW have a good working relationship and the issue likely more contractor related they would be smart to not go this route.
This sounds like the contractor is definitely at fault. Sadly way too common case of jumping the gun and not crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Not sure if they didn't obtain concrete/compaction tests from a 3rd party inspector prior and during the pour or if they just had unacceptable penetrations/as-built conditions. In the end the GC is most definitely screwing themselves monetarily and screwing BGW in terms of project delivery.
As long as the footers were passed the superstructure could remain in place while they replace the slab. Replacing the slab and potentially broken under-slab utilities is a BIG deal for a building of this size/type. Hopefully the contractor has deep enough pockets to dig from if the project has to go this route.
So, they got their slab inspection fixed...
But they've got new problems:
Wow...
But they've got new problems:
Wow...
And firing the contractor for gross negligence in the build and/or misrepresenting their capabilities isn't an option?
That contractor is certainly going to face issues. Only other thing I can think of is they tried to do it in house and no one was certified.
We apologize for the problems with the event building. Those responsible have been sacked...
We once again apologies for the problems with the event building. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have themselves, been sacked...
We once again apologies for the problems with the event building. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have themselves, been sacked...
Last edited:
It was not an in house job
Good luck to this contractor finding work after this. Sheesh.
Dudes can't even build a gazebo?
In all fairness, not all blame falls on the vendor for this one. Sure, vendor isn't doing it right, but there is responsibility with the park to ensure the vendor is capable of a task. It would not surprise me if they hired some local hardscaping company that has say put up a picnic area enclosure in a county park to do this task assuming it is the same thing, but it is possible this exceeds the traditional wood-and-small-footers the vendor may have been lead to believe this was.
Happens all the time, ESPECIALLY dealing with volatile industries like entertainment, that vendors are mislead into what the project actually entails pretty early on. I know of specific examples with Universal and Disney on this one for albeit more complicated products, though I am sure with a company like SEAS a lot of that "signing up for some gray area stuff" applies. And unfortunately the vendor doesn't have a lot of bargaining power when it comes to pushing for requirements to be more nailed down before signing the contract, since the parks generally leverage the threat of "finding someone else to do it" pretty early on. Not to mention all of this stuff is forced to be firm-fixed as well to even further reduce liability on the parks. Basically if you haven't worked as a contractor for a big-company park before, you can really get blindsided by a lot of the shitty things that can happen that could throw the entire project up into disarray.
TL,DR: I agree the vendor is clearly not doing the job properly, but more factors than "bad vendor" feed into these sorts of things happening, specifically on the park's side.
In all fairness, not all blame falls on the vendor for this one. Sure, vendor isn't doing it right, but there is responsibility with the park to ensure the vendor is capable of a task. It would not surprise me if they hired some local hardscaping company that has say put up a picnic area enclosure in a county park to do this task assuming it is the same thing, but it is possible this exceeds the traditional wood-and-small-footers the vendor may have been lead to believe this was.
Happens all the time, ESPECIALLY dealing with volatile industries like entertainment, that vendors are mislead into what the project actually entails pretty early on. I know of specific examples with Universal and Disney on this one for albeit more complicated products, though I am sure with a company like SEAS a lot of that "signing up for some gray area stuff" applies. And unfortunately the vendor doesn't have a lot of bargaining power when it comes to pushing for requirements to be more nailed down before signing the contract, since the parks generally leverage the threat of "finding someone else to do it" pretty early on. Not to mention all of this stuff is forced to be firm-fixed as well to even further reduce liability on the parks. Basically if you haven't worked as a contractor for a big-company park before, you can really get blindsided by a lot of the shitty things that can happen that could throw the entire project up into disarray.
TL,DR: I agree the vendor is clearly not doing the job properly, but more factors than "bad vendor" feed into these sorts of things happening, specifically on the park's side.
Just for reference, they have scheduled a new inspection for Monday (the 5th). Does anyone have any idea of the extent of fixes based on the comments? This seems like an extremely fast turnaround for these fixes.
I guess we'll know soon regardless.
I guess we'll know soon regardless.
VB06Hokie
Mostly wit & sarcasm, but contributes occasionally
Amazing that it’s something different every time. I’ve got thoughts but feeling too sick to write them out.
Ok so quick thought while I’m lucid.
I have seen a time or two where the property owner (the park) felt the contractor was dragging their feet on construction, so the property owner started calling for inspections.
It honestly was a funny situation. It was a car dealer who had a great relationship with the township. They went with a new to the area contractor because they heard good things. Then 6 months in they didn’t see one inspection happen so they asked us to go a site plan inspection. Dinged them with a fail for not being there. Then an electrical. Got dinged with a fail. Like 6 failed inspections later and the contractor was out for breach of contract.
VB06Hokie
Mostly wit & sarcasm, but contributes occasionally
I've gone back and looked at the inspection report, and the contractor is listed as the applicant. I looked up the contractor as well and they've been in business for 50+ years, so really not sure what's going on.