ASAP Roofing & Exteriors

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the customer complaint that you have brought to our attention.

1. Initially, ASAP did not enter into a contract with the complainant, ***. ASAP signed a contract with the previous owner. ASAP, accordingly, has no obligations to Ms. whatsoever. Notwithstanding that, we have made efforts to address the issues that she has raised.
2. The problem is with the design of the building. The balcony lacks adequate slope and does not drain very well. But this comes from the design. Ordinarily, one could use tapered insulation to create a better slope. However, we were unable to do this because raising the roof surface to create more slope would make it so that the door to the balcony would not be able to open. We caulked and sealed around the doorway to stop the leakage and to our knowledge, it worked. That is, prior to receiving this complaint, we were unaware that the leakage continued. The solution to the leakage on the balcony given the design limitations might be to create ridges in the central part of the balcony to prevent water backing up into the doorway, which appears to be the present problem. We are prepared to do that.
3. The remaining complaints are ones that we respectfully suggest have no basis. They are not explained and were never brought to our attention. We have not seen any engineering report nor are we aware of the basis of any such report or criticism of our work regarding the PVC installed on the windows, for example. Further, as photographs will show, we did not "attach instead of fully replace" any membrane used on the balcony. ASAP installed new insulation and new TPO membrane. Accordingly, that assertion is simply incorrect.
4. All of the work was done properly. There are design limitations inherent to the balcony which in a heavy rain sometimes caused the rain to back up into the doorway and cause seepage. ASAP has done work at other units in this same complex and we have become familiar with the problem.

5. As noted, the PVC installed on the windows was done correctly, the membrane was fully replaced, and the issue with the pitch is a limitation in the design of the property.
6. There is, in short, no basis to the Complaint.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,

Carlos M. R

CEO ASAP Roofing & Exteriors, Inc.

ASAP General Contractors, Inc.
ell us why here...

Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 8:40 PMSubject: Re: *** Rebuttal (***)To: *** <***>Dear Mr., ASAP's further response is made in red below.Should you have further questions, please let me know.Sincerely,Carlos

1. Initially, ASAP did not enter into a contract with the complainant, ***. ASAP signed a contract with the previous owner. ASAP, accordingly, has no obligations to Ms. whatsoever. Notwithstanding that, we have made efforts to address the issues that she has raised.ASAP entered into a contract with the *** HOA, of which I am 50% of the membership. ***, the former owner of unit #2 (where the balcony is located) was the HOA president at the time ASAP was hired, and therefore was the main POC for this work. However, both Mr. and I (owner of unit #1) signed the original contracts from ASAP and all payments were made by check from the *** HOA account.

ASAP contracted with ***. It did not have a contract with anyone else. I believelawyers call this "privity of contract" or something like that. It means that ASAP owes no duty to anyone other than Mr.. Ms. claimed she contributed to the costs or the work was through the condoassociation. If so, this was unknown to ASAP and is irrelevant. Ourcontract was not with the condo association or with the complainants. That should end the matter as to anyone other than Mr..

2. The problem is with the design of the building. The balcony lacks adequate slope and does not drain very well. But this comes from the design. Ordinarily, one could use tapered insulation to create a better slope. However, we were unable to do this because raising the roof surface to create more slope would make it so that the door to the balcony would not be able to open. We caulked and sealed around the doorway to stop the leakage and to our knowledge, it worked. That is, prior to receiving this complaint, we were unaware that the leakage continued. The solution to the leakage on the balcony given the design limitations might be to create ridges in the central part of the balcony to prevent water backing up into the doorway, which appears to be the present problem. We are prepared to do that.We are not disputing that there may have been a flaw in the original design. If ASAP did not feel confident that they could correct the slope in the balcony, they should not have accepted the job. The forensic engineering report, and the two other contracts we have engaged to look at the issue both have come up with solutions in their proposals to deal with this. Essentially, it sounds like ASAP is saying that they work they did was not what actually needed to be done to fix the issue.Also, we have extensive text message and thorough email documentation going from November 5th 2018 through July 6th 2019 proving ASAP was made fully aware of the repeated leak issues. We would be happy to share this documentation upon request.

First, the engineering report by RothfussEngineering Company made numerous comments -- mostly about work whichASAP did NOT do. The problem is that Mr. was interested insaving money and the work we did was thus limited. ASAP did not installor change downspouts or gutters, for example. The Engineering Reportcriticizes work which we did not do, per Mr.. (For example, ASAP hadnothing to do with anything noted in Photographs 16, 17 and 18) Thereport's commentary regarding some of the caulking work around the windows andscuppers in many cases concerns work we did not do. To the extent that itdoes, we offered to return. However, the complainants don't want us tocome out and try to make things as best as possible. They are too busycomplaining and wanting their money back -- when the core problem (discussedbelow) is the original roof design. Third, the engineering report claims(page 4) that "the membrane had not been replaced, but only had somepatches installed, which show as white overlaid pieces on the original yellowedmembrane." This is simply untrue and the engineer has no idea whathe is talking about. ASAP replaced the entire roof and any examination of the roof by a competent person will confirm that. The original roof wasin very deteriorated condition (due to the water ponding problem describedbelow) and was made of duradek material. ASAP replaced it with a TPOroof. What the engineer confuses is that we kept the old membrane alongthe wall (some 2" to 3" only) because of limited clearance and stuccooverhang, and covered it with TPO cover tape. This is in accord withapplicable standards given the roof configuration, which is problematic, as theengineering report recognizes. Similarly, the engineer's commentsas to Photo 12 are incorrect. The brown membrane where the yellow arrowspoint are part of the sealant material between the roof and stucco overhang,which was original to the property. It is not a "seam" andcannot be caulked -- any caulking will wash away quickly. ASAP sealedwith cover tape to the sealant material -- again, in accord with roofingstandards. Fourth, the engineering reportacknowledges at p. 6 that the core problem is the building design: The problems go back to original construction of the building, as evi¬denced by the multiple and multi-colored re-caulkings that have been done in an attempt to stop the leaks, exposed screwheads at doors and win¬dows, the mishung gutter, the poorly constructed original scuppers, and the balcony deck that was flat and not pitched to drain. Membrane roofs should be good for 20 or more years of service life, and this building is on¬ly 7 years old What this means is that there is notadequate water runoff. Water collects and ponds (particularly when itrains hard) ASAP tried to increase the pitch so there would be waterrunoff, but the design of the building makes this impossible without rebuildingthe deck in its entirety, i.e. making structural changes. To create a pitch,one uses tapered insulation. The deck/porch design does not permit this. If we did that, the door would not open. This building, due to the design issue, has had continual leak = related issues and will continue to have them. When it rains, water accumulates and tries to make its way into the house -- notably through the doorway. Preventing this will require ongoing maintenance (and replacement of damaged, leaking doors -- which Mr. declined to do). We explained this to our client, Mr.. The work we did -- notably replacing the roof was necessary and properly done.

3. The remaining complaints are ones that we respectfully suggest have no basis. They are not explained and were never brought to our attention. We have not seen any engineering report nor are we aware of the basis of any such report or criticism of our work regarding the PVC installed on the windows, for example. Further, as photographs will show, we did not "attach instead of fully replace" any membrane used on the balcony. ASAP installed new insulation and new TPO membrane. Accordingly, that assertion is simply incorrect.The forensic engineer was hired by our HOA Master Insurance policy in August 2019 to provide a third party, unbiased, expert report on the exact nature of the water damage issues. The several additional contractors who have been engaged to assess the situation have fully agreed with the engineer’s assessment.

As shown above, the Engineer 1) did not know what work was done or not done by ASAP, 2) was incorrect in material respects -- he incredibly claimed that ASAP patched and did not replace the roof, which is not true and 3) admitted that the core problem was the design of the building. We don't know what other supposed companies have supposedly said. .

4. All of the work was done properly. There are design limitations inherent to the balcony which in a heavy rain sometimes caused the rain to back up into the doorway and cause seepage. ASAP has done work at other units in this same complex and we have become familiar with the problem.While there may have been original building design flaws, we respectfully disagree that there were not viable options to fix the original building issue if done by a knowledgeable contractor. The forensic engineering report as well as the assessment and estimates by two additional contractors backs-up our position.

NOTHING in the Engineering Report states or identifies any "viable options to fix the original building issue." What were they? The design issues the building has are the core problem and ASAP addressed them in the best way possible.

5. As noted, the PVC installed on the windows was done correctly, the membrane was fully replaced, and the issue with the pitch is a limitation in the design of the property.Again, we disagree based on the expertise of the forensic engineering report and two other reputable contractors who have come to the same conclusion as the engineer. See above resposnes