Preview
Filing # 135784505 E-Filed 10/01/2021 06:27:28 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 2020-CA-002942
Vv.
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
WEINTRAUB’S EXPERT
liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND
DISCLOSURE
CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON
KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation;
HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER
PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.
N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation;
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB
INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A
WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE
DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; WOLF’S IRRIGATION &
LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation;
SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida
corporation; BROWN+COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING,
INC., a Florida corporation;
Defendants.
/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida Corporation;
Third-Party Plaintiff,
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida
corporation, CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a
Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; HELBERG
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION
OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL
DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and
WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company;
Third-Party Defendants.
/
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company;
Crossclaim Plaintiff,
Vv.
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE,
INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation;
IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK
STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation;
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB
INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A
WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation;
WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC.,
a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING,
INC., a Florida corporation;
Crossclaim Defendants.
DEFENDANT / CROSSCLAIM DEFENDANT WEINTRAUB’S EXPERT DISCLOSURE
Defendant / Crossclaim Defendant, WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSIC, INC.,
n/k/a WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC. (“Weintraub”), by and through
its undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Complex Construction Case Management Order dated
April 9, 2021, hereby discloses its expert witness as follows:
1 Alexander A. Hockman, PE
NV5
200 South Park Road, Ste. 350
Hollywood, FL 33021
954-862-1552
Mr. Hockman is expected to testify with regard to liability and damages based on the claims
presented by Plaintiff and Crossclaim-Plaintiff, and any expert opinions offered by
Plaintiffs experts, Crossclaim-Plaintiff’s experts, or others involving Weintraub, including
the inspections performed by Weintraub at the project, the standard of care required of
Weintraub, and damages, if any, proximately caused by Weintraub, as described in more
detail in Mr. Hockman’s expert report. A copy of Mr. Hockman’s expert report is attached
hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of Mr. Hockman’s CV is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A list
of cases in which Mr. Hockman has testified as an expert at trial or deposition within the
last four years is attached hereto as Exhibit C. A copy of NV5’s fee schedule is attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
2. Additionally, Weintraub reserves the right to offer expert opinion testimony from:
a. Any expert listed or called by any other party.
b Any person who furnished design, construction, or other services on the project and
who is otherwise qualified to offer expert testimony.
Rebuttal and impeachment experts as to any other party’s disclosures, opinions or
additional claims.
/s/ Andrew E. Holway
Timothy C. Ford
Florida Bar No. 173770
Andrew E. Holway
Florida Bar No. 098559
Rocco Cafaro
Florida Bar No. 507121
Hill Ward Henderson
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: 813-221-3900
Fax: 813-221-2900
Email: tim.ford@hwhlaw.com
Email: andrew.holway@hwhlaw.com
Email: rocco.cafaro@hwhlaw.com
Secondary: tracy.coale@hwhlaw.con
kathy. wernsing@hwhlaw.cor
derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com
Attorneys for Weintraub Inspections &
Forensic, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically served through
the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to all parties and/or counsel of record on October 1, 2021.
/s/ Andrew I. Holway
Attorney
15963861v1
V9
October 1, 2021
Hill Ward Henderson
3700 Bank of America Plaza
104 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33602
Attn: Andrew E, Holway, Esq.
Re: NV5 Preliminary Expert Report
Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association vs. Royal Oak Homes, LLC et al.
CASE NO: 2020-CA-002942-0N
Kissimmee, Florida
Dear Mr. Holway:
NV5, Inc. (“NV5”) was engaged by Hill Ward Henderson on behalf of Weintraub Inspections and
Forensic, Inc. (“Weintraub”) to review and respond to alleged construction defects in the Villas at
Emerald Lake (“Development”), located in Kissimmee, Florida. Marcon Forensics, LLC. (“Marcon”)
prepared their Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 2, 2021 (the “Marcon Report”), on behalf
of the Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association (the “Association”). NVS Preliminary Expert
Report (“NV5 Report") is in response to the Marcon Report as it relates to items potentially associated
with Weintraub’s scope of services.
NV5 was engaged on this matter after Marcon conducted their destructive investigation. Therefore,
NV5 based this report on our review of available construction documents, our understanding of the
applicable codes and standards, and our professional education, knowledge and experience. NV5
reviewed the following key documents for the preparation of this report:
. Marcon Villas at Emerald Lake Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 2, 2021 (“Marcon
Report”), including:
~ The Marcon Report Appendix, dated April 28, 2020 (“Marcon Photographs”)
_ Marcon Forensics, Villas at Emeraid Lake Defects Damage, dated April 28, 2020 (“Marcon
Defect Matrix”)
Marcon Forensics, Villas at Emerald Lake Non-Defects, dated June 15, 2021 (“Marcon Non-
Defect Matrix”)
Alta Engineering Company, Evaluation Report, dated September 10, 2021 (“Alta Report”)
SMH Construction Services inc., Villas at Emerald Lake Preliminary Estimate - ROH Homes,
dated 4/5/2021 (“Cost estimate”)
Weintraub Inspection Reports (individual reports are listed in Appendix F of this NV5 Report)
Weintraub’s Proposed Scope of Work for Royal Oak Homes, “Weintraub Inspections &
Forensics, 3 Party inspections for Royal Oaks Homes”, not dated (Weintraub’s Proposal)
Deposition transcript of Felix Martin, PE (“Mr. Martin”) Volume IV, dated September 15, 2021
(“Marcon’s Deposition”)
200 South Park Road, Suite 350 | Hollywood, FL 33021 | www.NV5.com | Office 954.495.2112 | Fax 954.495.2101,
CONSTRU! N QUALITY ASSURANCE - INFRA’ TU ENERGY - PROGRAM MMA NT - ENVIRt TA
FBAID AA26002690 - FBPE CA#29065,
EXHIBIT A
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 2
. ASTM C 926 - 98a (2005) and ASTM C 926 - ita
. ASTM C 1063 ~ 06 and ASTM C 1063 ~ 12a
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NV5 assumes the reader of this report is familiar with the Villas at Emerald Lake Development, located
in Kissimmee, Florida. The Development consists of 88 homes, encompassed in twelve (12) multi-
story residential buildings. Two different contractors, The Dimillo Group, LLC and Royal Oaks Homes,
LLC, built the Development. This NV5 Report focuses on the ten buildings constructed by Royal Oak
Homes, LLC (“ROH”), (“Project”, “Buildings"). Based on drawings reviewed by NV5, the Buildings
consist of first-story concrete masonry (“CMU”) walis with a stucco finish, and second-story wood
framed wails with stucco finish.
WEINTRAUB’S SCOPE OF SERVICES
Weintraub’s proposed scope of services (see Appendix D) included the following eight (8) sections:
Monolithic Concrete Siab / Foundation
Masonry Wall, Tie-Beam and Lintel
Wall and Roof Sheathing
House Wrap Inspection (with windows installed)
Building Paper/Lath
Stucco Installation
Structural Framing
Final
However, based on NV5's conversations with Weintraub personnel, Weintraub inspection reports, and
ROH purchase orders, only limited inspections were authorized by ROH. Primarily, Weintraub
conducted third-party inspections under contract with ROH on an on-call basis related to House Wrap
(Item 4) and Building Paper/Lath (item 5). Additionally Weintraub performed one Stucco Final
Inspection (item 8) at one Building. Appendix F of this NV5 Report contains NV5’s summary of
Weintraub’s Inspections performed at the Project. Weintraub’s Proposal identifies the scope of each
inspection, however, based on NV5'‘s conversations with Weintraub’s personnel, section 4d of the
House Wrap Inspection, section 5d of the Building Paper/Lath Inspection and sections 8b and 8c of
the Final Inspection were not included in the scope of Weintraub’s authorized inspections at the
Project.
It is also important to recognize that Weintraub’s inspections were non-mandatory and occurred prior
the Authority Having Jurisdiction (“AHJ") performing the Florida Building Code (“Code”) required
inspections. Hence, any changes to the work required by the AHJ or determination of Code compliance
of the work would not be Weintraub’s responsibility. Hence, Mr. Martin's (deposition transcript page
524, Lines 1 through 4), statement suggesting that Weintraub did not “...fulfill their duty as inspectors”
is unfounded.
WV
Serichs.
te suis,
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 3
NV5 SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
Itis NV5's opinion that the Marcon Report is insufficient to allege any standard of care or building code
violations against Weintraub for the following reasons:
Marcon’s methodology is flawed and is not in accordance with the Standards cited in their
report, relative to Marcon’s conducting of destructive investigations (“DT”):
- Marcon did not utilize an appropriate selection criteria to select DT sites for the evaluation
of the Buildings.
The Marcon Report recommends unwarranted and wasteful global repairs without
identifying the cause of the alleged defect(s). Marcon has misinterpreted and misstated
damage without verifying its hypotheses.
The Marcon Report does not allocate responsibility for the alleged defects.
~ Felix Martin, PE testified to not have “been specifically retained to provide criticism of
Weintraub” and to not have allocated “responsibilities for the defects identified” in the
Marcon Report (Page 523, Lines 22 through 25)
The destructive testing observations listed in the Marcon Report do not support Marcon’s
recommendation to remove and replace all the stucco on the second story.
- The Marcon Report alleges defects unsupported by Marcon’s photographic evidence.
~ The Marcon Report alleges conditions that do not constitute a deficiency, and recommends
complete removal and replacement of the stucco based on these conditions.
The Marcon Report claims damage due to possible water intrusion without testing to
substantiate their opinion.
The Marcon Report does not substantiate the claim of defective conditions “in a systemic
basis” as Mr. Martin testified (Page 528, Lines 17 through 20).
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 4
NV5 RESPONSE TO THE MARCON REPORT
NV5 Response to the Marcon Report is divided into three categories, |. Methodology of the Marcon
Report, fl. Claims against Weintraub, and Ill. Destructive Testing Observations. This NVS Report
focuses on the ten Buildings constructed by Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“ROH”), listed below. Figure 1
shows an aerial photograph indicating the builder for each building.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2851 to 2865 Sunstone Dr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2869 to 2883 Sunstone Dr.
4-Unit Building with addresses 2887 to 2893 Sunstone Dr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2897 to 2911 Sunstone Dr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2915 to 2929 Sunstone Dr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2942 to 2956 Tanzanite Terr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2926 to 2940 Tanzanite Terr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2908 to 2922 Tanzanite Terr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2892 to 2906 Tanzanite Terr.
8-Unit Building with addresses 2876 to 2890 Tanzanite Terr.
a
ed e
co
te
iSileris
fai photog with N reap in ati log
de er, quantity of u sd ade 28,
Hy
rick
te suis,
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 5S
I. METHODOLOGY OF THE MARCON REPORT
The Marcon Report states that their “Testing Methodology” used recommendations from ASTM E
2128. However, there are several inconsistencies between the Marcon Report and ASTM E 2128
recommendations.
Marcon did not utilize an appropriate selection criteria to evaluate the structures.
Marcon’s approach to select test locations was to “create a sample base that was evenly distributed
across the site. Test locations were selected for efficiency and access” (Marcon Report, Page 6). The
following is an excerpt from ASTM £2128 - 17 Section 5.4 “The recommended sampling method for
the application of this guide is to consider the spectrum of wall conditions from apparently performing
to apparently non-performing areas, and from un-deteriorated or un-damaged areas to deteriorated
or damaged areas. It is also important to distinguish between varying conditions which may result
from prior modifications or attempted repairs, and to determine the extent of sampling necessary to
address and evaluate these variations in conditions,” The ASTM E2128 method for selecting sampling
or testing locations is not dictated by the location of the samples within a site, the efficiency of the
work nor the access. Marcon did not comply with ASTM E2128 to select the test locations.
The Marcon Report recommends overreaching global without investigating the
repai
cause of the alleged defect, misinterpreting and misstating significant damage, and
without verifying their hypotheses.
In section 5.3, ASTM E2128 does not recommend assuming that all locations constructed or designed
similarly “will be currently performing in precisely the same manner”. Marcon ignores this statement
by recommending removing and replacing “a// stucco over the wood framed second floor framing”.
Marcon bases their recommendation on the assumption that the construction will be repetitive and
the alleged error(s) will be repeated on the other Buildings (Marcon’s Deposition Page 526, Lines 9
through 21) while explaining that finding two (2) “improperly nailed” shingles at random locations
means that there is a great likelihood that entire roof is improperly nailed. This approach contradicts
ASTM E2128 section 5.3. which states: “/t is not assumed or expected that all locations with similar
design, construction and service characteristics will be currently performing in precisely the same
manner”. Marcon recommendations are excessive, not supported by their investigations and not in
accordance with ASTM E2128.
ih. CLAIMS AGAINST WEINTRAUB
Weintraub was only authorized to inspect a certain number of structures, and their scope of
inspections were limited, non-mandatory, and performed in accordance with their contract with ROH.
Hence, there is no basis for Marcon, the Association, or ROH to claim any Code or Standard of Care
violation with respect to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 6
Code Violation
Weintraub was not the general contractor, architect or engineer of record for the Project, Weintraub
did not apply for any of the permits and did not perform any of the work required under the Code to
complete the Project. Weintraub’s responsibility was limited to third-party non-mandatory inspections.
Hence, they are not responsible for Code compliance.
The Marcon Report summary of opinions allocates the alleged damages to “defective construction
performed by building contractors who knew or should have known such defective installations
violated the requirements of the building codes in effect at the time of original construction, the
building plans, or manufacturers’ specifications.” The scope of Weintraub’s services, as previously
discussed, was to perform visual third-party inspections on buildings designated by ROH. Marcon’s
findings are introduced by stating that their investigations led to the discovery of “a number of
conditions ... which did not meet the minimum requirements” of the Code, ASTM C926, and ASTM C
1063. Neither the Code, ASTM C 926, nor ASTM C 1063 standardize policies for the visual third-party
inspections performed by Weintraub at the Project. Therefore, Weintraub’s services cannot be in
violation of the referenced Codes and Standards while performing third-party inspections, which Mr.
Martin agreed to during his deposition (Page 555, Lines 24 and 22).
Standard of Care
Weintraub’s inspections were not mandatory or required by the AHJ. Weintraub was not engaged by
ROH as a Private Provider inspector nor in a Threshold Inspector capacity, Weintraub was engaged by
ROH in a Third Party Building Inspector capacity. Third Party Inspections are independent quality
assurance inspections, and the role of a third party inspector is to identify and inform the client of non-
conforming issues with the elements inspected. Weintraub's role was to inspect certain elements of
the buildings when requested by ROH, and report their findings to ROH.
Mr. Martin testified that he did not know the extent of Weintraub’s inspections at the project. However,
Mr. Martin also stated that “the fact that such a high numberof defective conditions were found would
Jed (sic) me to the opinion that Weintraub did not appear to fulfiil their duty as inspectors” (Page 524,
Lines 1 through 4). Additionally Mr. Martin added that a high number of defects were “41 individual
defects identified” (Page 524, Lines 12 and 13). Marcon allocates the 41 alleged defects to Weintraub
without understanding the extent of Weintraub’s scope. Hence, Marcon’s allegation that Weintraub
did not “fulfill their duties as an inspector” is based on erroneous assumptions and is unfounded.
Based on NV5's review of Weintraub Inspection Reports, Weintraub performed a total twenty-seven
(27) inspections across ten (10) Buildings at the Project and more than 30% of the inspection reports
indicated “System Not in Compliance”. Further, there were instances where the
nonconforming/noncomplying conditions were accepted by ROH, see Appendix A for an example.
Regardiess, Weintraub performed the inspections, recorded their concerns and reported them to their
client. Ultimately, how those issues were resolved was the responsibility of ROH. Therefore, Weintraub
did not violate its standard of care as a third party, independent quality assurance inspector.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 7
Weintraub had no duty to ensure that their comments or concerns were resolved once they were
reported to their client, ROH.
Hie DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OBSERVATIONS
The Marcon Report separates the alleged construction defects into six categories: Roofs,
Fenestrations, Walls, Floors, Structural and Sitework. Based on the scope of services Weintraub
performed, they did not inspect the Roof, Fenestrations, Floors, Structural and Sitework; therefore,
those allegations will not be addressed herein.
Weintraub’s scope of services may have involved inspections related to limited allegations in the Walls
category, specifically in Marcon’s subsection numbered and titled “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame”.
However, due to construction sequencing as it relates to the installation of the building's facade,
several of the allegations in Marcon’s subsection “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame” are outside of
Weintraub’s scope. Therefore, it is important to understand the general construction sequencing as it
relates to the stucco application over a wood-framed substrate and to the occurrence of Weintraub’s
inspections,
4) installation of the sheathing. For this Project, the sheathing consisted of Oriented Strand Board
OSB").
a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services
2) Installation of the Water Resistive Barrier (“WRB”). This installation may include flashings
under or over the fenestrations and other penetrations. However, the WRB completely covers
the OSB. At this point, Weintraub performed the first inspection referred to as, House Wrap
Inspection, or House Wrap 2°¢ Story.
a Inspected by Weintraub.
3) Installation of the windows.
a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services.
4) Installation of the building paper. The building paper covers the WRB.
a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services.
5) Installation of the lath. The lath covers the building paper, although some aspects may be
visible. This installation includes the installation of stucco accessories. At this point, Weintraub
performed the second inspection, referred to in this report as the Building/Paper lath
inspection.
a Inspected by Weintraub.
6) Installation of the stucco.
a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services.
7) installation/application of the building finishes, sealants, and paint.
a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services
The following paragraphs contain NV5’s analysis and opinions of the allegations contained in the Walls
category, “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame” section, of the Marcon Report. The numbered titles
‘orrespond to those in the Marcon Report.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 8
Considering the general construction sequencing described above and the elements that would have
been visible at the time of Weintraub’s inspections, several allegations claimed by Marcon in
subsection “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame” are outside of Weintraub’s scope of services, including:
. 3.0106 Poor embedment of lath into plaster
- Weintraub's scope did not include stucco application inspection.
. 3.0109 Improper stucco application, not applied in 3-step process.
_ Weintraub's scope did not include stucco application inspections.
~ Weintraub’s scope did not include final inspections.
NV5 will respond to each one of these allegations claimed by Marcon in section “3.01 Stucco Over
Wood Frame.”
3.0104 Stucco weather barrier reverse lapped under window sill
3.0102 Insufficient length of wire lath staples
3.0103 Lack of isolation/improper application of sealant around window perimeter.
3.0105 Paper backed lath not lapped paper-to-paper/lath-to-lath.
3.0110 Improper stucco application, not applied in 3-step process.
3.0115 Lack of weep screed at wood/masonry transition.
3.0119 Improperly installed weep screeds/stucco stop.
3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter.
3.0121 Lack of flashing at wall penetration.
3.0122 Unseaied penetration.
3.0126 Excessive stapling through window flashing.
3.0136 Reverse lap of stucco backing.
3.0140 Trapped Moisture between stucco backing and building wrap.
3.0149 Improper installation of building wrap.
3.0160 Inadequate separation between stucco and dissimilar materials.
NV5 will also respond to the following items, which according to Marcon are a consequence of the
alleged construction defects.
3.0190 Damage to wall sheathing
3.0191 Damaged Framing
3.0192 Damaged weather barrier/building wrap, rusted fasteners
3.0193 Cracked or stained stucco adjacent to openings
3.0194 Cracks / separation adjacent to control joints / stucco accessories
WV
Serichs.
te suis,
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 9
3.0101 Stucco weather barrier reverse lapped under window sill
Marcon reports “stucco weather barrier reverse lapped under window sill” at all six (6) windows
investigated, however Marcon depicts the Building paper, the building paper is not the Weather barrier.
The building paper as applied is consistent with common construction practices, Figure 2.
Mr. Martin testified this is a condition Weintraub “should have seen because it happens at every single
window” (Page 530, Lines 1 through 3). At the point of Weintraub’s Building Wrap inspection, this
component would not yet have been installed, At the point of Weintraub’s Lath Inspection the wire
lath, casing beads, stucco stops, control joints, and expansion joints, covered the building paper, which
obscured the visibility of the building paper itself, and any detail of the building paper's interaction
with other building components. Additionally, Marcon states this is one of the 41 deficiencies found at
the Project. However, the condition shown is not a reverse lap; the photograph depicts the Building
Paper terminated under the window, as intended.
pene nent
>
ie a
Jarcon Pb Og) aah VERni030160.JPI ue
back 6) tted up ag inst bottom oF wind
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” therefore,
Marcon’s recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which
makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported
by Marcon from their investigation. There is no deficiency in this allegation; therefore, there is no basis
to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 10
3.0102 Insufficient length of wire lath staples
Marcon claims at Cut 304, Cut 401, Cut 204, and Cut 305, “Lath staple has 1 44” long legs, insufficient
to provide minimum 3/4" embedment into framing. Detail 3/8 calls for 1 44” long staples.” As stated
in the Alta Report, “7/16-inch thick OSB sheathing" was used at the project. As such, a 14-inch long
staple would allow for a 34” embedment. Regardless, a 1 12" staple length is not relevant when the
lath is attached to structural sheathing. Further, Marcon has not provided any data to substantiate
there was not a 34-inch embedment into the framing or there is any damage resulting from this
allegation.
Marcon also claims at Cut 205 “Only one visible lath fastener in 24” x 36”." Marcon reports this
condition in one location only, and there is no indication that this is a typical condition or that there is
associated damage. As stated previously, NVS was not present during Marcon’s destructive testing,
and is unable to independently verify this allegation based on Marcon’s photographic documentation.
Marcon claims at Cut 208 “Stucco loose along contro! joint. No lath staples attached.” Marcon does
not specify the area of destructive testing, Marcon reports this condition in one location only, and there
is no indication that this is a typical condition or that there is associated damage. As stated previously,
NV5 was not present during Marcon’s destructive testing, and is unable to independently verify this
allegation based on Marcon’s photographic documentation.
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” therefore,
Marcon’s recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which
makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported
by Marcon from their investigation. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged
condition with any damage at the Project. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this
alleged condition to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 11
3.0103 Lack of isolation/improper application of sealant around window perimeter.
Marcon reports “Lack of isolation/improper application of sealant around window perimeter” at five
(5) locations, Cut 314, Cut 210, Cut 214, Cut 207 and Cut 304.
At Cut 314, Cut 210, Cut 214, Cut 207 Marcon claims, “Lack of isolation between window frame and
stucco prevents proper application of sealant.” Marcon has not presented any data associating the
alleged condition with any damage at the Project.
Weintraub performed one (1) Stucco Final Inspection at the Building where Cut 304 is located.
Weintraub’s protocol for Stucco Final Inspections consisted of a walk through, observing from the
ground only, to identify not compliant conditions visible from the ground. As represented in Figure 4,
the photographs taken from the ground are not sufficient at depicting the alleged condition. The
alleged condition is only sufficiently visible at close range as represented in Figure 3. The alleged
condition would not have been visible from the ground and could not have been observed by
Weintraub. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at
the Project. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub.
a
—
Mai fh a sara; nh 1G. IPG “Lack o gure 4. hared photg an 10.
is ion bt ow me an prevent ervig’
prog applic 20 at Cu
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 12
3.0105 Paper backed fath not lapped paper-to-paper/lath-to-lath.
Marcon reports “Paper backed lath not lapped paper-to-paper/lath-to-lath” at one location, Cut 304
at 2930 Tanzanite Terrace (Figure 5). This condition, found in a single location, does not indicate a
widespread condition at the Project. The alleged condition is common for similar projects and not
typically associated with damage. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged
condition with any damage at the Project.
co ae
=
Figs arco) graph VE md: G 2 pH ng
Ips: Netal iath, prev ig emb tin: rat
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation.” Marcon's
recommendation to “remove and replace ail stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up
more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project. is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon
from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition
to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 13
3.0110 improper installation of stucco control Joint accessory.
Marcon reports, “improper installation of stucco control joint”, at three (3) locations, Cut 404 located
at 2926 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 305 located at 2922 Tanzanite Terrace and Cut 311 located at 2887
Sunstone Drive.
Relative to the (3) three cuts, Marcon states “Contro/ joint not caulked to mid-floor accessory.”
Caulking the control joint to the mid-floor accessory is not required, nor recommended, this allegation
does not constitute a code violation, nor a construction deficiency.
At Cut 404 Marcon states, “Control Joint stapled / fastened to OSB substrate.” Weintraub reported
this condition duringa Lath re-inspection conducted on 8/12/2014. Further, Weintraub inspected this
building and noted inconsistencies with the wire lath installation; Weintraub approved the Lath
installation on 8/12/2014 with objections, Weintraub discussed the objections with the ROH
superintendent. It was ROH responsibility to either, address Weintraub’s objections or continue the
work, having been made aware of Weintraub’s objections. Weintraub performed its duties to the client;
hence, there is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub.
At Cut 305 and Cut 311 Marcon states “Lath not tied to control joint accessory: Stucco lath tied to
control joint accessory. Stucco backing runs behind accessory.” Marcon’s statement is inconsistent,
Marcon claims the lath is not tied and immediately after, Marcon claims the lath is tied. Marcon did
not provide a photograph to confirm the lath attachment. Further, Marcon claims the stucco backing
runs behind accessory; this is consistent with common construction practice. There is no deficiency in
this allegation; Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage
at the Project.
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this ailegation.” Marcon's
recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up
ore than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon
from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition
to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 14
3.0115 Lack of weep screed at wood/masonry transition,
Marcon reports “Lack of weep screed at wood/masonry transition” at five (5) locations, Cut 404
located at 2926 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 204 located at 2914 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 205 located at
2906 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 313 located at 2863 Sunstone Drive, and Cut 404 located at 2911
Sunstone Drive.
At the five cuts, Marcon states, “Stucco stop with no weep mechanism installed at floorline transition”
At all (5) five cuts Marcon photographs depicted an accessory at the floor line transition from masonry
to wood frame. The accessory depicted in Marcon's photographs installed at the floor line transition,
is consistent with AMICO Mid-Wall Weep Screed AMMWS-780-500 or 580 (Appendix B), which is a
solid weep screed. In reference to weep screeds accessories ASTM C 1063 states, "This accessory
shall have a sloped, solid, or perforated, ground or screed flange..." The accessory installed is common
for similar projects and Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any
damage at the Project. This accessory is a solid weep screed, and not a “stucco stop” as alleged by
Marcon (Figure 6 and Figure 7).
a
i i
6. Marcon. photograph 10. G ure 7, Marcon phot aph 024 at € ut
co with no weep mechanism Note the remo
tral on” at Cut 404 MICO weep screed(Aj vdix B)
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” Marcon's
recommendation to “remove and repiace al! stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up
more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon
from their investigation. The condition alleged is not a deficiency; therefore, there is no basis to
allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 15
3.0119 improperly installed weep screeds/stucce stop,
Marcon reports, “improperly installed weep screeds/stucco stop” at six (6) locations, Cut 304 located
at 2930 Tanzanite Terr, Cut 305 located at 28541 Sunstone Dr, Cut 314 located at 2851 Sunstone Dr,
Cut 214 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr, Cut 215 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr, and Cut 3114 located at
2887 Sunstone Dr.
Marcon states, “Mid-wall weep no fasteners in entire exposed length. None in pre-drilled holes.”
At the point of Weintraub’s Building Wrap Inspection, this component would not have been installed.
At the point of Weintraub's Lath Inspection, the wire lath and building paper would have obscured the
visibility of the mid-wall weep and the separation of the mid-wall weep attachments.
ASTM C 1063 recommends that attachments for metal plaster bases to framing members “shall be
spaced not more than 7in. along framing members.” The Code does not indicate spacing of
attachments for stucco accessories.
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” Marcon’s
recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up
more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon
from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition
to Weintraub.
3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter
Marcon reports “inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter” at four (4) locations,
Cuts 304 located at 2930 Tanzanite Terr, 210 located at 2869 Sunstone Dr, 214 located at 2879
Sunstone Dr, and 215 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr. Marcon states “Jamb flashing not fully adhered."
There is no indication this alleged condition results from original construction, the destructive testing
could have caused this condition, additionally, flashing adhesion testing was not part of Weintraub’s
scope. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the
Project.
At Cut 215, Marcon states “Jamb flashing does not cover jamb nail fin.” There is no indication that
this is a typical condition throughout the Project. The alleged deficiency occurs at a single test location,
and should have been addressed during the repairs after Marcon’s destructive investigations. During
construction, the alleged condition may have been visible during Weintraub’s Building Wrap
Inspection; however, there is no indication that Weintraub performed the Building Wrap inspection at
this building.
NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation.” Marcon's
recommendation to “remove and replace ail stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up
more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon
from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition
to Weintraub.
8
i
wel
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 2021
PAGE 16
3.0121 Lack of flashing at wall penetration
Marcon reports “Lack of flashing at wall penetration” at two (2) locations, Cut 404 located at 2914
Sunstone Drive and Cut 402 located at 2929 Sunstone Drive
At Cut 404, Marcon states “Inadequate pipe penetration flashing, not per Tyvek installation
instructions”, based on NV5's review of Marcon’s photographs, self-adhering flashing was used to
flash the penetration, which is consistent with DuPont Tyvek WRB installation instructions
(Windows/ Doors Installed AFTER the Tyvek WRB) (“Tyvek Recommendations”), see Appendix C.
At Cut 402, Marcon states, “Vent flashing over building wrap”. The flashing configuration depicted in
Marcon's photograph (Figure 8) is consistent with Tyvek Recommendations (Figure 9). The alleged
condition is common for similar projects and not typically associated with damage. Marcon has not
presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project.
ere een ne en eee a evo
“Eg
Lf
Ko
A
A he
Preview
Filing # 135784505 E-Filed 10/01/2021 06:27:28 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2020-CA-002942 Vv. ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited WEINTRAUB’S EXPERT liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND DISCLOSURE CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation; Defendants. / WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; Third-Party Plaintiff, ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida corporation, CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HELBERG ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Third-Party Defendants. / ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Crossclaim Plaintiff, Vv. ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation; Crossclaim Defendants. DEFENDANT / CROSSCLAIM DEFENDANT WEINTRAUB’S EXPERT DISCLOSURE Defendant / Crossclaim Defendant, WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSIC, INC., n/k/a WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC. (“Weintraub”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Complex Construction Case Management Order dated April 9, 2021, hereby discloses its expert witness as follows: 1 Alexander A. Hockman, PE NV5 200 South Park Road, Ste. 350 Hollywood, FL 33021 954-862-1552 Mr. Hockman is expected to testify with regard to liability and damages based on the claims presented by Plaintiff and Crossclaim-Plaintiff, and any expert opinions offered by Plaintiffs experts, Crossclaim-Plaintiff’s experts, or others involving Weintraub, including the inspections performed by Weintraub at the project, the standard of care required of Weintraub, and damages, if any, proximately caused by Weintraub, as described in more detail in Mr. Hockman’s expert report. A copy of Mr. Hockman’s expert report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of Mr. Hockman’s CV is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A list of cases in which Mr. Hockman has testified as an expert at trial or deposition within the last four years is attached hereto as Exhibit C. A copy of NV5’s fee schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 2. Additionally, Weintraub reserves the right to offer expert opinion testimony from: a. Any expert listed or called by any other party. b Any person who furnished design, construction, or other services on the project and who is otherwise qualified to offer expert testimony. Rebuttal and impeachment experts as to any other party’s disclosures, opinions or additional claims. /s/ Andrew E. Holway Timothy C. Ford Florida Bar No. 173770 Andrew E. Holway Florida Bar No. 098559 Rocco Cafaro Florida Bar No. 507121 Hill Ward Henderson 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: 813-221-3900 Fax: 813-221-2900 Email: tim.ford@hwhlaw.com Email: andrew.holway@hwhlaw.com Email: rocco.cafaro@hwhlaw.com Secondary: tracy.coale@hwhlaw.con kathy. wernsing@hwhlaw.cor derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com Attorneys for Weintraub Inspections & Forensic, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically served through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to all parties and/or counsel of record on October 1, 2021. /s/ Andrew I. Holway Attorney 15963861v1 V9 October 1, 2021 Hill Ward Henderson 3700 Bank of America Plaza 104 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 Attn: Andrew E, Holway, Esq. Re: NV5 Preliminary Expert Report Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association vs. Royal Oak Homes, LLC et al. CASE NO: 2020-CA-002942-0N Kissimmee, Florida Dear Mr. Holway: NV5, Inc. (“NV5”) was engaged by Hill Ward Henderson on behalf of Weintraub Inspections and Forensic, Inc. (“Weintraub”) to review and respond to alleged construction defects in the Villas at Emerald Lake (“Development”), located in Kissimmee, Florida. Marcon Forensics, LLC. (“Marcon”) prepared their Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 2, 2021 (the “Marcon Report”), on behalf of the Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association (the “Association”). NVS Preliminary Expert Report (“NV5 Report") is in response to the Marcon Report as it relates to items potentially associated with Weintraub’s scope of services. NV5 was engaged on this matter after Marcon conducted their destructive investigation. Therefore, NV5 based this report on our review of available construction documents, our understanding of the applicable codes and standards, and our professional education, knowledge and experience. NV5 reviewed the following key documents for the preparation of this report: . Marcon Villas at Emerald Lake Engineering Assessment Report, dated April 2, 2021 (“Marcon Report”), including: ~ The Marcon Report Appendix, dated April 28, 2020 (“Marcon Photographs”) _ Marcon Forensics, Villas at Emeraid Lake Defects Damage, dated April 28, 2020 (“Marcon Defect Matrix”) Marcon Forensics, Villas at Emerald Lake Non-Defects, dated June 15, 2021 (“Marcon Non- Defect Matrix”) Alta Engineering Company, Evaluation Report, dated September 10, 2021 (“Alta Report”) SMH Construction Services inc., Villas at Emerald Lake Preliminary Estimate - ROH Homes, dated 4/5/2021 (“Cost estimate”) Weintraub Inspection Reports (individual reports are listed in Appendix F of this NV5 Report) Weintraub’s Proposed Scope of Work for Royal Oak Homes, “Weintraub Inspections & Forensics, 3 Party inspections for Royal Oaks Homes”, not dated (Weintraub’s Proposal) Deposition transcript of Felix Martin, PE (“Mr. Martin”) Volume IV, dated September 15, 2021 (“Marcon’s Deposition”) 200 South Park Road, Suite 350 | Hollywood, FL 33021 | www.NV5.com | Office 954.495.2112 | Fax 954.495.2101, CONSTRU! N QUALITY ASSURANCE - INFRA’ TU ENERGY - PROGRAM MMA NT - ENVIRt TA FBAID AA26002690 - FBPE CA#29065, EXHIBIT A VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 2 . ASTM C 926 - 98a (2005) and ASTM C 926 - ita . ASTM C 1063 ~ 06 and ASTM C 1063 ~ 12a PROJECT DESCRIPTION NV5 assumes the reader of this report is familiar with the Villas at Emerald Lake Development, located in Kissimmee, Florida. The Development consists of 88 homes, encompassed in twelve (12) multi- story residential buildings. Two different contractors, The Dimillo Group, LLC and Royal Oaks Homes, LLC, built the Development. This NV5 Report focuses on the ten buildings constructed by Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“ROH”), (“Project”, “Buildings"). Based on drawings reviewed by NV5, the Buildings consist of first-story concrete masonry (“CMU”) walis with a stucco finish, and second-story wood framed wails with stucco finish. WEINTRAUB’S SCOPE OF SERVICES Weintraub’s proposed scope of services (see Appendix D) included the following eight (8) sections: Monolithic Concrete Siab / Foundation Masonry Wall, Tie-Beam and Lintel Wall and Roof Sheathing House Wrap Inspection (with windows installed) Building Paper/Lath Stucco Installation Structural Framing Final However, based on NV5's conversations with Weintraub personnel, Weintraub inspection reports, and ROH purchase orders, only limited inspections were authorized by ROH. Primarily, Weintraub conducted third-party inspections under contract with ROH on an on-call basis related to House Wrap (Item 4) and Building Paper/Lath (item 5). Additionally Weintraub performed one Stucco Final Inspection (item 8) at one Building. Appendix F of this NV5 Report contains NV5’s summary of Weintraub’s Inspections performed at the Project. Weintraub’s Proposal identifies the scope of each inspection, however, based on NV5'‘s conversations with Weintraub’s personnel, section 4d of the House Wrap Inspection, section 5d of the Building Paper/Lath Inspection and sections 8b and 8c of the Final Inspection were not included in the scope of Weintraub’s authorized inspections at the Project. It is also important to recognize that Weintraub’s inspections were non-mandatory and occurred prior the Authority Having Jurisdiction (“AHJ") performing the Florida Building Code (“Code”) required inspections. Hence, any changes to the work required by the AHJ or determination of Code compliance of the work would not be Weintraub’s responsibility. Hence, Mr. Martin's (deposition transcript page 524, Lines 1 through 4), statement suggesting that Weintraub did not “...fulfill their duty as inspectors” is unfounded. WV Serichs. te suis, VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 3 NV5 SUMMARY OF OPINIONS Itis NV5's opinion that the Marcon Report is insufficient to allege any standard of care or building code violations against Weintraub for the following reasons: Marcon’s methodology is flawed and is not in accordance with the Standards cited in their report, relative to Marcon’s conducting of destructive investigations (“DT”): - Marcon did not utilize an appropriate selection criteria to select DT sites for the evaluation of the Buildings. The Marcon Report recommends unwarranted and wasteful global repairs without identifying the cause of the alleged defect(s). Marcon has misinterpreted and misstated damage without verifying its hypotheses. The Marcon Report does not allocate responsibility for the alleged defects. ~ Felix Martin, PE testified to not have “been specifically retained to provide criticism of Weintraub” and to not have allocated “responsibilities for the defects identified” in the Marcon Report (Page 523, Lines 22 through 25) The destructive testing observations listed in the Marcon Report do not support Marcon’s recommendation to remove and replace all the stucco on the second story. - The Marcon Report alleges defects unsupported by Marcon’s photographic evidence. ~ The Marcon Report alleges conditions that do not constitute a deficiency, and recommends complete removal and replacement of the stucco based on these conditions. The Marcon Report claims damage due to possible water intrusion without testing to substantiate their opinion. The Marcon Report does not substantiate the claim of defective conditions “in a systemic basis” as Mr. Martin testified (Page 528, Lines 17 through 20). 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 4 NV5 RESPONSE TO THE MARCON REPORT NV5 Response to the Marcon Report is divided into three categories, |. Methodology of the Marcon Report, fl. Claims against Weintraub, and Ill. Destructive Testing Observations. This NVS Report focuses on the ten Buildings constructed by Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“ROH”), listed below. Figure 1 shows an aerial photograph indicating the builder for each building. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2851 to 2865 Sunstone Dr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2869 to 2883 Sunstone Dr. 4-Unit Building with addresses 2887 to 2893 Sunstone Dr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2897 to 2911 Sunstone Dr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2915 to 2929 Sunstone Dr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2942 to 2956 Tanzanite Terr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2926 to 2940 Tanzanite Terr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2908 to 2922 Tanzanite Terr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2892 to 2906 Tanzanite Terr. 8-Unit Building with addresses 2876 to 2890 Tanzanite Terr. a ed e co te iSileris fai photog with N reap in ati log de er, quantity of u sd ade 28, Hy rick te suis, VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 5S I. METHODOLOGY OF THE MARCON REPORT The Marcon Report states that their “Testing Methodology” used recommendations from ASTM E 2128. However, there are several inconsistencies between the Marcon Report and ASTM E 2128 recommendations. Marcon did not utilize an appropriate selection criteria to evaluate the structures. Marcon’s approach to select test locations was to “create a sample base that was evenly distributed across the site. Test locations were selected for efficiency and access” (Marcon Report, Page 6). The following is an excerpt from ASTM £2128 - 17 Section 5.4 “The recommended sampling method for the application of this guide is to consider the spectrum of wall conditions from apparently performing to apparently non-performing areas, and from un-deteriorated or un-damaged areas to deteriorated or damaged areas. It is also important to distinguish between varying conditions which may result from prior modifications or attempted repairs, and to determine the extent of sampling necessary to address and evaluate these variations in conditions,” The ASTM E2128 method for selecting sampling or testing locations is not dictated by the location of the samples within a site, the efficiency of the work nor the access. Marcon did not comply with ASTM E2128 to select the test locations. The Marcon Report recommends overreaching global without investigating the repai cause of the alleged defect, misinterpreting and misstating significant damage, and without verifying their hypotheses. In section 5.3, ASTM E2128 does not recommend assuming that all locations constructed or designed similarly “will be currently performing in precisely the same manner”. Marcon ignores this statement by recommending removing and replacing “a// stucco over the wood framed second floor framing”. Marcon bases their recommendation on the assumption that the construction will be repetitive and the alleged error(s) will be repeated on the other Buildings (Marcon’s Deposition Page 526, Lines 9 through 21) while explaining that finding two (2) “improperly nailed” shingles at random locations means that there is a great likelihood that entire roof is improperly nailed. This approach contradicts ASTM E2128 section 5.3. which states: “/t is not assumed or expected that all locations with similar design, construction and service characteristics will be currently performing in precisely the same manner”. Marcon recommendations are excessive, not supported by their investigations and not in accordance with ASTM E2128. ih. CLAIMS AGAINST WEINTRAUB Weintraub was only authorized to inspect a certain number of structures, and their scope of inspections were limited, non-mandatory, and performed in accordance with their contract with ROH. Hence, there is no basis for Marcon, the Association, or ROH to claim any Code or Standard of Care violation with respect to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 6 Code Violation Weintraub was not the general contractor, architect or engineer of record for the Project, Weintraub did not apply for any of the permits and did not perform any of the work required under the Code to complete the Project. Weintraub’s responsibility was limited to third-party non-mandatory inspections. Hence, they are not responsible for Code compliance. The Marcon Report summary of opinions allocates the alleged damages to “defective construction performed by building contractors who knew or should have known such defective installations violated the requirements of the building codes in effect at the time of original construction, the building plans, or manufacturers’ specifications.” The scope of Weintraub’s services, as previously discussed, was to perform visual third-party inspections on buildings designated by ROH. Marcon’s findings are introduced by stating that their investigations led to the discovery of “a number of conditions ... which did not meet the minimum requirements” of the Code, ASTM C926, and ASTM C 1063. Neither the Code, ASTM C 926, nor ASTM C 1063 standardize policies for the visual third-party inspections performed by Weintraub at the Project. Therefore, Weintraub’s services cannot be in violation of the referenced Codes and Standards while performing third-party inspections, which Mr. Martin agreed to during his deposition (Page 555, Lines 24 and 22). Standard of Care Weintraub’s inspections were not mandatory or required by the AHJ. Weintraub was not engaged by ROH as a Private Provider inspector nor in a Threshold Inspector capacity, Weintraub was engaged by ROH in a Third Party Building Inspector capacity. Third Party Inspections are independent quality assurance inspections, and the role of a third party inspector is to identify and inform the client of non- conforming issues with the elements inspected. Weintraub's role was to inspect certain elements of the buildings when requested by ROH, and report their findings to ROH. Mr. Martin testified that he did not know the extent of Weintraub’s inspections at the project. However, Mr. Martin also stated that “the fact that such a high numberof defective conditions were found would Jed (sic) me to the opinion that Weintraub did not appear to fulfiil their duty as inspectors” (Page 524, Lines 1 through 4). Additionally Mr. Martin added that a high number of defects were “41 individual defects identified” (Page 524, Lines 12 and 13). Marcon allocates the 41 alleged defects to Weintraub without understanding the extent of Weintraub’s scope. Hence, Marcon’s allegation that Weintraub did not “fulfill their duties as an inspector” is based on erroneous assumptions and is unfounded. Based on NV5's review of Weintraub Inspection Reports, Weintraub performed a total twenty-seven (27) inspections across ten (10) Buildings at the Project and more than 30% of the inspection reports indicated “System Not in Compliance”. Further, there were instances where the nonconforming/noncomplying conditions were accepted by ROH, see Appendix A for an example. Regardiess, Weintraub performed the inspections, recorded their concerns and reported them to their client. Ultimately, how those issues were resolved was the responsibility of ROH. Therefore, Weintraub did not violate its standard of care as a third party, independent quality assurance inspector. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 7 Weintraub had no duty to ensure that their comments or concerns were resolved once they were reported to their client, ROH. Hie DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OBSERVATIONS The Marcon Report separates the alleged construction defects into six categories: Roofs, Fenestrations, Walls, Floors, Structural and Sitework. Based on the scope of services Weintraub performed, they did not inspect the Roof, Fenestrations, Floors, Structural and Sitework; therefore, those allegations will not be addressed herein. Weintraub’s scope of services may have involved inspections related to limited allegations in the Walls category, specifically in Marcon’s subsection numbered and titled “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame”. However, due to construction sequencing as it relates to the installation of the building's facade, several of the allegations in Marcon’s subsection “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame” are outside of Weintraub’s scope. Therefore, it is important to understand the general construction sequencing as it relates to the stucco application over a wood-framed substrate and to the occurrence of Weintraub’s inspections, 4) installation of the sheathing. For this Project, the sheathing consisted of Oriented Strand Board OSB"). a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services 2) Installation of the Water Resistive Barrier (“WRB”). This installation may include flashings under or over the fenestrations and other penetrations. However, the WRB completely covers the OSB. At this point, Weintraub performed the first inspection referred to as, House Wrap Inspection, or House Wrap 2°¢ Story. a Inspected by Weintraub. 3) Installation of the windows. a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services. 4) Installation of the building paper. The building paper covers the WRB. a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services. 5) Installation of the lath. The lath covers the building paper, although some aspects may be visible. This installation includes the installation of stucco accessories. At this point, Weintraub performed the second inspection, referred to in this report as the Building/Paper lath inspection. a Inspected by Weintraub. 6) Installation of the stucco. a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services. 7) installation/application of the building finishes, sealants, and paint. a. This inspection is not included in Weintraub’s scope of services The following paragraphs contain NV5’s analysis and opinions of the allegations contained in the Walls category, “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame” section, of the Marcon Report. The numbered titles ‘orrespond to those in the Marcon Report. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 8 Considering the general construction sequencing described above and the elements that would have been visible at the time of Weintraub’s inspections, several allegations claimed by Marcon in subsection “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame” are outside of Weintraub’s scope of services, including: . 3.0106 Poor embedment of lath into plaster - Weintraub's scope did not include stucco application inspection. . 3.0109 Improper stucco application, not applied in 3-step process. _ Weintraub's scope did not include stucco application inspections. ~ Weintraub’s scope did not include final inspections. NV5 will respond to each one of these allegations claimed by Marcon in section “3.01 Stucco Over Wood Frame.” 3.0104 Stucco weather barrier reverse lapped under window sill 3.0102 Insufficient length of wire lath staples 3.0103 Lack of isolation/improper application of sealant around window perimeter. 3.0105 Paper backed lath not lapped paper-to-paper/lath-to-lath. 3.0110 Improper stucco application, not applied in 3-step process. 3.0115 Lack of weep screed at wood/masonry transition. 3.0119 Improperly installed weep screeds/stucco stop. 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter. 3.0121 Lack of flashing at wall penetration. 3.0122 Unseaied penetration. 3.0126 Excessive stapling through window flashing. 3.0136 Reverse lap of stucco backing. 3.0140 Trapped Moisture between stucco backing and building wrap. 3.0149 Improper installation of building wrap. 3.0160 Inadequate separation between stucco and dissimilar materials. NV5 will also respond to the following items, which according to Marcon are a consequence of the alleged construction defects. 3.0190 Damage to wall sheathing 3.0191 Damaged Framing 3.0192 Damaged weather barrier/building wrap, rusted fasteners 3.0193 Cracked or stained stucco adjacent to openings 3.0194 Cracks / separation adjacent to control joints / stucco accessories WV Serichs. te suis, VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 9 3.0101 Stucco weather barrier reverse lapped under window sill Marcon reports “stucco weather barrier reverse lapped under window sill” at all six (6) windows investigated, however Marcon depicts the Building paper, the building paper is not the Weather barrier. The building paper as applied is consistent with common construction practices, Figure 2. Mr. Martin testified this is a condition Weintraub “should have seen because it happens at every single window” (Page 530, Lines 1 through 3). At the point of Weintraub’s Building Wrap inspection, this component would not yet have been installed, At the point of Weintraub’s Lath Inspection the wire lath, casing beads, stucco stops, control joints, and expansion joints, covered the building paper, which obscured the visibility of the building paper itself, and any detail of the building paper's interaction with other building components. Additionally, Marcon states this is one of the 41 deficiencies found at the Project. However, the condition shown is not a reverse lap; the photograph depicts the Building Paper terminated under the window, as intended. pene nent > ie a Jarcon Pb Og) aah VERni030160.JPI ue back 6) tted up ag inst bottom oF wind NV5 agrees with the Alta Report that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” therefore, Marcon’s recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. There is no deficiency in this allegation; therefore, there is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 10 3.0102 Insufficient length of wire lath staples Marcon claims at Cut 304, Cut 401, Cut 204, and Cut 305, “Lath staple has 1 44” long legs, insufficient to provide minimum 3/4" embedment into framing. Detail 3/8 calls for 1 44” long staples.” As stated in the Alta Report, “7/16-inch thick OSB sheathing" was used at the project. As such, a 14-inch long staple would allow for a 34” embedment. Regardless, a 1 12" staple length is not relevant when the lath is attached to structural sheathing. Further, Marcon has not provided any data to substantiate there was not a 34-inch embedment into the framing or there is any damage resulting from this allegation. Marcon also claims at Cut 205 “Only one visible lath fastener in 24” x 36”." Marcon reports this condition in one location only, and there is no indication that this is a typical condition or that there is associated damage. As stated previously, NVS was not present during Marcon’s destructive testing, and is unable to independently verify this allegation based on Marcon’s photographic documentation. Marcon claims at Cut 208 “Stucco loose along contro! joint. No lath staples attached.” Marcon does not specify the area of destructive testing, Marcon reports this condition in one location only, and there is no indication that this is a typical condition or that there is associated damage. As stated previously, NV5 was not present during Marcon’s destructive testing, and is unable to independently verify this allegation based on Marcon’s photographic documentation. NV5 agrees with the Alta Report that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” therefore, Marcon’s recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 11 3.0103 Lack of isolation/improper application of sealant around window perimeter. Marcon reports “Lack of isolation/improper application of sealant around window perimeter” at five (5) locations, Cut 314, Cut 210, Cut 214, Cut 207 and Cut 304. At Cut 314, Cut 210, Cut 214, Cut 207 Marcon claims, “Lack of isolation between window frame and stucco prevents proper application of sealant.” Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. Weintraub performed one (1) Stucco Final Inspection at the Building where Cut 304 is located. Weintraub’s protocol for Stucco Final Inspections consisted of a walk through, observing from the ground only, to identify not compliant conditions visible from the ground. As represented in Figure 4, the photographs taken from the ground are not sufficient at depicting the alleged condition. The alleged condition is only sufficiently visible at close range as represented in Figure 3. The alleged condition would not have been visible from the ground and could not have been observed by Weintraub. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. a — Mai fh a sara; nh 1G. IPG “Lack o gure 4. hared photg an 10. is ion bt ow me an prevent ervig’ prog applic 20 at Cu 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 12 3.0105 Paper backed fath not lapped paper-to-paper/lath-to-lath. Marcon reports “Paper backed lath not lapped paper-to-paper/lath-to-lath” at one location, Cut 304 at 2930 Tanzanite Terrace (Figure 5). This condition, found in a single location, does not indicate a widespread condition at the Project. The alleged condition is common for similar projects and not typically associated with damage. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. co ae = Figs arco) graph VE md: G 2 pH ng Ips: Netal iath, prev ig emb tin: rat NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation.” Marcon's recommendation to “remove and replace ail stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project. is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 13 3.0110 improper installation of stucco control Joint accessory. Marcon reports, “improper installation of stucco control joint”, at three (3) locations, Cut 404 located at 2926 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 305 located at 2922 Tanzanite Terrace and Cut 311 located at 2887 Sunstone Drive. Relative to the (3) three cuts, Marcon states “Contro/ joint not caulked to mid-floor accessory.” Caulking the control joint to the mid-floor accessory is not required, nor recommended, this allegation does not constitute a code violation, nor a construction deficiency. At Cut 404 Marcon states, “Control Joint stapled / fastened to OSB substrate.” Weintraub reported this condition duringa Lath re-inspection conducted on 8/12/2014. Further, Weintraub inspected this building and noted inconsistencies with the wire lath installation; Weintraub approved the Lath installation on 8/12/2014 with objections, Weintraub discussed the objections with the ROH superintendent. It was ROH responsibility to either, address Weintraub’s objections or continue the work, having been made aware of Weintraub’s objections. Weintraub performed its duties to the client; hence, there is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. At Cut 305 and Cut 311 Marcon states “Lath not tied to control joint accessory: Stucco lath tied to control joint accessory. Stucco backing runs behind accessory.” Marcon’s statement is inconsistent, Marcon claims the lath is not tied and immediately after, Marcon claims the lath is tied. Marcon did not provide a photograph to confirm the lath attachment. Further, Marcon claims the stucco backing runs behind accessory; this is consistent with common construction practice. There is no deficiency in this allegation; Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this ailegation.” Marcon's recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up ore than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 14 3.0115 Lack of weep screed at wood/masonry transition, Marcon reports “Lack of weep screed at wood/masonry transition” at five (5) locations, Cut 404 located at 2926 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 204 located at 2914 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 205 located at 2906 Tanzanite Terrace, Cut 313 located at 2863 Sunstone Drive, and Cut 404 located at 2911 Sunstone Drive. At the five cuts, Marcon states, “Stucco stop with no weep mechanism installed at floorline transition” At all (5) five cuts Marcon photographs depicted an accessory at the floor line transition from masonry to wood frame. The accessory depicted in Marcon's photographs installed at the floor line transition, is consistent with AMICO Mid-Wall Weep Screed AMMWS-780-500 or 580 (Appendix B), which is a solid weep screed. In reference to weep screeds accessories ASTM C 1063 states, "This accessory shall have a sloped, solid, or perforated, ground or screed flange..." The accessory installed is common for similar projects and Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. This accessory is a solid weep screed, and not a “stucco stop” as alleged by Marcon (Figure 6 and Figure 7). a i i 6. Marcon. photograph 10. G ure 7, Marcon phot aph 024 at € ut co with no weep mechanism Note the remo tral on” at Cut 404 MICO weep screed(Aj vdix B) NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” Marcon's recommendation to “remove and repiace al! stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. The condition alleged is not a deficiency; therefore, there is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 15 3.0119 improperly installed weep screeds/stucce stop, Marcon reports, “improperly installed weep screeds/stucco stop” at six (6) locations, Cut 304 located at 2930 Tanzanite Terr, Cut 305 located at 28541 Sunstone Dr, Cut 314 located at 2851 Sunstone Dr, Cut 214 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr, Cut 215 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr, and Cut 3114 located at 2887 Sunstone Dr. Marcon states, “Mid-wall weep no fasteners in entire exposed length. None in pre-drilled holes.” At the point of Weintraub’s Building Wrap Inspection, this component would not have been installed. At the point of Weintraub's Lath Inspection, the wire lath and building paper would have obscured the visibility of the mid-wall weep and the separation of the mid-wall weep attachments. ASTM C 1063 recommends that attachments for metal plaster bases to framing members “shall be spaced not more than 7in. along framing members.” The Code does not indicate spacing of attachments for stucco accessories. NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation,” Marcon’s recommendation to “remove and replace all stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 3.0120 Inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter Marcon reports “inadequate installation of flashing around window perimeter” at four (4) locations, Cuts 304 located at 2930 Tanzanite Terr, 210 located at 2869 Sunstone Dr, 214 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr, and 215 located at 2879 Sunstone Dr. Marcon states “Jamb flashing not fully adhered." There is no indication this alleged condition results from original construction, the destructive testing could have caused this condition, additionally, flashing adhesion testing was not part of Weintraub’s scope. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. At Cut 215, Marcon states “Jamb flashing does not cover jamb nail fin.” There is no indication that this is a typical condition throughout the Project. The alleged deficiency occurs at a single test location, and should have been addressed during the repairs after Marcon’s destructive investigations. During construction, the alleged condition may have been visible during Weintraub’s Building Wrap Inspection; however, there is no indication that Weintraub performed the Building Wrap inspection at this building. NV5 agrees with the Alta Report in that “No repair is required to address this allegation.” Marcon's recommendation to “remove and replace ail stucco and weather-resistive barriers...” which makes up more than 40,000 square feet of stucco at the Project, is unsupported by the data reported by Marcon from their investigation. There is no basis to allocate any costs associated with this alleged condition to Weintraub. 8 i wel VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE - NV5 PRELIMINARY EXPERT REPORT OCTOBER 1, 2021 PAGE 16 3.0121 Lack of flashing at wall penetration Marcon reports “Lack of flashing at wall penetration” at two (2) locations, Cut 404 located at 2914 Sunstone Drive and Cut 402 located at 2929 Sunstone Drive At Cut 404, Marcon states “Inadequate pipe penetration flashing, not per Tyvek installation instructions”, based on NV5's review of Marcon’s photographs, self-adhering flashing was used to flash the penetration, which is consistent with DuPont Tyvek WRB installation instructions (Windows/ Doors Installed AFTER the Tyvek WRB) (“Tyvek Recommendations”), see Appendix C. At Cut 402, Marcon states, “Vent flashing over building wrap”. The flashing configuration depicted in Marcon's photograph (Figure 8) is consistent with Tyvek Recommendations (Figure 9). The alleged condition is common for similar projects and not typically associated with damage. Marcon has not presented any data associating the alleged condition with any damage at the Project. ere een ne en eee a evo “Eg Lf Ko A A he