- 376 -
a)
at the bottom of page 3 Mr. Roney notes that the three detail sketches show an identified
gap between the wythes of brick and concrete block and that “it is not clear whether this
gap which was drawn at about the same thickness as a mortar joint was intended to be
filled solid with mortar to form a collar joint or left open. In our opinion, the detail could
have been interpreted either way.” In this respect Mr. Roney agreed that the detail was
ambiguous and not entirely clear one way or the other, although in his report he went on
to rely on the absence of hatching and noted that it would be reasonable for a contractor
to interpret the intent of the contract documents to the effect that the two wythes of
masonry were to be constructed with a void space between them. Mr. Roney did go so
far as to admit that absent the specifications that called for a 19 millimetre air space, the
situation perhaps required clarification by the contractor.
b)
c)
At the top of page 4 of his report, Mr. Roney notes that the specifications call for a 19
millimetre void space between the brick and the block, and that the joint illustrated on the
small detail sketches is clearly not as wide as 19 millimetres. As such he says, there
appears to be a slight conflict between the drawings and the specifications. Still in the
face of this, Mr. Roney was not prepared to concede that the reasonable thing for the
contractor to do in the circumstances is to meet with the consultant to clarify.
Again at page 4 of his report, Mr. Roney notes that the beam designation and the
elevation of the steel deck in relation to the beam is consistent with the conditions at the
east and west exterior walls, as illustrated in section E on drawing five, but no details
were provided to illustrate the condition at the north and south exterior walls, the
construction of which would differ due to the lower elevation of the perimeter steel
beams to account for the joist shoes which are four inches deep. In this respect, Mr.
Roney did concede that a consultation was required as between the contractor and the
consultant.
d)
e)
As well, at page four of his report, Mr. Roney notes that the specifications require that
“units shall be tied every other course as noted on the drawings” but that the drawings
contain no notes regarding ties. He concedes that in this situation the contractor should
have required clarification.
In his report, Mr. Roney notes that the specification reference to ties at every other course
presumably is referring to the concrete block course although it is under the heading
‘Brick work’, because ties at every other course of the brick work would result in an
excessive number of ties. Again, there should have been clarification by communication
between the contractor and the consultant.
f)
In his report, Mr. Roney notes that if the ties are simply required to secure the brick to a
back-up wall as is the most common case, then light strap ties are suitable. If however
the ties are required to bond the wythes such that they exert common action under load,
the CSA Standard prescribes a heavier tie system. Mr. Roney seemed to agree that the
contractor would not know what kind of tie to use without being told by the consultant.
The contractor does know that he can go to his supplier and buy all sorts of ties, and Mr.
Roney agreed that if he did not know which type to buy he would go to the consultant.
Under the heading ‘Movement Joints’ in his report Mr. Roney notes that the
specifications call for “provide control joints as dictated by structural design”. However
the drawings do not indicate any control joints nor were any provided except for one on
the south face of the building. Mr. Roney agreed that the contractor would expect them
g)
