I know an AE subconsultant working for an energy consultant who’s client is extremely unhappy with a recently installed EIFS system. The AE sub who designed the system made frequent visits during construction to observe and inform the energy consultant that questionable construction practices and inadequate product storage were taking place. The installer put on most of base coat prior to tenting. Now, the EIFS has been showing signs of failure in some pre-tenting locations. The installer suggested to apply a flexible epoxy coating; the AE didn’t want the installer just to hide problems. The AE then called for a third-party inspector to inspect and report on findings and recommendations. The AE told me his frustrations after the inspector seemed almost “hand-in-glove” about the installation while going along with what the installer suggested. The AE and energy consultant are awaiting the inspection report. In the meantime, the AE tells me he has become more frustrated when he discovered that the third-party EIFs inspector is from the mortar/stucco supplier who is–literally–under the same roof as the installing company. What are your thoughts? Should the AE call for another independent inspector? And where would that inspector come from?
Welcome to our forum, Tony!
What is an AE subconultant?
And what is your position in all of this?
“AE” as in “architect/engineer”. My position is to remain a neutral party.
If it we me, I would have the AE contact the manufacturer of the EIFS system being used and have their rep out to the house to review the installation and make recommendations to correct the problems…in writing.
Good luck, Tony.
P.S. Typically, manufacturer’s installation instructions trumps code.