Where does ASTM E2018 − 15 require cost estimates for repairs?

“1.1.4 Property Condition Report—The work product result- ing from completing a PCA in accordance with this guide is a Property Condition Report (PCR). The PCR incorporates the information obtained during the Walk-Through Survey, the Document Review and Interviews sections of this guide, and includes Opinions of Costs for suggested remedies of the physical deficiencies identified.

10.5.3 Opinions of Costs—Present the aggregate sum of opinions of costs segregated between immediate and short- term costs.

“10.10 Opinions of Costs—Identify the material physical deficiencies and provide suggested remedies, complete with opinions of costs.”

These appear to state that the PCR must contain cost estimates for correction, repair, etc. of defects/deficiencies, and they seem to conflict with:

“5.4.3 Opinions of Costs Contingent on Further Discovery— The consultant is not required to provide opinions of costs to remedy physical deficiencies that may require the opinions of specialty consultants** or the results of testing, intrusive observations, exploratory probing, or further research to determine the cause of the physical deficiency and the appropriate remedy, scope, and scheme for repair or replacement unless user and consultant have agreed to such an expansion of the scope of work.”

This seems to say that they don’t have to supply repair costs that require information from specialty consultants.

“2.3.41 specialty consultants, n—individuals or entities in the fields of life safety, security, engineering, or in any particular building component, equipment, or system that have acquired detailed, specialized knowledge and experience in the design, evaluation, operation, repair, or installation of same.”

  1. Why do the items in blue not conflict with the items in red?
  2. For what types of deficiencies, or under what circumstances, bearing 5.4.3 in mind, do the ASTM Standards require cost estimates to be supplied and where is that information?

Ken, I have an older version, but doesn’t 9 to 10 tell you all you need to know about** (Opinions of Probable Costs to Remedy Physical Deficiencies)**

Opinions of probable costs should be provided for material physical deficiencies only.

9 is guidelines, 10 seems to say you have to, ands 5.4.3 seems to say you don’t have to.
The blue and red font are quotes right out of E2018 − 15.

Ken, my interpretation of this is;
That an opinion of Costs is not required if Further Discovery is needed to find out the cost of the deficiency by means of testing specialty equipment, consultants, intrusive observations, exploratory probing and the evaluation of repairs and cost to rectify.

And this one;

This would be just your routine repair or replacement cost.

Ex.: The Parking Garage slab is showing exposed re-bar and the top surface of the slab is spalling, cracking and delaminating in some areas.

This would require the expertise of special consultants, testing agencies for the concrete, such as coring, investigation of design drawings, Architect, Structural Engineers and so forth.

A long-term opinion of cost would be required for that in my opinion, and should be agreed upon with the client and defined in the scope.

You may want to contact Dale Duffy or Bill Warner to get their interpretation on this as well.

Ref: Bolded last sentance…
IMO, EVERY Commercial inspection should have an agreed upon SCOPE between the Client and the Inspection Company to ensure all of the Clients expectations are met. If properly drafted, all other directives regarding costs are irrelevent and moot!

Being new to commercial I expect to have to provide a feasibility report including costs, if you hire me for that. For specialty costing such as engineering for a truck bay wind test I would sub that pout. Jeffrey says correctly that if it in your agreement you do it, if not don’t. The ASTM E2018
is to be used as a guide only. It actually says that. Guide only.

I don’t think either of you has answered his question, Paul.
See bold and underlined.

It seems to me that Kenton needs to contact** ANSI** directly to get clarification of** their** standards.

Yeah, your right Marcel. I don’t worry about stuff like that because it takes time away from my fun time. One of these days though I will take my work seriously.



This is exactly why this standard is written by Engineers and not practical Inspectors. IMO

The items in blue will directly correspond to those items created by the Reviewer and the credentials they hold. They are placing themselves only responsible for the items they understand or are qualified for. If there is a system, component or item in a property they do not understand they will exclude it from the PCA and PCR.

In Red…

Since excluding it from the PCA and PCR the Reviewer is therefore, not responsible and stating that additional discovery will need to be necessary.

In many ways this is providing them the opportunity to additional fees or additional consultants to bring to the project.

Yah. I guess everyone gets this but me.

Sorry, but your explanation shot right over my head, Rob. If you want to expand on your explanation you might start by identifying “they” and “the reviewer”.

Ken, The text below comes from a typical PCA performed by an engineering company. Like the example below they state they generally follow ASTM E2018, but they include a scope of services and provide some clarification and limitations spelled out in the report.

1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this Property Condition Assessment was to observe and document readily visible materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property, and determine if conditions exist which may have a significant impact on the continued operation of the facility during the evaluation period.

In addition, this property condition assessment is to assist Mr. XXXX in evaluating the physical aspects of this property and how its condition may affect the dependability of Mr. XXXX’s decisions over time. Representative samples of the major building components were observed and physical conditions evaluated in general accordance with ASTM E 2018-01 including general site, exterior, representative interiors and an appropriate percentage of representative sampling of tenant spaces.

The observations were performed without removing or damaging components of the existing building systems. Consequently, certain assumptions have been made regarding conditions and operating performance. If any additional information is encountered concerning the facility, it should be forwarded to Continental Consulting for possible re-evaluation of the assumptions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein. The recommendations and opinions of cost provided herein are for observed deficiencies based on the understanding that the facility will continue operating in its present occupancy classification.

This assessment included a site visit, limited interviews with property management personnel and tenants; inquiries to the local building department, zoning department and fire department; a review of available construction documents (drawings and specifications) provided by the property management; and visual, non-intrusive, non-destructive observations of the following system components: site development; building structure; building exterior and interior areas; mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; conveyance systems, life safety/fire protection, and general ADA compliance.

**1.2 Evaluation Definitions **
The following terms are used throughout the report and are defined as follows:

Excellent: New or like New
Good: Average to above-average condition for the building system or material assessed, with consideration of its age, design, and geographical location. Generally, other than normal maintenance, no work is recommended or required.
Fair: Average condition for the building system evaluated. Satisfactory, however some short term and/or immediate attention is required or recommended, primarily due to the normal aging and wear of the building system, to return the system to a good condition.
Poor: Below average condition for the building system evaluated. Requires immediate repair, significant work or replacement anticipated to return the building system or material to an acceptable condition.

Unless stated otherwise in this report, the systems reviewed are considered to be in good condition and their performance appears to be satisfactory.

**1.3 Statement of Limitations **
The report represents a statement of the physical condition of the buildings and property based upon visual site observation, professional analysis and judgment, and is current only as of the date of the site observation. The report applies only to those portions of the property and/or items and equipment, which were capable of being visually observed. Walls and ceilings were not opened to observe covered, hidden, or concealed conditions. In addition, no sampling of any property components or testing of non-functioning equipment at the time of the walk through survey was conducted. Drawings and specifications were available only to the extent described in the report.

The following activities are Out of Scope Items and excluded from the scope of this PCA as described in ASTM 2018-01. These activities should not be construed as all-inclusive or imply that any exclusion not specifically noted below is a requirement of this PCA:

• Utilities: Operating conditions of any systems or accessing manholes or utility pits.
• Structural Frame and Building Envelope: Entering of crawl or confined space areas (however, the field observer should observe conditions to the extent easily visible from the point of access to the crawl or confined space areas), determination of previous substructure flooding or water penetration unless easily visible or if such information is provided.
• Roofs: Walking on pitched roofs, or any roof areas that appear to be unsafe, or roofs with no built-in access, or determining any roofing design criteria.
• Plumbing: Determining adequate pressure and flow rate, fixture unit values and counts, verifying pipe sizes, or verifying the point of discharge for underground systems.
• Heating: Observation of flue connections, interiors of chimneys, flues or boiler stacks, or tenant owned or maintained equipment.
• Air conditioning & Ventilation: Process related equipment or condition of tenant-owned/ maintained equipment.
• Electrical: Removing of electrical panel and device covers, except if removed by building staff, EMF issues, electrical testing, or operating any electrical devices. Process-related equipment or tenant owned equipment.
• Vertical Transportation: Examining of cables, sheaves, controllers, motors, inspection tags, or entering elevator/ escalator pits or shafts.
• Life Safety/ Fire Protection: Determining NFPA hazard classifications, classifying, or testing fire rating of assemblies.
• Interior Elements: Operating appliances or fixtures, determining or reporting STC (Sound Transmission Class) ratings, and flammability issues/regulations.

Activity Exclusions - These activities listed below generally are excluded from or otherwise represent limitations to the scope of a PCA prepared in accordance with this guide (ASTM 2018- 01). These should not be construed as all-inclusive or imply that any exclusion not specifically identified is a PCA requirement under this guide.

• Removing or relocating materials, furniture, storage containers, personal effects, debris material or finishes that obstruct access or visibility;
• Conducting exploratory probing or testing of materials, dismantling or
operating of equipment or appliances;
• Preparing engineering calculations to determine any system’s, component’s or equipment’s adequacy or compliance with any specific or commonly accepted design requirements or building codes, or preparing designs or specifications to remedy any physical deficiencies;
• Taking measurements or quantities to establish or confirm any information provided by the owner or user;
• Reporting on the presence or absence of pests or insects unless evidence of such presence is readily apparent during the field observer’s walk-through survey or such information is provided to the consultant;
• Reporting on the condition of subterranean or concealed conditions as well as items or systems that are not permanently installed or are tenant owned and maintained;
• Entering or accessing any area of the Property deemed by the field observer to pose a threat to the safety of any individual or to the integrity of any building system or material;
• Providing an opinion on the operation of any system or component that is shut down as the field observer will not operate any system or piece of equipment;
• Evaluating any acoustical or insulating characteristics within the Property;
• Providing an opinion on matters regarding security of the Property and protection of its occupants or users from unauthorized access;
• Operating or witnessing the operation of lighting or any other system controlled by a timer, operated by the Property’s maintenance staff or operated by service companies;
• Providing an environmental assessment or opinion on the presence of any environmental issues such as asbestos, hazardous wastes, toxic materials, the location and presence of designated wetlands, indoor air quality, etc. unless specifically defined within this PCA’s scope.

The report is not to be construed as a warranty or guarantee of future building conditions or as an estimate of value. Cost estimates used in the report are preliminary in nature and represent a range of probable costs. Firm price quotations from contractors, vendors, or suppliers would be required for more detailed costs, and would be based upon a detailed definition of the proposed scope of work

This report is to be read in whole. Information provided in the various sections is complementary and in some instances provides additional explanation of information concerning the assessment. Therefore, interpretations and conclusions drawn by reviewing only specific sections are the sole responsibility of the user.

The representations regarding the status of ADA Title III compliance were based on visual observation and without any physical measurement and, thus are only intended to be a good faith effort to assist Mr. Murphy by noting obvious non-conforming conditions along with estimates of costs to correct and are not to be considered to be based on an in-depth study.