and having a knowledgeable specialist decimate the information who happens
to be working on spec..
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Follett <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Open Discussion/Preservation Conferences


>In a message dated 98-07-13 23:16:58 EDT, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
><< My job as a chemical process engineer got real easy real early on, as
soon
> as I realized that the guy whose hands and head were into that job all day
> every day held the answer to the problem I was assigned to solve, >>
>
>I'm intrigued by the idea that the architect who designs a building spends
the
>least amount of time with the building when compared with the building
>engineer who is assigned a lifetime to maintaining the building. The
building
>engineer (what is called a maintenance man anywhere but NYC) may not know
>anything more than their own buidling, and may have a lot of loosely
acquired
>and incorrect information about materials, and they may be responsible for
all
>that roofing cement spread over the back sides of the parapet, but they
sure
>can tell you where the problems are. It amazes me how many times I have
walked
>into a project to find that nobody ever talked to the building engineer.
>
>One of the cardinal rules of looking for a water leak is to ask ther person
>who is the first one to receive the complaints where they have leaks. This
is
>usually the building engineer because not only are they responsible for
>maintenance of the building, the tenants also identify them with the
garbage
>disposal and therfore give them all the earthy complaints.
>
>A while back I was sent via FAX a sheet of paper that was a request for a
bid.
>The paper was a poorly copied section of another contractor's proposal,
only
>without identification or prices. A name was written on the paper with a
phone
>number. It had come from a newly acquired division of a hospital we often
do
>work with. It was very unclear to me what was being requested and a site
visit
>was required for clarification.
>
>The scope had to do with relining with EPDM some built-in copper gutters
and
>application of a polymer coating to copper dormer roofs.
>
>I went to the hospital complex and found the only building that I could
>identify as being the likely one, the only building I could find with
built-in
>gutters. I soon realized that I would need a ladder to inspect the gutters.
I
>then went searching for the person whose name I had. When I found him I
told
>him the purpose of my visit and asked if he could confirm that I had found
the
>correct building. Despite the fact that he had originated the inquiry he
did
>not know if it was the correct building. This was the office guy. It turned
>out there are only three buildings in the complex, one of them a small
>outbuilding.
>
>I then asked if there was a chief engineer who would be able to loan me a
>ladder. Though there was a chief engineer, he was not to be found that day
and
>I was asked to make an appointment. I made the appointment a week later,
the
>project being out of my way to get to, and on meeting with the chief
engineer
>I 1) confirmed that I had found the right building and 2) asked him if
there
>were any water leaks. He said that there were water leaks. I asked for him
to
>please show me.
>
>The leaks turned out to be in an extension area of the building and had no
>connection with the built-in gutters and the dormers. Inspection of the
copper
>gutters & dormers indicated they were in fine condition, despite the layers
of
>roofing cement in the gutters. The roofing cement would not have been
>compatible with the EPDM. We then subsequently informed a higher contact in
>the hospital what needed to be done to remedy the water leak into the
building
>and provided a proposal for same.
>
>Once again the answer to the problem was in asking the fellow that received
>the complaints from the tenants.
>
>][<en