Homeowner Question: Is my modified bitumen roof installed correctly?

Album here: http://imgur.com/a/3NhKm

My new roof was installed last week. I had a 400 sq. foot section of flat roof that was supposed to receive modified bitumen. I wanted to add a bit of pitch but the estimator/project manager pushed back on that idea because he said the cost of framing would be exorbitant. All I really wanted was a couple of inches to eliminate the ponding so I asked about tapered insulation. He had never heard of it but asked his guy, came back with a reasonable price, and I approved it and signed the deal.

Well, when they showed up they came with standard 1/2 inch foam board from Lowe's. I shot that down immediately and made them try to find tapered insulation like I wanted while they seemed to have not ever heard of this product and insinuated it was some exotic material largely of my own imagining. (I replied, "Go on Google, search for "tapered insulation", and you will find it is manufactured by Owens Corning, GAF, Firestone, Johns Manville, etc.") Well, the price came back as "expensive" (I didn't ask) and the owner offered to frame out some pitch for the same price as the original agreement. As that was all I wanted in the first place, I agreed.

After the crew left, I went up to inspect my new "modified bitumen" roof membrane and found something that does not look like any modified bitumen membrane I am used to seeing. I have always seen cap sheets that pretty much resemble three tab or laminated/architectural shingles in texture and rigidity. This is almost smooth, with a very fine grain, and is very soft. It's squishy and you can't touch it when the sun is on it without leaving a mark.

As far as the roofing company is concerned, they are done. If this is a base sheet, they have no plans of coming back to put a cap sheet on. There are also some installation quality issues. I'm trying to get another company out here for an opinion but am curious what you folks think.

Thank you for your time.

Didn't read through all the replies - Probably in there somewhere-

Appears what you have exposed, is a cold-applied SBS base or interply or possibly a completed system cap sheet yet to be coated (flood/aggregate/reflective/etc.....), lack of appropriate sheet metal pipe jack(s)/edge metal & corresponding BUR flashing.

A real DIY-er type install.

If you're in a state that has authentic state contractor licensing, (NM, AZ, UT, ID, WA, ORE, NV, CA, or FL) simply call the state license board - if he's licensed, they'll make him correct it. If not licensed, they may or may not prosecute him, depending on the state's particular protocol. If you're in a state lacking state licensing - You're on your own with the applicable court system(s).....

IMO - By the sounds of it, (contractor's obvious lack of knowledge), you're either in a state lacking licensing or have succumbed to utilizing a non-licensed contractor in attempts to save $.

Good luck!

A red light went off in my head when I read that. Their "installer?" Don't they do it themselves? It would be a hoot if their installer turned out to be the first drunks that fell off the bar stool and turned out to be the same ones that did the first job.

I've signed on with a new contractor for remediation. They do lots of commercial work with Duro-Last PVC and recommended that membrane in their 40 mil thickness. There's a two week lead time for the material to arrive and then they'll work me in as their installer becomes available.

Good luck to you, Vaa. Sounds like the legal system down there are similar to those up here. One of the guys I was an expert witness for had to sue a bonding company because the roofer skipped town. The bond was for $6,000. His attorney and court fees ate up a little over $5,000 of that and my fee another $300. (I was cheap back then) The bonding company didn't show for trial and he won by default. I don't know if he ever collected.

I'm not against the legal system entirely, I just think the bar to bump things up to a level above small claims should be more than 4 squares of cap sheet.

I have been involved in lawsuits three times as an expert witness. In all three cases, even though my clients "won", none would have done it again and none came out ahead financially.

I have been drug into EIFS lawsuits 5 or 6 times. They take a shotgun approach and pull in everyone that was involved in the building envelope. Vindication that you did nothing wrong in this world is settling for under $20k to get dropped. Which is what my insurance companies did instead of fighting to clear my name. Only on commercial jobs do I ever sign a contract. I give out detailed estimates, not formal contracts. In my view, contracts are only good if you end up in court and if you are going to court, you have already lost.

As for this particular case, when the roofer didn't know what tapered insulation was, the homeowner should have either had that guy only do the comp or hired another roofer. By going ahead with that guy, he was opening himself to a certain level of CRAP. Now, certainly the homeowner could have hired an architect or engineer to spec his flat roof and gotten his roof done to those specs and inspected by the specifier to confirm that his roof was meeting the specs. But this is probably rarely done at the residential level and the expense probably to have done that exceeds what is required to complete the roof.

Now, at the point of the initial posting, completing the cap sheet would require less than $600 worth of materials and less than a full day by a two man crew, relatively small potatoes. He was advised here of several options on what could be put on rather easily. The homeowner's consultation fee for the lawyer likely will cost at least half of what it would take to complete the job. The homeowner is still holding the majority of the funds for the job, so it's rather foolish to advise the roofer to REFUND what has been paid to the roofer.

In my opinion, the homeowner should pay the roofer for the comp, if he is satisfied with it. He shouldn't pay anything for the work on the flat roof. If the roofer won't accept that, the roofer would need to sue the homeowner, but the amount involved would be reduced to small claims level where lawyers aren't required. If the roofer did this, then the homeowner could countersue and bring in theories about fraud. I'd say the homeowner is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I just saw my mole was pretty busy last night and molehills can make you pretty angry.

wywoody Said:

As for my enjoyment of your pictures, if I got enjoyment from seeing ignorant, vindictive customers, there might have been some enjoyment. But I dont. You should have quit while you were ahead. People that need lawyers to tell them whats right to do are either scum or presidential candidates.

We've probably all had our disappointing encounters with lawyers, and I know we've all had disappointing customers. Maybe a few of us have even hired people of a trade outside of our expertise and been sorely disappointed. But when a "roofer" was willing to pawn himself off as knowing, take a man's money for TOTAL CRAP WORK, and that man who's money he's taking is one with which he has a seperate and unrelated business relationship, and when that man refuses further work from the "roofer" because of the crap he's experienced, and done so out of a sense of social responsibility toward other unknowing persons that would hire this "roofer" as a result of the man's work, and that roofer is unwilling to refund the money spent on the CRAP he installed, ....... forcing the man to consult a lawyer.?.?

I don't get scum, or presidential candidate out of that scenario.

Low slope roofing is not my area of expertise, but I do know the sand on base/midply sheets isn't there for any type of protection like granules on a cap sheet.

As for "my enjoyment" of your pictures, if I got enjoyment from seeing ignorant, vindictive customers, there might have been some enjoyment. But I don't. You should have quit while you were ahead. People that need lawyers to tell them what's right to do are either scum or presidential candidates.

The plan is to completely remove and start over. New substrate, properly sloped, and a new membrane. Just thought folks might appreciate an update and seeing what's happening to the material while I'm working through the process.

Gallery update for your enjoyment: http://imgur.com/a/zrSkC

Piles of sand are being released from the membrane as it wilts and dries out under the sun.

It's GAF rubberized base sheet.It seems like it has 2 plies.It's waterproof but it needs a reflective layer to protect it from the UV rays otherwise it'll start deteriorating.

It's been my experience that when the granulation is scuffed like that the UV Rays will eat that shingle up in a few years.

When I get the next contractor on-site, I'll see if they can take a peek at the fastener depth, placement, etc.

I am going to consult with a lawyer to see if this incompetence meets the bar for fraud. If so, I'll definitely pursue it to not only seek the return of my funds (so that they may be applied to remediation) but also as a public notice of their practices to warn any future clients who would not have recognized there was a problem.

Old School Said: I say live with it. good luck.

Just "live with it"? I would say to get all my money back and start over with a truly professional crew.

And, make sure those shingles are nailed in the right spot with at least 6 nails for that steep pitch. One of the biggest crimes in the roofing trade today is wrong nailing. Put a coil nailer in the hand of an idiot and all you get is a slapped on roof with a short lifespan.

Your contractor didn't have a chance! You had more experts looking at your pictures than you could ever have hired if you went to court! Those shingles won't leak with the granules off and you will do more damage trying to get them off than if you left them alone. the only option would be to replace the whole side. I say live with it. good luck.

The next time someone has some bad work done like this, they should threaten that they are going to most pictures on the roofers coffee shop and that would make the contractor step Right!

Update: Thanks to everyone, and especially Mike H, for your help. After presenting my evidence and claims to the contractor, they have conceded. I've arranged a meeting with another contractor that does more commercial work to discuss options and get a quote. (I also refunded their deposit on our marketing agreement and canceled that project.)

The original contractor sent me an invoice for the balance on the project minus the faulty work and the work yet to be done, i.e. gutters. I'd like to wait until the project is complete before considering what to do on that point as it seems my property is at risk from the faulty installation and could incur damage related thereto in the time intervening.

I took some pictures of damaged shingles on the "good" part of the roof. This is the area most frequently trod on to gain access to work on the flat part and there seem to be way more areas where the granules were scraped off than I consider reasonable for a "new" roof: http://imgur.com/a/dXYZu

I'm weighing whether to ask the new contractor to replace those shingles as part of the next project and to debit that work from the original contractor's invoice.

Your thoughts/advice/wisdom are, again, appreciated.