Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Armstrong denies warranty for sagging tiles; HVACA reviews multi‑school Phase 1 replacement estimates
Loading...
Summary
Manufacturer Armstrong rejected a warranty claim for sagging ceiling tiles; staff presented ATP/PCI estimates to replace tiles in Phase 1 at three schools and discussed timing and lead times for summer work.
The HVACA heard that Armstrong declined to honor a warranty claim for sagging ceiling tiles and that staff and contractors have prepared cost estimates for wholesale tile replacement in Phase 1 at Fairfield Woods, Osborne Hill and North Stratfield.
Why it matters: Committee members raised concerns that the specified tile product does not match the higher‑grade product used on recent nearby school projects. Staff warned wholesale replacement would be the least visually disruptive approach because mixing new and old tile would look uneven; however, that would require substantial funds and summer scheduling to avoid disruption during the school year.
Details presented: The project team reported they had the Armstrong representative inspect the field condition and that the company found the installation and site conditions — notably that a fully functioning HVAC system was not in place at the time of installation — explained the sagging rather than a manufacturing defect. As a result Armstrong rejected the claim.
Project staff provided itemized contractor pricing and a draft sum for Phase 1 ceiling‑tile replacement and associated MEP coordination for each school (trade breakdowns included acoustics, electrical and sprinkler work and Gilbane markups). Staff said some punch‑list tile repairs remain contractually the contractor’s responsibility and that any identifiable trade damage would be backcharged where appropriate.
Schedule and next steps: Committee members emphasized that sprinkler work and any perimeter cuts are best done over a break or summer because the work requires draining the sprinkler system and generates dust. Staff will finalize ATPs and PCIs, reconcile punch‑list credits for already‑identified damaged tiles and return with a consolidated recommendation and backup.
Ending: The committee asked staff to provide clearer documentation (including the original specification and comparisons to previously used Humaguard or equivalent tile on earlier district projects) and to return with reconciled numbers before any ATPs for Phase 1 replacements are approved.
