Traditionally, building assessments have been completed by engineers and other Licensed Design Professionals. These assessments follow established professional engineering industry guidelines, such as the American Society of Civile Engineers’ (ASCE) “Structural Condition Assessment of Existing Buildings, MOP 158,” the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) “PRC-364.1: Guide for Assessment of Concrete Structures Before Rehabilitation,” and ASTM “E2018: Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process.”

These assessments are performed by a design professional to provide building owners with an accurate and independent understanding of the current state of their building, repair needs, realistic repair budgets, and other information the owner needs to make decisions.   

However, in recent years, a growing number of non-licensed design professionals (Licensed Engineers or Architects) and non-independent firms have begun offering “free” or “low-cost” condition assessments. Non-licensed design professional firms include contractors and material manufacturers. Non-independent firms may or may not include design professionals, but are typically affiliated with specific contractors or material manufacturers. Sometimes these assessments are procured through a Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) or Cooperative Purchasing Organization (CPO).

While these groups purchasing or cooperatives organizations promise qualified firms, vendors are often limited to non-professional or non-independent firms. These “free” and “low-cost” condition assessments are usually quickly followed by a repair proposal using their own installation crews and products.

The appeal of these offerings is minimal upfront costs and a simplified repair process from a single source. On the surface, it sounds like an efficient win-win, especially when timelines are short and maintenance staff tasked with coordinating the work are stretched thin. However, this approach without an independent engineer often carries hidden risks that can lead to misdiagnosed problems, inflated construction costs, and incomplete solutions.

When “Free” Becomes Expensive

As an engineer who specializes in evaluating existing buildings and preparing repair construction documents, our firm has worked with several owners who initially received a non-professional or non-independent “assessment” and later turned to us for help when the “assessment” began to raise red flags. I’ve seen firsthand misdiagnosed problems, incomplete solutions, unnecessary repair recommendations, and inflated repair costs from non-professional non-independent assessments.

In one case, a non-independent assessment recommended installing traffic bearing membrane on all levels of the parking structure to an owner with limited repair budget. While this sometimes can be an appropriate repair recommendation, this structure was still relatively young and in good condition. Typically, in this condition, a lower-cost silane water repellant would be recommended instead of traffic bearing membrane. (A traffic-bearing membrane would be recommended as an alternative for addressing specific concerns or providing upgraded protection due to its significantly high installation costs and maintenance needs.)

Further investigation revealed that the assessment’s cost estimate and repair proposal for traffic membrane was two to three times the typical costs received when competitively bid. And the estimated membrane cost was 16 to 20 times higher than the silane water repellant we recommended. Other repairs appeared to be priced three to five times higher than typical market rates. These differences added up to over $1 million in inflated repair costs for the project, a scenario we have observed on multiple occasions.

In another case, an owner of a 15-year-old building observed slight outward bowing in the building’s exterior concrete insulated precast panels and minor water infiltration through the basement walls. The maintenance staff procured an assessment using their cooperative purchasing organization, which was performed by a contractor affiliated with a material manufacturer. The “assessment report” included recommendations and a proposal to add to the existing assessment project repairs, including structurally reinforce the precast panel joints and excavation of the basement walls to replacing the wall waterproofing. The “assessment report” did not include an engineering investigation or measurements to support these recommendations.

In our engineering experience, minor bowing in precast concrete insulated wall panels is often normal and does not require repair. Per the Precast Concrete Institute (PCI), bowing can be caused by temperature, humidity, and creep. PCI states that only if excessive bowing is caused by a design or construction defect should it be restrained by repairs, otherwise the repairs can create new problems. Our assessment found the panel bowing to be within the expected range and we recommended against structural repairs, saving the owner thousands of dollars. Additionally, we found the water infiltration to be a minor nuisance that could be solved with polyurethane grout injection and monitoring. The differences in recommendations amounted to nearly $500,000 in inflated and unnecessary anticipated repair costs.

The Missing Ingredient: Independent Professional Judgment

What’s often missing from non-professional or non-independent single source assessment and repair approach is independent design professional judgment. The primary goal of a non-independent firm is to sell construction services and products, not to ensure the long-term performance of your building. Their “assessments” are typically superficial and focus on the easy solutions that their construction forces and materials can easily address, often by only replacing materials in-kind. Problems that require more complex investigation or are outside of their product lines may be missed, ignored, or downplayed. If the problem was the result of an original design defect, they may not include engineering a new or better solution.

These “assessments” rarely offer potential cost-saving alternative repairs and important information the owner needs to be aware of to manage the project, such as scheduling and disruption to the building usage during the repairs. Finally, if a project requires construction documents for permitting from a local building department, a manufacturer or contractor cannot directly provide this service. Some may attempt to complete the project without the appropriate permits or engage an engineer for construction documents with inadequate involvement in the project.

The Value of Independent Engineering in a Collaborative, Transparent Process

Investment up front in an independent design professional provides owners with more transparency, control, and advocacy. An independent design professional’s role is fundamentally different from that of a contractor or material supplier. Our responsibility is to act as an independent advocate for the owner: to diagnose the true root causes of deterioration, perform testing to confirm assumptions, consider multiple repair options, and help select a cost-effective and durable solution that fits the owner’s project goals and schedule.

A proper condition assessment by an experienced design professional should provide:

• Accurate diagnosis of the root cause of observed distress, not just its symptoms.
• Comprehensive scope addressing all relevant repair and maintenance needs, not just those tied to one contractor’s capabilities or material product line.
• Construction budgets based on competitive bidding to for planning and funding.
• Repair phasing recommendations to help prioritize repairs over multiple years.
• Construction schedule estimates and construction phasing to properly plan the project.
• Identification of potential impacts and restrictions to building usage or site access during construction to minimize disruption to building operations.

The independent condition assessment is only the first step towards a successful project. Afterward, the engineer and owner continue to work together to refine a scope that fits the owner’s specific needs. Once defined, the engineer prepares construction documents that include plans identifying repair locations, properly designed repair details, material specifications and estimated repair quantities for bidding. Construction documents provide the opportunity for competitive bidding, and transparency that ensures fair pricing and quality control. Construction documents also establish clear expectations, details, and industry standards for legally enforcing quality control and protecting the owner’s interest. These engineered construction documents can be submitted for permitting with local building officials. Non-independent assessments usually miss these important elements.

During construction, the engineer continues to support the owner with their expertise. This includes reviewing material submittals to verify that only specified products are being used and not substitutes for lower cost version, performing construction observations, and review of QA/QC material testing reports. The engineer will be responsible for observing the work being performed generally meets the design intent. This process has been proven time and again to deliver better long-term value at lower total financial cost than single-source, product-driven repair offers.

What to Watch Out For

If you receive a “free” or “low-cost” condition assessment, consider asking:

• Are they licensed to perform engineering?
• Can they provide construction documents for submission to a building authority for permitting?
• Are they investigating all parts of your building’s needs?
• Do they have the expertise needed to identify structural or waterproofing issues that require new solutions rather than just material replacement in-kind?
• Can you competitively bid the work amongst multiple contractors?
• Can you use alternative materials or products from those recommended?
• Are they basing their recommendations on your building maintenance goals and expected specific service life?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” then you’re likely not getting an objective independent condition assessment, but getting a sales pitch.

Conclusion

Building maintenance decisions have lasting financial and safety implications. While “free” and “low cost” non-independent assessments are appealing, they often come with strings attached and end up with more costly and incomplete solutions. An independent professional assessment ensures your building gets the right repair for the right reason and at a fair market price. In the end, true value is found in partnering with qualified independent design professionals, contractors, and manufacturers who are focused on your building’s specific needs through all aspects of the project.