After discovery of the two vastly different window ages, it was determined that the 1960's windows would be removed and replaced with a style and visual appearance mimicking 1856 construction. At the start of mold remediation, American Structurepoint asked the contractor to provide cost estimates for replacement versus restoration of the 31 original windows. The estimates from this contractor put restoration costs at nearly $447,000, while replacement was at approximately $174,000 – a difference of nearly $273,000 (a $273,000 up charge the insurance carrier stated would be borne by the local government, which did not have the funds to cover it). At this point in the project, the estimates were not based on a detailed scope of work prepared by a design professional, and the costs had not been competitively bid.

As the liaison between the local government and the insurance carrier, American Structurepoint recommended to hold off on the demolition of the historic windows, in order to get a competitively bid alternate during the interior restoration. Additionally, as the mold remediation project progressed, it became apparent that all window assemblies needed to be removed to properly remediate the mold. After negotiation with all parties, the windows and casements themselves needed to be remediated. Each of the 31 historic window enclosures were documented, disassembled, remediated, shrink wrapped, and stored in an environmentally controlled space until the final decision was made on repair or replacement.

As mold remediation concluded, detailed design drawings and specifications were developed for the final portion of the courthouse restoration, which was going to be competitively bid. It was somewhat of a shock to all that, in a competitively bid environment, the cost to replace was actually $95,000 more than restoring the 31 original windows in storage. The insurance adjuster still had a difficult time accepting this figure, since the costs were so dramatically different from previous estimates. Ultimately, the insurance company agreed that restoration of the windows was the appropriate course of action, and the project was completed to the satisfaction of the Owner and all the historic preservation groups.

The most important lessons we learned during this process was to keep all options open and be prepared when data is presented outside of what is expected. Without question, there were surprises on this project. We did not expect a mold remediation contractor (not specialized in historic preservation)to prefer the replacement of the 31 historic windows, resulting in the cost discrepancies. We also did not expect the timing of this restoration to be such a critical factor. The restoration happened to coincide with the national economic downturn, resulting in highly competitive bids, well under our projected costs.

This restoration was accomplished by keeping an open dialog between all the interested parties. This includes groups that were not part of the insurance contract (the local committees, National Park Service, etc.). Although the many coordination meetings, phone calls, and site visits seemed excessive, the additional time invested resulted in satisfied stakeholders and likely helped to prevent any litigation on this project.

——-

* With more than 26 years of experience, Steven R. Bruns, PE, is considered an expert in investigative and forensic engineering. Mr. Bruns has performed thousands of investigations that consisted of surveying structures and structural components of nearly every building material (concrete, steel, timber, masonry, etc.) for signs of distress or in-progress deterioration.

** Founded in 1966, American Structurepoint is your single-source contact for first notice of loss through incident resolution. Learn more at www.structurepoint.com