Is there code for the levelness of a concrete floor?

[notlevelfloor]

We have an issue in a veterinary hospital where our patient gurneys, anesthesia equipment, monitoring equipment, etc. (basically, all the stuff on wheels) can and will passively roll away from us during use. Additionally, biohazard liquids and liquid waste will also just passively roll/move from the site it falls to.

This is a new remodel over a concrete slab and the state-submitted plans called for leveling of this area - a small amount focal amount of leveling was done, but obviously not "level".

I have been having trouble finding if there is any code to specifify what is tolerated or not (and perhaps it's because I'm bad at finding it, or perhaps because it doesn't exist?). Does this sort of code exist? I'm in Indiana where I know regulation is a little bit more lax as well.

 

[RLGA]

It is not a code requirement. The construction documents for the renovation should have identified the areas where floors needed leveling and the specific requirements for levelness and flatness. Self-leveling hydraulic cement overlays are especially suitable for these types of existing conditions.

 

[notlevelfloor]

Thanks RLGA!
This is from the plans:

https://i.vgy.me/jREcDE.png

This is the problematic area that is causing us major issues. Based on the limited info I've provided, does it seem like leveling was probably not adequately performed?

I'm not sure what to do about it now though -- all of our flooring is now down and we didn't recognize the severity of the issues until we actually had emergencies, CPRs, and issues trying to actually function in this area.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The IBC does not mandate level-ness (if that's a word) except at landings in means of egress -- and the criterion for level there is not perfectly level but (IIRC) a slope not to exceed 1:48 (which is a 2% slope).

It's generally up to the design professional to specify the tolerances for both level-ness and flatness (which are two different animals). I believe the ACI standards have some criteria for both, but that would apply only to new work, not to patching an existing floor to level it.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

reach out to both the architect and contractor and ask for field reports & construction photos showing this floor leveling work being installed or in place prior to the finish floor being installed. If you have access to any of the projects applications for payment scan thru them to see if there is a line items in there for floor leveling.

 

[RLGA]

Thanks RLGA!
This is from the plans:

https://i.vgy.me/jREcDE.png

This is the problematic area that is causing us major issues. Based on the limited info I've provided, does it seem like leveling was probably not adequately performed?

I'm not sure what to do about it now though -- all of our flooring is now down and we didn't recognize the severity of the issues until we actually had emergencies, CPRs, and issues trying to actually function in this area.

I guess it depends on what they consider a "leveling compound." Are there specifications that go along with the drawings? If so, do they include a Section 03 54 16 "Hydraulic Cement Underlayment" or Section 03 54 13 "Gypsum Cement Underlayment"? If there are no specifications, then it is a matter of interpretation of the contract documents.

As @Yankee Chronicler pointed out, ACI has standards for levelness and flatness using ASTM E1155. ACI 302.1R has a guide for floor flatness and levelness, but it is up to the contract documents (i.e., drawings and specifications) to establish the requirements specific to a project. For floors intended to receive thin-set flooring, such as vinyl or rubber sheet and tile floors, the Floor Flatness (Ff) should be 35 and the Floor Levelness (Fl) should be 20 for suspended slabs (i.e., not slabs-on-grade) and 25 for slabs-on-grade.

 

[e hilton]

Thanks RLGA!
This is from the plans:

https://i.vgy.me/jREcDE.png

.

That note only covers patching dings in the floor, it doesn't give any specification for the degree of levellness. Can you find any documentation where you notified the architect or contractor that the floor needed to be level enough to prevent unwanted rolling?

And fyi … you didn't mention it, but level and flat are two different things, don’t let the contractor use that excuse. If you're holding a piece of glass in your hand, it will always be flat but rarely be level.

 

[Yikes]

Unfortunately, the phrase "provide leveling compound" is almost meaningless if the contractor wants to as minimal work as possible. do you have a spec book or other contract documents that get more specific? without that, then:

• "Provide" does not mean "install". they could just deliver a small bucket of compound to the space and meet this requirement.
• Even if it is installed, there is nothing that says the leveling compound must result in a level floor.
• There are self-leveling compounds available, but is nothing on the drawing you provided that says the compound must be "self-leveling".

For what it's worth our own wood framing specs have tolerances for typical construction (such as apartments) where we want a relatively level floor are:

FLATNESS:

• 1/4" in 10 feet maximum, and 1/4" in 30 feet maximum cumulative.

LEVELNESS (we put self-leveling materials atop the wood framing):

• 1/8" in 10 feet.

Industry standard for construction tolerances (which cannot be enforced if your specs don't require it) are:




On last thing to try:
Check and see if there is any spec for the finish flooring that says "install per manufacturer's instructions", and then see if the flooring manufacturer's instructions happen to describe the minimum required flatness and/or levelness for them to consider it an acceptable installation.

 

[Inspector Gift]

You may try looking at ICC A117.1-2017 for ADA compliance for accessible work areas and accessible routes.

 

[RLGA]

• "Provide" does not mean "install". they could just deliver a small bucket of compound to the space and meet this requirement.

• "Provide" does not mean "install". they could just deliver a small bucket of compound to the space and meet this requirement.

Technically, "provide" means "to furnish and install" and is a common term used in construction specifications.

 

[Yikes]

Technically, "provide" means "to furnish and install" and is a common term used in construction specifications.

Is there case law that compels a contractor to "furnish and install" when the word "provide" is used on contract documents?

 

[bill1952]

Is there case law that compels a contractor to "furnish and install" when the word "provide" is used on contract documents?

A definition for "provide" to furnish and install was a part of my specifications. I agree with RLGA, but thought including it was necessary.

 

[RLGA]

Is there case law that compels a contractor to "furnish and install" when the word "provide" is used on contract documents?

I am sure there probably is, but the three master specifications systems used in the US, MasterSpec, SpecText, and SpecLink, define "Provide" in Division 01 so there is no confusion. CSI's Construction Specifications Practice Guide also defines these terms (Provide, Furnish, and Install); thus, it is an industry standard within specifications writing practice.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Technically, "provide" means "to furnish and install" and is a common term used in construction specifications.

Yes, but the term is not defined in the AIA A201 General Conditions, so unless it is defined elsewhere in the specifications or noted on the construction drawings, it's an undefined term that is subject to argument. In general, terms undefined in contracts are to be interpreted as defined in dictionaries. Merriam-Webster on-line defines "provide" as

1.a: to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)

b: to make something available to

2: to have as a condition : stipulate

3 archaic : to prepare in advance

My fuzzy recollection from when I used to play architect is that often "provide" was defined in the contract documents (probably in Supplemental General Conditions) as "to furnish and install," whereas "furnish" was defined as something along the lines of deliver to the job site and make available (to ___). If the construction documents don't define "provide," IMHO the dictionary definition prevails, and it looks to me like that means "furnish" but does not include installation.

I think in the last three years I have reviewed only two projects that had actual specification books. Architects these days seem to like insertting microscopically small copies of specification pages into the drawings, including only the barest minimum of technical specifications and nothing much in the way of general conditions. I think that's a disservice to their clients, but this is what happens when licensed professionals are allowed/required by the government to compete on the basis of fees. The only way to lower the fees is to do less/worse work -- and we're on the receiving end.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I entered construction via the flooring industry. I can tell you that a lot of concrete placers have no clue what level is.

(Translation: I levelled a LOT of floors in my time.)

 

[RLGA]

Yes, but the term is not defined in the AIA A201 General Conditions, so unless it is defined elsewhere in the specifications or noted on the construction drawings, it's an undefined term that is subject to argument. In general, terms undefined in contracts are to be interpreted as defined in dictionaries. Merriam-Webster on-line defines "provide" as

You are correct when you state that AIA Document A201 does not define that term; however, Section 3.4.1 states that the contractor shall "provide and pay for labor, materials, equipment, tools," etc., for the "proper execution and completion of the work." Nowhere does it state the contractor must "install" the provided materials. Thus, "provide" could be argued to mean delivering the materials to the project and installing them.

I would imagine that in cases of arbitration or litigation, where the definition of "provide" is in question, the architect's defense would include an experienced construction specifier as an expert witness who would testify regarding the commonly used terms in construction contract documents. It is not uncommon for industry standards or guidelines to be submitted into evidence as establishing minimum performance, even though the contract documents do not reference such standards or guidelines.

Even though there could be a well-founded defense for the meaning of "provide," the ambiguity can be easily dismissed if the term is defined in Division 01 of the specifications or the architect's general notes on the drawings (if no specifications are provided). CSI's principle of providing clear, concise, complete, and correct documents is always good to follow.

 

[notlevelfloor]

My takeaway from this information is that there probably isn't any clear code or legal violation for the contractor to have performed work that results substantially unlevel floors.
I guess it's probably time to just simply dive in deeper with our lawyer but I was hoping to find something easier without lawyers/arbitration/etc. Thank you all.

 

[Yikes]

My takeaway from this information is that there probably isn't any clear code or legal violation for the contractor to have performed work that results substantially unlevel floors.
I guess it's probably time to just simply dive in deeper with our lawyer but I was hoping to find something easier without lawyers/arbitration/etc. Thank you all.

The takeaway should be:
1. Are there any other specifications, submittals from the contractor, or anything in the contract that might bolster your case?
2. Did you see floor leveling compound get installed? Have you asked the contractor what it was that they did in response to those notes on the plans?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My takeaway from this information is that there probably isn't any clear code or legal violation for the contractor to have performed work that results substantially unlevel floors.
I guess it's probably time to just simply dive in deeper with our lawyer but I was hoping to find something easier without lawyers/arbitration/etc. Thank you all.

If you already have a lawyer, start there. As a licensed architect, licensed building official, and former construction arbitrator who has served as an expert witness in multiple construction lawsuits and arbitrations, I'll tell you what your attorney should tell you: floors that are not level may be a major inconvenience to you, but a contractor doesn't have an obligation to correct an existing floor that's out of level to a level condition unless there is something that clearly requires him to do so.

The building code doesn't require him to do so, so you are left with the contract documents -- which includes the construction drawings (the "plans"), the specifications (if there are any), and the written contract between the contractor and the owner. Remember that, as we've discussed above, there is a difference between "flat" and "level." There are also construction tolerances, which (unless specifically stated in the contract documents) will default to what other contractors and other design professionals in your area will testify to as being "accepted trade practice." The problem you face is that your project involes an existing building. In my opinion (professional as well as personal), it's a crap shoot to what extent a contractor is required to bring an existing slab up to a perfectly level condition if there aren't clear requirements and tolerances spelled out in the contract documents.

I understand your problem and your frustration. I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation. It won't help you to file a lawsuit and take the contractor to court if you don't have a solid basis in the contract documents to support your case. That would be throwing money away, and that money might be better spent fixing the b problem.