Tate: “Of the entire building envelope what percentage is rotten? What percentage needs replacement? I just need a figure.”
Toby White, Vice President of Forensic: “We haven’t done any type of”
Tate: “What’s your estimate?”
White: “I don’t have an estimate. I’d have to go back”
Tate: “How can you not have an estimate? You just did a building inspection. You were hired, paid ,000 to conduct an inspection, to determine the building conditions. You don’t have a percentage? You don’t know?”
White: “I didn’t say.”
Tate: “Well, then, if you know tell me.”
White: “I don’t know right now.”
Tate: “When will you know?”
Tate: “What percentage of the building needs repair? Period.”
White: “We haven’t been engaged to”
Tate: “You were engaged to determine the building conditions, and you can’t tell me what the building conditions are right now?”
Vile: “Mr. Tate this is starting to sound more like a comment, and I’m fine with you making a comment but I mean you’ve asked the same question a couple times.”
Tate: “Can you add your time to my time now?”
White: “We can tell you the condition of the building envelope at the locations that we investigated.”
Tate: “Okay, and what does that represent? What percentage of the building envelope do your tests represent?”
White: “As I stated before, we haven’t been paid or, we haven’t gone through that exercise to tell you”
Tate: “Did you place a single test hole in the flat area of the buildings, the flat wall areas of the buildings? Well first of all, what percentage of the flat wall surface areas of these buildings does that, what percentage of the entire building envelope does the flat wall building areas represent? 10%? 50%? 90%? What?
White: “So there’s two questions that you’ve asked. One is, did we open up any test locations in the flat wall.
White to Gabe White: “Did we?” (Toby White directed the location of each and every test hole location.)
G White: “Yes.”
Tate: “Where? What number?”
G White (7 second pause): “I don’t know the exact number.”
Tate: “Where? Just tell me. Just describe it. Where? What location?”
G White: “So I would say that uhmm, uhmm a small percentage of the investigation was looking at the flat wall, cause those are not generally the areas where we see the failures in the building envelope system.
Tate: “So did you test..”
G White: “We’re looking at..”
Tate: “Did you test any flat wall? Yes or no? Yes or no?”
G White: “Yes”
G White: “I can tell you two locations that I personally looked at.”
Tate: “A flat wall? That you, Can you tell us where? Are you going to tell me where?
G White: “I believe it was on unit 47, uhh, it was on the turret area.”
Tate: “And did you find any dry rot that needed repair at either of those locations?”
G White: “Uhh, no, I did not.”
Tate: “Thank you.”
Tate: “What percentage of the building envelope does the flat wall that you tested, represent?”
G White: “I don’t have an estimate of that.”
Tate: “Well, its at least 90%.”
Forensic falsely testified in court on August 30, 2014 that the entire envelope has failed everywhere and that it must be replaced.
In July 2014, Forensic stated that they do not know the building conditions and that an extensive invasive testing inspection “absolutely” must be completed for a .5 M project so as to determine the building conditions, and to determine an accurate scope of repair. Forensic’s July 2014 admission that they do not know the actual building conditions and their demand and absolute insistence that extensive invasive testing be done to determine the actual building conditions so as to determine a proper scope of work, is an abject refutation of their August 2013 sworn testimony.
October 2014, after conducting an extensive destructive testing inspection on September 22-24, 2014, Forensic — by admitting that they placed only one test hole in the area that represents more than 90% of the building envelope, and since “those are not generally the areas where we see the failures in the building envelope system”, and since that test showed no rot or need for repair — now admits that more than 90% of the building envelope shows no failure and needs no repair.
Forensic was paid ,000 to inspect, determine and report the condition of the buildings. 20 of the 28 test holes they created and inspected definitively demonstrate far beyond all investigative standards that more than 90% of the building envelope shows no sign of rot and no need for any repair whatsoever. Forensic knows that every single one of the 20 test holes they placed definitively proves that more than 90% of the building envelope shows no failure whatsoever and requires no repair whatsoever.
By refusing to accurately report the true building conditions as they know them to be on September 22-23, 2014, Forensic Building Consultants, in the opinion of many, have knowingly provided a false and misleading inspection report.