Roofing Tear-off

[ggratecc]

Hi, I hope this is the right place to post this thread...

What is a reasonable price to pay a General Contractor for
tearing off an existing roof down to the sheathing or boards?
The total area is 7200 sq ft, about half is a simple sloped roof with
a single ridge (assume 3 layers of 3-tab shingles);
and the other half is a flat roof (don't know how many layers are
there). Of course this includes haul away.

If it matters, this is the Los Angeles area.
Would it be reasonable to pay $.50 / sq ft or $.60/sq ft or more ?

any feedback would be very helpful. I just want to determine
a fair market value.

thanks in advance,

[Piper]

Around here it is about 28 dollars per 100 sq ft for tear off plus hauling and dumping. Your not out of line in my opinion.

[ggratecc]

Piper,
thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I should not start a thread
which seems to be about contracting and pricing; but I was
helping a church with a dispute resolution.
The General Contractor insisted he was due $16,000 for the tear-off
and removal. We will offer him $5,000 and it sounds like he would make
at least $2,000 profit for 2 days work.

thanks again,

[Phil H]

$16k seems pretty high. But in your negotiations, you must remeber that labor and overhead cost vary greatly across the US. For instance, workers' comp coverage for roofers is very high in California; IIRC, until recently, roofing companies were paying over 50% (heard people gripe about nearing 100%) of gross wages for workers' compensation coverage. Roofing is inherently dangerous and hard on the body. The premiums reflect this. Also, cost of living is high in L.A.

[suemarkp]

The dump fees could also be high. There may not be a close landfill, or perhaps the roofing needs to be checked for asbestos, carcinogenic tar, lead paint, or who knows what all else.

[ggratecc]

I'm certainly willing to pay $50 per 100sq ft.;
Plus the cost of the roll off container.

This GC does NOT have any employees and according to
the Ca SLB, is not required to have worker's comp.
Does this make a difference?

thanks,

[suemarkp]

This sounds like work that has already been performed. Wasn't there a contract involved? Why does the contractor think he can charge you 16K and why doesn't the church think they have to pay? Was there an agreed on price (verbal or written)?

[ggratecc]

suemarkp, you have good questions. I didn't want to bog you
down in the dispute details but here goes:

An officer of the church (not a trustee) signed a $48,000 piece of paper to
reroof two adjacent buildings.
One business day after the signing, the GC showed up and started work
with NO downpayment.
The trustees had been working with a different Roofing Contractor and
were in the middle of authorizing the RC to start.
The left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing!

The trustees held an emergency meeting and told the GC to stop work,
but let them finish a 7,200 sq ft of tear-off on one building.
Actually, he refused to stop work the first day ,and also could not provide
proof of worker's comp insurance under his LIcence number.

Our lawyer said we had the right to stop the work, because the
so called contract was not typed up, did not have our church
name and address on it, and we had given him notice to cancel within
3 business days, as allowed by California law to protect consumers.

So, at this point we just want to be reasonable and pay him for
the work he accomplished (previously described).

Yes, I know it's messy, but the Trustees made their decision to
stop the work and not allow the GC to continue.

Our lawyer told him to send details describing the $16,000 costs,
however, he sent an unreadable fax.
As far as we know, he used day laborers he picked up from Home Depot,
and he can't prove otherwise yet. He's not a roofing contractor,
but is a GC.

thanks,

[mdshunk]

Hey, pay the man. Your church officer should be the one with the 'splainin to do. Not the roofer. He thought he had the go-ahead. Regardless of who he used or what he charged, someone gave him the okay. You owe. It boggles my mind that a church would want to screw a tradesman. It matters not what the going rate is. He may not charge the "going rate", if there is such a thing. Even if he's the most expensive person in your market, somebody still hired him. Pay him.

[ggratecc]

We'll the trustees concede that the contractor was authorized by
our officer to:
1. remove 15,000 sq ft of roofing and haul away.
2. supply and install 30 # paper.
3. supply and install 15,000 sq ft of 30 year fiberglass ashphalt shingles.
4. HOt mop flat areas (minimal square footage).
5. install 4 new drain boxes and new gutters (100 linear feet).
This would all be done for a written quote of $45,500 (originally $48,000).


Believe me, the church does not want to screw the tradesman.
But here's another way to look at:
If he's charging $16,000 to remove and haul 7,200 sq ft, then , by extrapolation, he
was planning to charge us about $32,000 to remove the
entire 15,000 sq ft.
Remember, we were fair and allowed his workers to work a second day
and fill up their rollaway bin. Also, this was an easy tear-off, only
one ridge, simple roof.

Now, $45,500 - $32,000 = $13,500.
How could he do steps 2. - 5. above for $13,500???
That would be roofing for less than $1 per sq ft.

[Phil H]

Greg,
OK, it sounds like you want to pay him a fair price for his work. Have you asked the roofing contractor that completed the work what a reasonable charge would be? All that I wanted to relate was that rates can vary widely across the U.S. and Los Angeles is higher than much of the nation.

Besides wanting to do the right thing, you also want to protect the interest of the church. The law can become complex. You probably want to settle this as simply as possible. If the GC is particularly difficult you could call the Contractors State License Board for help in fairly resolving the dispute. The three day right to cancel and the lack of Workers Compensation may be all you need to escape paying some jacked up fee from a disgruntled contractor. To do the right thing, you may want to see if he incurred any additional expenses from canceling orders for materials. Perhaps he just bought tools or paid additional insurance premiums for the jobs (liability or WC)

But, I have no sympathy for contractors who hire day-labors to avoid taxes and insurance. So I will stop writng before I jump ontop of soapbox.

mdshunk,
There are many reasonable reasons for cancelling a contract. If the contractor was not providing workers compensation insurance, the church's exposure to liability for an accident is dramatically increased. It sounds like Greg wants to do the right thing. He is just trying to see if the $16,000 is reasonable. Perhaps where you live, all contractors are honorable men. That is not true in Los Angeles, a few are are very dishonest, unethical crooks.

[JeffeVerde]

I'm not sure the 3-day rule applies. I *think* that's only for individuals, not corp entities, and that it only applies to contracts that were signed in the individual's home. BUT -- I would have ordered the GC and his crew off the property when he showed up with no proof of workers comp insurance. Sounds like this may be a fly-by-night operator. Does he even hold a valid Cal contractors license? You should check with the state.

Plenty of companies in L.A. do roof tearoffs. Why not get three quotes and offer the GC the average? You can tell the companies why you're asking for the quotes and offer to pay for their time - good chance they'll just fax you a bid based on your description.

If this contractor was using day labor and didn't have insurance, then the price a "real" company would charge would be very generous, condsidering he had about half their costs. Just a rough estimate, he was probably paying $80-100/head/day for day labor, and $400-500 for the roll-off. For a job that size, I'm guessing he showed up with a crew of 6-10 men, so $1500-2000 labor costs for the two days work.

[Wgoodrich]

In my eyes it is obvious the church had a miscommunication within the church officers. If the contract was signed by an authorized church officer then the contractor should have been able to complete and collect regardless if this contract was offered to someone else. The offer to someone else should have been a civil matter between church officers and second contractor. The contract signed by an authorized church member bonds the church unless failure by the contractor is present.

If the church officer was not authorized then that church officer owes the amount the contract was signed by him to the contractor with that unauthorized church officer liable personally for operating without authorization.

Sounds like he was authorized but to contractors were being contracted by two different church officers at the same time by mistake of the church. Then the second contractor that had not started anything should have been informed of the mistake and the contractor that already started fullfilling the signed contractor by starting construction should have been allowed to complete the contract in good faith.

I heard no complaint on contractor's work performance. I heard no question issued before contract was signed if workers were valid with worman's comp. That lack of workman's comp should be a matter reported to the labor board and the issue resolved between the labor board and the contractor without delaying the work being done unless a ruling from the labor board ordered work stopped.

It sounds like to me the church had a difference of opinion as to which contractor they wanted and wanted the contractor that had not yet started. However if the contract was signed by an authorized chuch member and the contractor was completing the job meeting that contract there would be no valid reason for that contractor to not be able to fullfill the contract entered into in good faith. The church could only report lack of workman's comp to the proper authority and wait for a ruling of stop work by the state.

As I see it the church has violated the signed contract. If I were the contractor ordered off the job I would be with an attorney filing a claim against the church for the full amount of the contract due to breach of contract.

You might be able to make a deal with that contractor you breach contract with but that would be in my eyes only at the compassion of the contractor who's contract had been breached. I don't see the church in a very good postion to lets make a deal activity. They will be lucky if this does not end in legal action against the church and possibly both contractors paid in full if a second contract had been signed also.

In my eyes the Church breached contract by stopping the work without a valid stop work order. The church is now looking for an excuse for the breach of contract they created.

Sorry just my opinion

Wg

[ggratecc]

First, thanks for everyone who chimed in.
Today, the parties agreed on the settlement...took about 15 months.
The contractor accepted $8,000.

My regret is that it took so longer for him to be paid...

[Ohm1]

No comment!