Hi everyone,
This is my first post but I had been following the forum for a while to get more understanding what involved in building my first house.
I would like to ask people's opinion whether I am in the right position to raise my concern with my builder.
I am in the process of building a new home and it is almost to the lock up stage with one of the big volume builder (No company will be mentioned to avoid disrepute). Before the contract signing last year, I was given a quote of fixed site cost around 11k, and then for the final quote, the site cost has jumped to around 15k. I raised the question what caused the increase in site cost. The salesperson's reply: "There are lots of bore piers required"
Then this year after contract signing, when I received my site plan, I asked my coordinator why I couldn't see any bored piers on the plan. The coordinator forwarded me an engineering plan which has lots of bored piers on the plan. Recently, after they finished the foundation and put up the frame. I realised that there are no bored piers installed at all in the revised plan that has the building permit on it. Please note that the builder didn't notify me about the change and they claim they don't have to.
I found out that the builder changed its engineering company and re-do the soil test.
The first soil test report from Company "A" says "footing recommendation: "bored piers required"
The second soil test report from Company "B" doesn't include bored piers but put lots of contingency such as if there is a changed in soil component, or if built near the easement, the revised recommendation will be bored/piling system.
Both soil test reports showed that the site is classified as "P" due to the 100mm fill on top. If the fill is removed, it will be classified as H2. The company B said they sighted the compaction report done by the developer back in 2010 and the slab will just sitting on the compacted soil
I raised my concern with the builder as I believe the design with bored piers should be better and why did they change the design?. After 2 weeks of no answer and couldn't talk to anyone( the first week, they changed my site supervisor and my coordinator is on sick leave), they finally get back to me saying that they couldn't give credit back as my site cost is a fixed site cost. I told them what I was looking for was the answer of why they are changing the design of the foundation plan ? Is it to save cost ? Because I compared the two engineering plans from company A and company B. They look similar (slab strength, slab size, depth, etc) as the only difference I can spot is there are bored piers on one but not the other.
The construction manager came back to me saying that the two engineering companies use different methodologies. Company A used concrete piers to stiffen their slab. Company B used deepen edge beam and additional steel and he thinks it is a better solution and the additional concrete and steel are where my fixed site cost have gone. I worked in an engineering company and I showed it to my structural engineer colleague (Unfortunately,I am not a structural engineer) and he told me apart from the engineering plan from Company "A" has bored piers and those from company "B" has no bored piers, he couldn't see any additional concrete and steel on the plan.
I will meet up with the construction manager this week as he will go through with me the engineering plans related to my new home.
Have anyone had this kind of experience before ? I am more concerned of the build quality of the house rather than getting the credit back (Which I don't think they will do it anyway)
Any feedback is very much appreciated.
Thank you.