Because of contractors’ propensity to take advantage of homeowners, most states have established contractor oversight boards to limit gross abuse of homeowners. These boards go under various names. In Arizona, it is called the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. In California, it is called the California State Licensing Board, etc.

These boards vary in the extent to which they protect homeowners. Some states, like Arizona, are less aggressive. California is more aggressive. Texas, however, has no such board, leaving consumers largely at the mercy of contractors’ dealings.

Workmanship Standards and Their Limitations

Most of these boards focus on enforcing minimum workmanship standards, usually in the context of new construction. For example, concrete flatness in Arizona has a tolerance of ¼ inch over 10 lineal feet. This standard is intended to ensure that the floor does not have excessive peaks or valleys during the placing and finishing process. It does not apply to how the concrete performs or moves over time due to soil conditions or other forces acting on it. There are no standards for soil-caused movement enforced by state contractor boards.

Another standard involves the allowable width of cracks in newer concrete. This is primarily intended to prevent excessive water from being added to the concrete, which would cause excessive shrinkage as it sets.

This standard applies only to temperature-controlled areas inside the house. Outside the house, temperature fluctuations commonly result in thermal cracking due to expansion and contraction.

Even in a temperature-controlled environment, there are many reasons concrete may crack, and not all of them are related to the performance of the concrete contractor, especially over longer periods.

When it comes to foundation repair workmanship standards, state contractor boards are woefully inadequate in both understanding what those minimum workmanship standards should be and in their ability to enforce them. To further complicate matters, the work is typically buried under two feet or more of soil and, in some cases, a layer of surface concrete paving. As a result, examining the work is difficult.

Records should be kept, although they are not currently required, showing the placement of the “L”-shaped bracket that fits under the below-grade footing of the house. The face of this plate must be flush against the face of the footing, with no gaps. This ensures that the vertical forces from the wall bearing in the middle of the footing are properly transferred to the retrofit pier without inducing eccentric buckling forces. This is the most common mode of failure for these systems and the easiest way for them to fail. See the illustration below.

Other records should show, although they are not currently required, the torque readings of helical piles or the driving pressures of push piles as they are installed, usually recorded at every foot of depth. These readings should be supervised by a special inspector and used to verify that the piles were driven past soft soils and into soils sufficiently competent to support the loads of the house. Even if state contractor boards knew enough to request these inspector-verified records, they would not know how to interpret them once received. This is unfortunate, but it is a reality that exists and needs to be rectified.

The Two-Year Statute of Limitations

Most state contractor boards have a statute of limitations of two years for the enforcement of workmanship standards. In Arizona, this means that a complaint must be filed within two years of the completion of the work. If it is not, the board will take no action.

This is a problem for foundation repair because the true performance test occurs over a much longer period of time. Soil movement and moisture migration occur slowly and typically manifest themselves well beyond a two-year window. By contrast, new construction is subject to a ten-year statute of repose for structural components. The same standard should apply to foundation repairs, since they are newly installed structural elements.

Most foundation repair companies counter this issue with so-called “lifetime warranties.” These warranties are, for the most part, worthless. See my blog on this subject for further explanation.

The Role of Special Inspections in Foundation Repair

As mentioned briefly above, special inspections are required by code during the work, but they are often not performed. Special inspections and proper oversight are critical to ensuring that workmanship is correctly executed.

Frequently, a complaint is filed with the state contractor board, triggering a site hearing to gather facts from both parties. The contractor will often send a senior member of the team and sometimes even their preferred in-house or outside engineer. Meanwhile, the homeowner and the state licensing investigator are typically unqualified, uneducated, and unprepared to understand or apply the technical facts pertinent to proper installation.

The only way this process can result in a fair hearing and meaningful exchange is if an independent special inspector, trained in foundation repairs, is present. This inspector can assist the state board representative in understanding the records, if they exist, and in determining whether the work meets proper workmanship standards. Ideally, this would be the engineer who designed the repair plan.

What the State Complaint Hearings Don’t Cover

There are many aspects to a proper foundation repair that are not addressed by state contractor boards.

Designs

Most importantly, state contractor boards do not enforce proper designs. Design review is not within their purview or mandate. This means that if a “design specialist” (a commissioned salesperson with no educational requirements or professional oversight) designs piles in the wrong locations, installs too few piles, or fails to account for interior bearing walls, state contractor boards have no jurisdiction to correct it. State engineering design boards also lack authority in these cases, as they have no jurisdiction over contractors.

Future Damages

If a homeowner repairs cracks in walls, floors, ceilings, doors, windows, cabinetry, and other finishes at considerable cost after foundation stabilization work is completed, and later experiences new damage, most state boards lack the expertise to evaluate these conditions or hold the contractor accountable. The “lifetime warranties” offered by most foundation repair companies will not cover these damages, and contractual language is often used to further limit or exclude such claims.

Items Excluded from the Contract

Often, there are items that are not included in the scope of the contract but can nevertheless be affected by the work. These may include buried infrastructure, surface drainage, cosmetic repairs, and levelness claims, including expectations that some degree of levelness will be restored.

None of these items is likely to be enforced by state contractor boards. They are generally unprepared to understand or evaluate these issues, and even less prepared to enforce them, particularly when they are excluded from or limited by the contract.

For example, existing underground utilities, such as drainage pipes, may be present and damaged during construction. Contractors typically attempt to exclude responsibility for these damages, and state contractor boards are often reluctant to address such claims without detailed records.

Key Takeaway

In order for state contractor boards to enforce workmanlike foundation repairs, special inspections by the designer of the repairs or their designee must be required. Records of the work must be kept, and the special inspector must be present to help the state board investigator understand what work was performed and whether it was properly executed. Most state statutes need to be updated, and state inspectors must be better trained, in order to properly protect consumers.