Useful Life
Photographic Documentation
Architectural Assessment Format
Conclusion

Introduction

An Architectural Assessment provides a firsthand description, evaluation and record of the condition of a property.  It is a snapshot in time designed to chronicle the condition of various constructed components within a development, as they appear during an intensive, on-site tour of the subject property.

A thorough Architectural Assessment provides the owner with a detailed analysis of major component systems including those that are responsible for protecting the development from the ravages of time and the elements.

When prepared in conjunction with a reserve study and/or facilities maintenance program it forms the basis for establishing a prioritized schedule for the replacement of building systems have a definitive useful life.

It also provides commentary on the condition of each system that has not yet reached the projected end of its service life and identifies those systems requiring immediate repair or replacement. [Return]

Useful Life

All architectural systems and components have finite spans of life, or serviceable life, known in the trade as “Expected Useful Life” (EUL).  EUL projections for all major architectural systems and components are published by various industry and governmental organizations. 

These publications, as well as manufacturer literature are based on extensive laboratory testing and in-field performance.
The EUL estimates published by these organizations are the recognized standard for evaluating any building or development in terms of its life cycle costing and performance.
 
The EUL may be extended by a variety of on-site conditions that may vary from one property to the next including;

• Evidence of routine maintenance procedures
• Quality of the materials utilized in construction 
• Current material condition
• Quality of construction detailing
• Quality of equipment & systems utilized in the design

Therefore it is possible that the actual life span of individual components may be extended beyond the published standards for a particular system, material or equipment, if on-site conditions should warrant. [Return]

Photographic Documentation

A definitive Architectural Assessment will provide photographic documentation of the current condition of all building systems and components that are evaluated in the report.

This photographic record is used to augment the written condition narrative of the components in place and their condition at the time of the site visit. 

An explanatory caption accompanying the photograph not only provides a graphic example of the condition of the component in question, but also provides a record document for comparison of that item with a future inspection of the same item.  This allows an owner to evaluate the performance of the component over time. [Return]

Architectural Assessment Format

A well written Architectural Assessment should present the components in a sequentially organized format that recognizes established conventions in the architectural and construction industries.

This approach will help readers understand the report and will aid in segmenting the work for the purpose of establishing a scope of work outline. Such outlines are necessary when engaging vendors and service technicians for the performance of maintenance or replacement procedures.

An assessment should separate the project into three divisions;

• Property Description
• Site Improvements
• Building Improvements 

These divisions can then be further categorized for in-depth analyses of various components and should roughly follow the system known as the “Uniformat”, the industry standard format that classifies construction work into a systematic format of built components.

The “Uniformat”, is not to be confused with the “CSI Format”, or “Construction Specifications Institute” (CSI), the system by which individual products may be specified. 

Conversely, the “Uniformat” specifies individual systems that may consist of multiple products which together comprise a whole building system; this format was developed to mimic the way architects design a building.   On the other hand, the CSI format was developed to break a project down into individual products to facilitate the way contractors must bid a project.

For example, the Roofing section of an Architectural Assessment will typically identify the roofing type utilized for the project and talk about whether the system includes sheet metal flashing, downspouts, gutters and other products, but may ignore entirely other components that are an integral part of the assembly. 

This is done because a multitude of parts may be included in the roofing type utilized, but the identification of a 3-Ply Built-up Roof for instance, conveys to a vendor a system of parts known to be included in any such designation.  This simplifies the chore of describing the overall development.

The three main divisions of an Architectural Assessment can be further separated into the chief system components. For example, the Building Improvements section may be addressed in the following order*;

• Foundation
• Exterior Wall Construction & Facades
• Roofing
• Common Area Interior Finishes

In this manner the report follows the logical sequence in which the building will typically be built.

 * For the sake of brevity several systems that are included under Building
    Improvements in an actual report are left out of this example

Within each subsection, a brief description of the component in question is followed by a Condition Statement discussing how that component has fared since installation.

A Recommended Action statement is included which indicates any repair or replacement procedures that should be completed at the present time based on the observed condition of the system described.

Finally an estimate of the Remaining Useful Life, is included which is based on the EUL tables previously discussed. [Return]

Conclusions

Once the project synthesis has been separated into understandable and manageable parts, the Architectural Assessment forms the basis for creating the subsequent Reserve Study and Maintenance Plan.

Any reserve analysis developed from conducting “drive-by” or superficial inspections, or those based solely upon the use of statistical tables to project future replacement costs will, by necessity, assign arbitrary values to a building component’s Remaining Useful Life.  Such studies can be fraught with error.

On the contrary, a comprehensive Architectural Assessment can provide the owner with a specific set of guidelines with which to manage his facility’s assets with a degree of certainty that can only come from a customized analysis of the unique characteristics of his building project. [Return]

Samuel R. Sampson, AIA
AIRO-LLC

© 2007 HOA Services Group, LLC