Welcome to another C&R Case Study! We LOVE sharing your unique and interesting stories with the industry. Is there a project your company has tackled in the last few years you think has some built in lessons (good and/or bad!) for fellow restorers? Reach out to Associate Editor Lauren at [email protected]!
1. Share a little bit about your company.
BYLT was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in Millersville, Maryland. We are strategically situated within the vibrant D.C. and Baltimore Metro areas, positioning BYLT as a prominent player in disaster restoration services. Our expertise encompasses a comprehensive range of specialties, including water, mold, fire/smoke, storm, and biohazard remediation, as well as reconstruction services, catering to both commercial and government sectors.
2. When did you first get the call about the loss? How did you land this job? Did you have a prior relationship, referral, online search, etc.?
We received this project through a newly formed partnership with a client. We were contacted on Sept. 19 asking to assess and submit a bid for an apartment building for damages within the HVAC closets. It was advised that there would be multiple other companies on-site due to the extensive number of units.
3. Walk us through the loss:
a. What type of loss was it? How did it happen?
The loss consisted of mold remediation throughout the HVAC closets in both occupied and unoccupied units. During their internal inspection prior to contacting us, it was observed that certain units were experiencing moisture intrusion due to condensation. Taking a proactive stance, they initiated remedial actions for nearly all the units in the building, totaling approximately 400 units.
b. How much of the structure was affected?
While the majority of the units primarily required remediation in the HVAC closets, some instances necessitated more extensive work within the units themselves to access the trunk lines of the system.
c. Did this require mitigation? Rebuild? Contents?
Our scope was contained to just remediation.
d. How big was the crew working on the loss, especially in the days immediately after?
Our initial response to this loss consisted of 21 people. However, as the project evolved, we gradually reduced our workforce to maintain an average of ten people consistently present.
Our scope was contained to just remediation. Photo credit: BYLT
4. What was the biggest challenge on this loss? What was the biggest win?
The biggest challenge we faced prior to this project was its receipt on Sept. 19 and the Sept. 25 start date. This coincided with the weekend when a tropical storm was forecasted to hit our area on Sept. 23 into the 24th. Aware of the imperative to brace for the storm while upholding our commitment to the 400-unit project, our team contacted fellow affiliate members within CORE, our affiliated network, and called in additional labor for assistance. Within 24-48 hours, we had a tractor trailer of equipment and additional labor at our office ready to assist. Through this collaborative effort, we successfully maintained a robust presence for both our commercial and residential clients.
Our primary challenge on-site throughout the project stemmed from the client and the complexity of managing multiple trades and companies on-site while efficiently coordinating all the units. The client had a well-structured process in place from the beginning to the end of each day; however, completing each unit daily with each phase led to occasional delays if one trade failed to finish on time for the next phase to commence.
The client’s coordination often restricted the number of units available at the start of the day, which sometimes caused hurdles on our end in ensuring we could sustain all crews and for the client to cover the burn rate effectively while being as efficient as possible.
Additionally, logistical hurdles included coordinating out-of-state personnel, organizing morning musters, and distributing consumables for each team.
Sustaining an ample supply of consumables on-site posed a minor obstacle, given the varying daily influx of units ranging from 4-12. Each unit necessitated a unique containment approach to prevent cross-contamination. Balancing the procurement of consumables, paying per diems for crews, and navigating negative cash flow amidst progress billing and pending payments added further complexity to the project management process.
The welded one-piece ductwork of the vent sustained severe damage. Photo credit: BYLT
5. What is the biggest lesson your team learned, good or bad, on this loss?
A significant takeaway from the project was the valuable lesson of utilizing our connections with CORE partners to reassure our clients that we are equipped to handle any job of any size or complexity.
Given that this was our initial engagement with the client and the fact that the project involved several hundred units, we prioritized maintaining open lines of communication on a daily basis. We held off-site meetings with the client throughout the project duration, engaging in constructive discussions about the next steps and determining mutually beneficial communication methods.
6. How long did the restoration process take?
The total restoration process took approximately 1.5 months, and we completed a total of 260 units and common areas throughout the building as a part of phase 1 of their project.
7. How was communication with the carrier/adjuster throughout the process? How long did it take to get paid in full?
When we were contacted by the client, they handled all this directly with no involvement from their carrier. We did progress billing weekly or biweekly throughout the project and received payment within 20-30 days of submission.
Related Posts
