If I Get Mold Remediation Done, Should I Also Hire a Consultant To Write the Work Protocol and Check the Quality of the Work?

What is the Relationship Between the Restoration Contractor and the Third Party Consultant?

By Michael A. Pinto, CSP, CMP

The best laid schemes of mice and men / Often go awry. (from “To A Mouse” by Robert Burns)

The Restoration Industry Association has put a lot of emphasis on the relationship between cleaning/restoration contractors and insurance adjusters. For example, there were numerous sessions at a convention dealing with this topic, including a half day seminar led by Peter Crosa prior to the start of the convention. Although the relationship between contractors and insurance adjusters is critical for traditional restoration projects like fires and floods, there is another affiliation that is equally important for projects that involve cleanup of any sort of contamination: The association between the restoration contractor and the consultant who writes the work protocol, and oftentimes checks the quality of the work by the collection of post-remediation samples, is critical to the success of such projects.

A Lot of Questions and Assumptions

But what is the relationship between the consultant and contractor? Why do consultants conduct inspections, but then write cleanup protocols that are so vague that the contractor has to do a detailed inspection anyway? How does the contractor determine if a work plan is reasonable? What protocols should be followed? What sort of samples should be collected at the end of the project and, more important, to what should the results be compared? Who bears the liability if a work plan is meticulously implemented by the contractor, yet fails to achieve the desired results? When should engineering controls that are designed to protect the environment from contaminants be shut off? Who has authority over the project?

All of these are questions that I have had to address at different times—generally when I am assisting a contractor in completing a project, guiding them after they have lost control of the project, or as an expert witness in a lawsuit. In my experience, many problems develop because restoration and cleaning contractors do not understand the basic rules when a technical consultant is involved. Contractors are often under the mistaken belief that all consultants are actually knowledgeable in the areas in which they are practicing. Even worse is the false assumption that if a contractor follows a work plan written by a consultant, the contractor is protected from liability if the project turns out badly.

Using Past Incidents as Examples

Cleaning and restoration contractors continue to push ever farther into fields that involve decontamination of hazardous substances. Even those contractors who do not pursue specialty work involving asbestos, lead, mold, blood-borne pathogens, illicit drugs, tear gas, fuel oil, or nanoparticles are being forced into taking a decontamination approach to much of their work as the potential hazards of soot/fire residue and black water losses become clearer.

Therefore, it is beneficial to explore the tension between contractors and consultants in successfully completing a project by exploring some common misconceptions that arise in typical situations. Although all of the following explicit examples were related to specific cases, they all have general principles that can be applied to many projects and scenarios.

The Danger of a Bad Inspection

In a perfect world the addition of a technical consultant to a water loss job or a mold remediation project would be a benefit to the contractor. An independent expert would conduct an inspection, identify the root causes of the problem, specify the extent of the contamination, detail the engineering controls necessary for the project, and spell out the criteria to be used to evaluate the success of the project. Within these parameters they would allow the contractor to select the most efficient remediation methods and work processes.

This is exactly the process that is laid out in the regulations enforced by the State of Texas for mold remediation projects. By law, mold inspectors in the Lone Star State must identify the source of water, quantify the amount of mold contamination in each room, explain what type of negative pressure enclosures are to be used in each area, and have a definitive endpoint for the project. Sadly, the mold process in Texas is the rare exception to how consultants work in other areas of the country on projects involving mold remediation and decontamination of other hazardous substances. Over and over again I have read inspection reports/work plans that state, “remove all fungal contamination” or “remediate all impacted areas until contaminants have been reduced to an acceptable level.” Such language might be suitable if another section of the report or work plan made clear where the contaminants were located, but this vital information was missing.

So why would a consultant conduct an investigation and then not specify the location and quantity of the materials that need to be removed? Two answers to this incongruity are repeatedly uncovered: incompetence or an attempt to control liability. Some consultants truly do not understand the basics of the work they are conducting. It is not unusual for contractors that have gone through a mold remediation technician course to have a much better educational background regarding fungal contamination than the inspectors and consultants that are supposed to be overseeing their work. It is almost guaranteed that contractors with advanced training, such as a mold remediation supervisor course, or those who hold the Certified Mold Professional title will be much more knowledgeable than the consultant who is often described as an “expert”.

Another problem is the attempt at liability shifting. Some consultants believe that if they are vague in their inspection reports and work plans, they shift liability for poorly completed projects to the contractor. Unfortunately, they do not understand that a poor inspection report or ambiguous work plan does not offer protection from liability, but actually increases their risk. This problem is magnified when the consultant does not understand or accommodate the three facets of the remediation project: source removal, cleaning of the transport system (generally the HVAC system), and decontamination of reservoirs (otherwise known as condition 2 spore deposition in the IICRC S520 standard).

Know Your Endpoint Before You Begin

In my estimation, the most frequent trap set by consultants into which contractors fall is starting a project before they know how the assignment will be evaluated. We have recently been working with a restoration contractor that was hired to clean up tear gas residue. The consultant hired to evaluate the work was not familiar with that contaminant and collected samples in a manner similar to what is used for post-remediation of illicit drug labs. The contractor was stunned when the surfaces that he had meticulously cleaned and coated showed up positive for tear gas residue. When reviewing the sample results with the contractor and the consultant I learned that the samples had been collected on wipes saturated with methanol. This sampling process uses a form of wood alcohol to draw chemicals through the paint film. However, since it is unlikely that people clean their walls with alcohol-based cleaners, I suggested resampling with de-ionized water wipes—a sampling process that more accurately represents normal cleaning techniques. As expected, the new set of samples showed that no contamination was present on the painted surface. In that case, a consultant taking money to work in an area in which he admitted he had no expertise caused considerable grief for the contractor by using an improper sampling method.

It is not enough to know that a consultant is going to “take samples at the end.” The contractor needs to know at the start of the project:

1. What type of samples will be collected
2. How the samples will be collected
3. What sort of analysis will be performed on the samples
4. Who will collect the samples and what training they have
5. How the results will be interpreted

Ask pointed questions, and make sure that they are answered rather than talked over. Contractors should be very suspicious if, in response to questions about sample interpretation, the consultant explains that he or she “has been doing this for 20 years.” Post-remediation sampling interpretation needs to be objective not subjective. Everyone (including the contractor, building owner, insurance adjuster, and consultant) should know what the sample results will be compared to in order to determine completion. In fact, when the sample results come back, the contractor should be able to figure out whether or not they pass without having to wait for the consultant look in his Magic 8 Ball for an answer.

The Debate over Sampling with a Negative Air Machine Running

An important sub part to the “knowing the endpoint” trap set by consultants is the ongoing debate in certain parts of the country about whether a negative air machine should be running when final clearance samples are collected for mold remediation projects. It is astonishing to me that so many consultants demand that all negative air machines be turned off for some period of time before post-remediation samples are collected. This makes no sense!

The negative pressure enclosure established for mold remediation projects is designed to prevent cross-contamination from the work area to other areas of the structure. Until post-remediation samples are collected and analyzed, the contractor does not know whether the work practices employed were sufficient to rid the work area of all the contamination that can be created when fungal colonies are disturbed during removal of drywall, ceiling tile, or other finish materials. Despite the risk of cross-contamination, some consultants are ordering that the primary safety device for the project be shut off prior to knowing that the work was completed properly. This is tantamount to wearing your seatbelt during a long cross-country road trip, and then taking it off two miles from your house, even though years of safety data show that most accidents occur close to home.

I have questioned consultants about this for years, searched available literature, and found no credible explanation for this demand by the consultants other than “this is how everyone does it.” No other industry dealing with hazardous materials—such as radiation, asbestos, lead, or chemicals—shuts off negative air machines until after sample results have been received, which show that the area is clean. If there was any scientific rationale for this approach I doubt there would be so many different instructions given to contractors. Consultants insist that the negative air machines be shut off for 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, overnight, or whatever time period is convenient. If there was a real reason for this demand, would it not make sense that a study somewhere detailed the benefits and explained the process?

The Common Case of Consultants Cross Contaminating Work Areas

Another myth perpetrated by some consultants is that they do not have to follow the rules set up by the contractor. Many restoration work areas have signs warning that biological contamination is present. The contractor has specific work rules that require anyone entering the work zone to wear appropriate personal protective equipment. Yet, it is common practice for consultants to enter such work areas without the protection of suits or respirators. This is bad for a number of reasons.

Consultants who enter active work zones without protective body coverings must leave the enclosure at some point. Without a suit to strip off in the decontamination chamber, they are a walking contamination machine when they leave the area being remediated. When it comes time for final clearance samples, the lack of protective equipment creates an opposite problem. At that point, the full body covering protects the cleaned work zone from the outdoor spores that the consultant brings in on his or her clothes and shoes. Many a project has failed because of cross-contamination from outside the work zone that was brought in by the consultant on street clothes or sampling pumps that were not properly decontaminated between jobs.

A Cooperative Approach

Contractors and consultants can work together. Indeed, projects on which their strengths are matched provide the best value for the client. On the other hand, when contractors are saddled with consultants that are ill-trained, primarily concerned with liability control, and do certain things simply because that is how everyone else does it, projects can quickly go awry. When that happens, the consultant cannot expect the contractor to “man up” and take responsibility for the consultant’s decisions. Rather, the contractor is generally forced to go on a “mouse hunt” to identify the best laid schemes.

Of Mice and Men or Of Consultants and Contractors @moldsensitized http://t.co/Ao0TeLtRWd PLEASE RETWEET

— Mold Sensitized (@moldsensitized) March 16, 2015