Stantec assumed without verification that Permacast’s proprietary concrete matched standard ACI 318 concrete durability performance. No evidence was provided that Permacast was asked for material certifications, test results, or mix design submittals. This omission leaves a technical gap in the forensic investigation, weakening the certainty of any claims regarding the long-term corrosion and deterioration risks beyond the obviously visible workmanship defects.

• No inquiry or analysis was made into the concrete material properties beyond observing physical defects (cracking, spalling, cover violations).
• No evidence Stantec asked Permacast for:
  • Mix design submittals,
  • Third-party material certifications,
  • Chloride permeability test results (e.g., ASTM C1202),
  • Freeze-thaw durability testing,
  • Carbonation resistance data.
• No investigation or mention that Permacast used a “proprietary” mix (even though the Contract Documents and Warranty clearly show Permacast touts a proprietary product).
• Implicit assumption made by Stantec that: The concrete behaves like standard normal-weight structural concrete per ACI 318 baseline assumptions.

In simple terms:

• Stantec treated the wall as if it were built with “plain vanilla” concrete,
• Without bothering to verify whether the material used might have different performance characteristics that could influence required cover thickness or expected durability.

---

Why This Matters (Technical and Legal Impact)

1. Failure to Complete Engineering Due Diligence
   • An engineer performing forensic evaluation must verify critical assumptions.
   • Concrete durability depends critically on material properties.
   • Assuming standard performance without verification is a breach of basic forensic investigation standards (see ASTM E2713 for Building Forensic Investigation Best Practices).
2. Loss of Authority
   • Without confirming the concrete properties, Stantec’s declarations about long-term deterioration risks are weakened legally.
   • Opposing experts (say, if this went to litigation) could attack Stantec’s conclusions on the grounds of unsupported assumptions.
3. Permacast’s Potential Defense Weapon Handed to Them
   • Permacast could argue: “Our proprietary concrete is enhanced, was never evaluated, and thus Stantec’s conclusions about deterioration timelines are invalid.”
   • Even if that argument is weak technically, it becomes a litigation complication.

---

Practical Effect for the HOA Members

• The workmanship defects (exposed steel, cracked tongues, missing grout) are indisputable and fatal to the wall integrity.
• The assumed standard concrete performance in predicting future corrosion and wall panel spalling could be challenged because Stantec did not verify material properties.
• The HOA may find Permacast uses this engineering omission to muddy the water if matters become adversarial (lawsuit, negotiation, settlement).

Gregory B. Snow – BSEE (Retired)
April 29, 2025