Environmental remediation is often one of the first steps in new construction or building renovations

It is not the most glamorous of the construction trades, but environmental remediation work (asbestos removal, lead abatement or mold remediation) is often one of the first steps taken when it comes to new construction, renovation work or other emergency conditions. Especially in New York City, an owner cannot obtain a construction permit without filing specific forms identifying the presence of asbestos or begin work until the asbestos is removed by a licensed contractor. The main problem faced by owners and managers when it comes to environmental work is whether a need to perform an abatement even exists. The removal of asbestos or other contaminates is a standalone expense which in most cases minimally, if at all, increases the overall value of a property. Often, many owners and managers elect to remove minimum amounts of material (depending on extent of contamination or renovation work scheduled). Then within months, in most cases, they are back performing additional removals of the remaining material in the same area(s). Another mistake involves the encapsulation of material, when it can be environmentally safe to do so. This is simply another form of hiding it from view and possible disturbance. The cost of encapsulation parallels the cost of an abatement and in many situations a subsequent removal project is ultimately conducted down the road within months or a year or so. Though each individual removal project is small, the cumulative cost is much higher, becoming an "economies of scale" lesson learned the hard way. In real estate, it is about cost justification and how the work will ultimately add value to or make the building more attractive to prospective renters and buyers while spending the least amount of money. Contractors face a continued pressure to reduce costs or justify the expenses involved in a removal project without sacrificing quality or safety. Still, our specialty trade is a dynamic one often requiring creative engineering and design work to ensure public health and safety while remaining cost effective. Like any construction trade, environmental contractors have many rules to follow and are required to design proper work procedures to reflect compliance with these rules. Even in buildings scheduled for complete demolition, work procedures for the environmental remediation, usually unknown to the public and often the owners too, are put in place to effectively perform safe removal of the particular contaminate(s). And the associated costs are often considered to be high, like many services that do not yield a noticeable increase to a property's value. Cost is not a factor in the eyes of the regulatory agencies, and is not even recognized as a reason to petition a variance to the regulations. Unfortunately, reasons like, "…to make the job easier…," though sensible are not acceptable. The journey to a successful abatement project does not simply lie in passing off the liability to the contractor either. I have experienced many owners who have selected competing contractors purely on price even when the price spread among the field was as much as 50%. The reasoning, "I have indemnification and they will have to pay for any assessed fines, penalties and legal fees. I will just take it out of their contract, so, why should I be worried?" This can be a winning philosophy when you have a large enough contract with sufficient money left in it to legally withhold the amount needed to pay for fines assessed and complete the work should the contractor walk out on the project. For asbestos removal work in New York City, for example, the building owner often receives the same fines for non-conforming work as the contractor, just duplicated with the owner's name. And these fines are not based upon the project size or value either. A simple violation of one sub-section can be a $10,000 fine for both the owner and contractor. On a smaller project, this can be very costly as a ratio to the overall value of the work. Though the above logic does have some strategic advantages, it is short sighted, does not fully protect the owner and ultimately can backfire. So why take a chance on the headache at all? Instead, it is important to look at the overall picture of the prospective contractor when evaluating costs and not just a snapshot of price only. Questions I recommend to owners to consider are, "What is the contractor's safety and loss record?" "Do they have any pending claims for unsafe work practices or violations?" "Do they have a written health and safety plan?" In other words, an owner should ask, "What is the likelihood I will get sued?" Again, the same indemnification principle applies, but an owner has to ask how much time it is willing to sacrifice, as a return for a lower price, to be a party in a lawsuit due to an accident or an exposure to the public. Arguably, the actual monetary out of pocket cost may be small, but the intangible human cost in time and productivity towards the business can be significant. Brian Evans is a sales manager at PDG Environmental, Paramus, N.J.