C. R. One Construction

Permit - GP-2020-08627 was issued on 04/02/2020. Inspection number GP-2020-08627-01 states that the roof failed inspection. The City's web search shows that the deficiencies found by the inspector have not been corrected or re-inspected almost a year and a half later. The permit expired this spring.

The roof has leaked every time it has rained or snowed since installation. CR One has been to the home many times to observe leaks in front and back but always denies any responsibility. After many months, I finally had two reputable licensed roofing contractors come inspect the roof to try and determine the cause of the leaks. Each company said that drain canals are not properly sealed and are old and damaged, and that at least two of the canals have been leaking for very long time. Each inspector said that water is ponding on roof and not draining properly due to lack of a required proper draining slope that should have been created during installation. One contractor gave me evidence that the new TPO is installed over at least 4 layers of prior roof material. Both contractors quoted almost $20,000 to replace the roof - citing that New Mexico building code only allows a second layer of roof and they would need to strip it down to the deck to do it right.

o CR One's signed contract includes "scrap old layers", but this work does not appear to have been performed.
o CR One’s signed contract includes replacing damaged materials, but the old roofing layers were not removed to expose the damage. Consequently, the damaged materials do not appear to have been replaced.
o CR One cut a hole in a ceiling section to troubleshoot a leak. Damaged decking appears to be clearly visible through the hole (CR One never returned to close after exposing the damage).
o CR One's signed contract includes repairing and sealing the canals, but this work does not appear to have been performed. CR One has since claimed that the canals "are not part of the contract", when they are in fact included in the written agreement.

CR One does not appear to have done much of the work called for in their contract. I can provide direct evidence supporting my claim. CR one claims that the leaks are not coming from the roof in spite of having been presented evidence to the contrary.

Update 8/25/2021 : CR One called this morning to discuss this review. Following this discussion, I have revised my prior statement in this review that CR One was refusing to honor their warranty. To CR One's credit, he has answered calls and returned to the home multiple times. They have not abandoned us. Rather, they have steadfastly claimed that the roof is not at fault. The problem in our view is that each time CR One has come to the home, attention is drawn to another structural feature below the roof line such as vents that are in good shape but are identified as where leak "must be coming from" even when the leaking ceiling is closer to the canals than the vent. In our opinion and that of other tradesmen who have been to the home, those features do not appear to be related to the location of the leak.

The call did not resolve the issues, but CR One offered to come patch the leaking ceiling sheet rock without addressing the roof itself. We feel that not addressing source of the leaks can only result in the leaks damaging any repairs to the ceiling. At this point we feel there are multiple issues that are not being addressed. The first is multiple water penetrations into the roof that are showing up as leaks in the ceiling. Having re-sealed a leaking furnace chimney, CR One insists that the leaks are not caused by workmanship in the roof, but by other penetrations such as vents and minor cracks in the stucco. We will address these issues, however they do not appear to be the source of the problem in our opinion. Performing mitigations previously suggested by CR One, including caulking a patio feature below the roof line have not resolved the problems so far.

The second issue is not doing the work that was contracted. When asked today (8/25) why CR One contracted to scrap old material down to the deck, replace damaged decking, and replace the canals but appear to have left multiple layers of old tar, damaged decking is visible through a hole that CR One cut in the ceiling, and the canals were not replaced CR One replied that it was a re-roof and they were not required to do so. When I reminded him that building code requires no more than two layers, he did not answer why the work was not performed but instead said that it passed inspection but that he does not have records.

The third is poor workmanship and follow-up repairs. The furnace chimney was not sealed properly and leaked. The skylights were not fastened to the roof and blew off during a storm. The inspection report cites penetrations in the parapets as a reason for failing inspection. When I showed CR One TPO that had not been lapped over the canal end or bonded correctly to the original canals (shown to me by the other roofing estimators hired to assess the condition of the roof last fall), CR One caulked the gap between the canal and TPO rather than correct the improper application.

We believe that had the work been performed as specified in the contract, we would not have these issues. If the city provides documentation that the roof did pass inspection, we will revise this review again according to the new facts but in my opinion, passing inspection (if it did) does not relieve CR One of their obligation to perform work specified in the contract, and can't provide a positive review of any company that does not do the work that they contracted to do, whether it leaks or not.