Steingass

Steingass Mechanical Contracting, Inc. Issue No. 7	June 2003
*The Contractors Critic* Steingass Mechanical Contracting, Inc., AN ABC MEMBER *Reporting on Safety, Productivity, and Honesty in the Construction Industry.*
NEGLIGENT & IRRESPONSIBLE WORK
University Of Akron Sues Steingass Mechanical Contracting Over Massive Water Damages And Flooding
According to a May 2002 court complaint filed by the University of Akron, Steingass Mechanical Contracting and others’ negligent construction work may have caused flooding in the University’s Knight Chemistry Building, costing the University almost $2 million in damages. Years worth of important scientific research had to be suspended because of the damage. To add insult to injury, even though Steingass and others admitted that they were responsible for the massive losses to the University, Steingass (and their insurance company) "failed and refused to pay the claims resulting from the contractors’ negligence ... the contractors [do not] dispute the liability of the contractors to the University." According to the complaint, this tragic story began in May 2000, when Steingass and other contractors were seven months into a renovation job of the Knight Chemistry Building on the Akron campus. The Knight Chemistry Building had played a starring role in the research functions at the University of Akron. "The building houses classrooms and laboratories.... The laboratories contain sophisticated and expensive equipment for academic research projects." Several University faculty members conducted their research in the Knight Building, performing important work that helps bring untold millions in academic grants to the University from entities such as the United States Department of Energy. Steingass, "was responsible for ... installing and connecting new roof sumps ... in order to provide for proper drainage of water from the roof." However, over the long Memorial Day Weekend, when Steingass did not have any personnel on the job site, the problems became severe. It rained twice that weekend and by Sunday evening, University employees noticed severe water leakage problems in the Knight Building. The court complaint states: The construction on the Project was the source and cause of the water leaks. Specifically: A. Construction and roof debris from the Project that had not been properly removed at the end of the work day prior to the long weekend blocked drainage through the roof sumps; B. Backed up rain water collected and pooled on the roof; and C. The pooled rain water entered into the floors below through various roof penetrations that resulted from construction related to the Project. The water leaks into the Knight Chemistry Building caused by construction on the Project resulted in severe flooding, with standing water and dripping ceilings throughout the top several floors of the building. The flooding resulted in significant damage to the Knight Chemistry Building, and to the equipment and personal property located in the building. As a result of the damage caused by the water leaks and resulting flooding, the scientific and/or academic work of several faculty members and students had to be suspended and/or terminated. Because the scientific and/or academic work of several faculty members and students had to be suspended and/or terminated, several University faculty members lost certain academic grants supported by, among others, the United States Department of Energy, and other grants from other entities, and University faculty members may lose additional academic grants. The court complaint went on to state, "Each of the Contractor Defendants [including Steingass] failed to perform its respective contractual obligations in a workmanlike manner, thereby causing water to leak into the Knight Chemistry Building, which resulted in severe flooding." The complaint continued, "The Contractor Defendants each breached their duties to the University by negligently failing to remove debris, failing to protect against rain water during the spring rainy season, failing to provide drainage on the Project, thereby permitting water to leak into the Knight Chemistry Building..." "Despite repeated demands, the Insurer Defendants have not have not paid any amounts due on the University’s claims arising from the Project," stated the complaint. The University estimated that actual damages will exceed $1.75 million and punitive damages request (against the insurers) will exceed $3 million. (Case #2002-05-2860) Astonishingly, Steingass Mechanical lists the Knight Chemistry Building on a "reference list" of school buildings it has constructed. Steingass Mechanical Contracting has been sued and charged on prior occasions with negligently causing flooding and water damage.
"Irresponsible" Bidder Charges Against Steingass Mechanical Contracting: A Landmark Court Case In Ohio
In many past instances, Steingass’ work has been so shabby that construction customers have refused to give Steingass further work, even when they were the lowest bidder. Steingass has often protested strenuously when public agencies have refused their "low" bid by claiming the law mandated that the lowest bid must be accepted, no matter how bad the contractor’s record was. When the Warrensville Heights Board of Education rejected Steingass’ low bid, Steingass dragged them into court and sought a judge’s order that would force the Warrensville Board of Education to hire Steingass. However, this legal tactic backfired on Steingass. Not only did the judge rule that the Warrensville Board of Education was justified in rejecting Steingass because of their poor record, but the lengthy court decision is now being touted in various legal publications as particularly relevant to construction customers and contractors. In January 2003, the Ohio Construction Law website publicized a detailed discussion of the case against Steingass and its implications for other public agencies faced with low bids from shoddy contractors. They stated: Steingass was the low bidder on the plumbing and fire protection contracts for a series of renovations to Warrensville Heights High School. Although Steingass was the lowest bidder, the Board determined that Steingass was not a responsible bidder, based on information from various sources. One of these sources was a "fact book"... The book noted problems the company had working with other contractors, maintaining a safe work environment, following prevailing wage laws, and completing work in a timely and competent manner. The Board allowed Steingass to attend a meeting to rehabilitate its responsibility, in light of the allegations. Steingass failed to convince the Board it was responsible, and the Board awarded each contract to the second lowest bidder. Steingass Mechanical filed suit to obtain an injunction to stop the Board from awarding contracts to the second low bidder. Steingass lost in the trial court and ... appeal[ed]. The article continued, "The bulk of Steingass’ argument... was based on minor language inconsistencies in documents…" The article continued with a quote from the court stating that Steingass "did not provide direct evidence that indicated the Board used an incorrect legal standard." The publication continued, "Steingass’ second argument carried even less weight with the court. Steingass failed to argue or present any evidence to challenge the finding that it was not a responsible bidder … [T]he court questioned what Steingass hoped to achieve with this argument because the Board’s decision that Steingass was not a responsible bidder statutorily removed it from consideration for the contracts at issue." The article concluded, "Contractors, if challenged, must be prepared to prove they are indeed responsible. An argument that ‘you scrutinized my company harder than you did the other guy’ may not carry the day." The Critic could not agree more.
Steingass' Son and Foreman Leave Company To Work For Competition
William Steingass II, left his father's company and started working for a competitor as of April 7, 2003. The son was reportedly a vice president. Another foreman also left recently. This could signify that even family members cannot continue to tolerate the irresponsible and negligent business practices of Steingass Mechanical Contracting, Inc.

As of publication, Steingass has not made any suggestions or refuted any of the information in this publication.