Inland Building Systems Review

Steel Building Traps-Buying -Pitfalls-Deceit-Fraud-Bait & Switch?

My experience-Review Schulte-Inland Building Systems

ABOUT THIS PAGE

This website documents my experience with my Metal Building purchase from Schulte/ Inland Building Systems.
This website is not affiliated or authorized by Inland Building Systems a Schulte/ Inland Building Systems.
Deceit, Neglect, Fraud is that Schulte/ Inland Building Systems?

Does Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Falsely advertise and represent the quality of their products and service?


Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Lie and Deceive in order to Falsely induce the Sale?


Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems ignore the established MBMA standards?


Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems fail to provide the building purchased?


When confronted did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems attempt to Lie and Deceive?


When Schulte/ Inland Building Systems attempted repairs did they retain an unlicensed contractor?


Were Schulte/ Inland Building Systems repairs outside the established standards?


Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems provide a properly engineered or did Schulte/ Inland Building systems engineer the structure as delivered at all?


Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems file suit against their consumer blatantly lying asserting they had fulfilled the contract?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Required One Cat TL943D
Schulte Building Systems cat

Weight

Operating Weight

25750.0 lb

Operating Specifications

Rated Load Capacity

9000.0 lb

Maximum Lift Height

43.0 ft

Maximum Forward Reach

31.0 ft

Top Travel Speed

19.0 mile/h

Capacity at Maximum Height

7000.0 lb

Capacity at Maximum Reach

1200.0 lb

Drawbar Pull – Loaded

21582.0 lbf

Pound-force

 

 

Unit of force

lb force chart

The pound-force is a unit of force or weight used in some systems of measurement including English Engineering units and the British Gravitational System. Pound force should not be confused with foot-pound, a unit of energy, or pound-foot, a unit of torque, and may be written as “lbfft”.

[ Source:     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)   ]

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems during alterations and/or repair drove the Cat TL943D Tele-handler or any other available Heavy Equipment repeatedly into the structure, this will soften and make the structure more pliable assuring the necessity to re-plumb the structure?

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damages purlin
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems metal
driven over Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged deceit
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged fraud
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged traps

 

 

Then take your Cat TL943D Telehandler forklift, pushing and prodding the structure into what I can only believe to be an attempt at submission?

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged bait

There is no need for use of plumb cables, temporary supports or bracing. For best results it appears this process to require; one man operating the Telehandler, one observing, one holding a level, and the Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Representative checking their Facebook?

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged switch

Apparently, only the bolts at the first-floor mezzanine require to be loosened for such an operation. No loosening of any anchor bolts or anything above the first floor is required for this operation and there is no need in re-installing or tightening as this can be left for Schulte/ Inland Building Systems consumer.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged steel

Plans, who needs plans, Plans are solely provided as an “accommodation” to their consumer on an SBS (Schulte Building Systems) Pre-Engineered Building. If they Install the joists backwards from the plans, Schulte/ Inland Building Systems consumer can fix.

Three bolt holes, for true quality everyone should have a spare on a Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Building. Only two are required.

steel Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Mounting holes don’t line up, shut up be a man, Just WELD IT on a Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Building.

Schulte/ Inland steel Building Systems damaged

And “Voila” Inland Building Systems abandons the job leaving their XXXXXX -up structure and workmanship. Filing action against Schulte/ Inland Building Systems consumer asserting Schulte/ Inland Building Systems has fulfilled their contract. 

steel twisted joists

While I am attempting to make humor of the situation. I can assure you, I do not find the position Schulte/ Inland Building Systems put me in to be humorous.

Florida Licensed Engineer provided the following Record of Inspection

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged steel
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged metal

Welding Inspection

weld Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems Crew failed the welding inspection on many of their welds that could be viewed. Removal of slag is necessary for further inspection on many others.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems Crew installed all the replacement joists opposite from the plans placing MJ2 where MJ1 was designated and MJ4 where MJ3 was designated. This resulted in requiring us to modify many of the joist seats and joist tails after Inland and their contractor abandoned their repair/warranty efforts.

weld Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged cut

IS THIS THE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND EXPERTISE YOU WOULD EXPECT TO BE PROVIDED AFTER THE PURCHASE OF A $345,XXX STRUCTURE?

WHO IS INLAND BUILDING SYSTEMS?

Schulte Building Systems purchased Inland Building Systems in 2008. Schulte Building Systems DBA Inland Building Systems. They advertise; The Schulte name is synonymous with dedication to strong, loyal customer service and quality engineering and manufacturing in providing the very best metal, most erectable building in the industry. Picture to the left is my Inland metal building that should have been completed 7/17 and currently in litigation. IBS is an IAS AC472 accredited manufacturer of pre-engineered metal buildings and a charter member of the Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA). Displaying the accredited BBB member logo.

Schulte/ Inland Metal Building Systems damaged

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems  boasts of Numerous Accreditations, Certifications and/or Affiliations in its promotional materials, advertising, and website. This is apparently to promote their stature and confidence to the consumer for their purchase of Inland/Schulte products. They even make boast of their affiliation & accreditation in Legal action against their consumer? Are these Affiliations and/or Accreditations a Badge of Honor to be held out to the consumer? Or do the Organizations provide assurance the goods and services they provide affiliation with or accreditation for to be in accordance with that organization's rules, regulations and guidelines?

Do these Organizations act against their members that fail to comply with their rules, regulations and guidelines? Do these Organizations assist Consumers that are harmed by their members as result of failure to comply with their established rules, regulations and guidelines? Or are any of these organizations complicit in Inland/Schulte using their Affiliations or Accreditations to falsely advertise and possibly implement fraud against their consumer?

BBB Accredited
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged False

BBB Accredited Business, “this business is not BBB accredited” according to the BBB website on 9/2/18, they represent that they are a BBB Accredited Business and by clicking on the BBB accredited Logo plastered on their website on 9/2/18, I received “This business is not BBB accredited.”

BBB Accreditation

Inland Buildings

This business is not BBB accredited.

Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation. To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

According to the BBB website the Standards of BBB Accreditation are: Build Trust, Advertise Honestly, Tell the Truth, Honestly represent products and services, including clear and adequate disclosures of all material terms, Be Transparent , Honor Promises, Be Responsive, Safeguard Privacy, Embody Integrity.  Do they even qualify?  We have therefore opened complaint with the BBB and ask the BBB to review the documentation contained in this website to opine on any issues that are pertinent to Inland Buildings ability to be an accredited BBB business.

WE RECEIVED RESPONSE ADVISING INLAND WAS PREVIOUSLY AN ACCREDITED BUSINESS ALTHOUGH HAVE NOT RENEWED AND IT APPEARS THE ACCREDITATION LOGOS HAVE SINCE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

IAS Certified

When they filed arbitration against me Inland/Schulte made boast of being accredited. Their website advises “We have also met the stringent criteria set forth by the International Accreditation Service Approval and are IAS certified to assure you that every project with which we are involved is uncompromised, from procurement of specified materials to design and fabrication of the final product.” While displaying IAS Accredited Logo. The International Accreditation Service (IAS) IAS website states that they provide “objective evidence that an organization operates at the highest level of ethical, legal and technical standards.” I have concern that the documentation contained in this website may provide evidence to Inland’s ethical, legal and technical standards, we have therefore reached out to them via email and USPS Priority Mail #9410 8036 9930 0101 4629 21 to request their Input and ask them to opine on any issues that are pertinent to their certification based on the documentation in this website and we will post their response once received.

UPDATE

We were contacted in October of 2018 by a representative of the IAS that advised they were concerned about the assertions contained and would be investigating. We were advised that we would be contacted the following week although received NO FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS.

MBMA Charter Member

Inland’s website displays the MBMA logo promoting being a Charter Member of the Metal Building Manufacturers Association Member (MBMA). The MBMA promotes publications such as the Metal Building Systems Manual, Guide for Inspecting Metal Building Systems. I have concern that the documentation contained in this website documents many of the established guidelines have failed to be adhered so we have therefore reached out to the MBMA via email and USPS Priority Mail #9407803699300042084325 to request their Input and ask them to opine on any issues that are pertinent to their certification based on the assertions in this website. See response below.

We are in receipt of October 3, 2018 response

“MBMA as an association is devoted in providing leadership,research,and education in the metal building field, through member education, work on codes and standards, and promoting the metal building industry.”

From MBMB letter dated 10/03/18

Although, apparently have no concern on their members providing goods and services in accordance with building code and the MBMA’s established standards.

MY TRUE HORROR STORY

The Purchase

September 2016, I was looking to make purchase of a pre-engineered metal building and I was under a short time frame as I had to have the project permitting issued prior to the end of the year. The building was not a stock building as it was to be three-story, with second and third story mezzanines and front and rear canopies. The building was to be approximately 34,500 sq.ft., I received quotes from several manufactures, one of them being Inland Buildings Systems. I had made purchase from the local Inland Representative previously when he worked for a reputable Metal Building Manufacturer. On October 20th,2016 I entered into the contract with IBS (Inland Building Systems) at the advisement of the sale representative because of the advised necessity to get in line for engineering to meet my dead line. It was known and understood there are many details still requiring to be defined although this was to be worked out orally. Based on the representatives’representations it appeared worth spending more to have a local representative, I was advised I was buying an extra service? I found later this to be untrue.

“3. You are $18,000.00 higher than Hornet buildings and while I realize there is value in having a local sales rep and I appreciate dealing with you…”

Email Sent to their representative: Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:15 PM

The GC was listed on the contract although there was no question that I was the purchaser signing the contract and they had no issue taking the check from me with my name on it.  I have erected numerous metal buildings previously and never had issue communicating with any company.  While it may be rare for an end user to be the installer and contractor’s representative on a job, it is not unreasonable especially since all communications since day one went through me. As I said above, I had bought previously from this Sales Rep when he worked for a reputable company and that purchase was under the same circumstances, resulting with no issue. Inland and their reps had no problem communicating with me until issue was reported to Inland on the quality of their products received and we received the email’s below. The GC reiterated that I am the erector and his representative for the job and they still refused. Finally, I had to have counsel get involved and then they backed off on their assertion although the GC received notification the local sales rep had been advised to have no further communications. I paid more specifically for these services and was refused to be provided. Currently they have action against me falsely asserting they have fulfilled their contract and all issues are result of their consumer and their consumers installation defects. Inland/ Schulte now has no problem acknowledging that I am their consumer in legal action they filed against me.

“Txxx is Inland’s customer and Inland is obligated to go thru the Inland customer.”

Email from their field service: Thursday, May 25, 2017 7:44 PM

 

“I, as well as the Inland Buildings Field Service Group wiil continue to support you in any way possible, however we can not and will not work direct with your end use customer”

Email from their field service: July 5, 2017 12:15 PM

Get it in writing!

The contract was signed on October 20, 2016 for the pre-engineered metal building.  The sales representative assured me that I was just signing contract to get engineering on 11/14/16 as time was of the essence.   All details would be worked out as I was paying more for his representation and Inland was an outstanding company that puts the consumer first.

My email in 2016 during the purchase

“2. Are you providing bolts for the joists to be bolted and are the joists and structures predrilled?”

Email Sent to their representative: Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:15 PM

In response to the above email, Inland’s sales representative called me assuring me this was a completely bolt together building. The fact that I still could have canceled at this time, I’m sure had no factor?

Of course, after delivery of the building when we questioned the truss system being a weld in system, we got the following response.

Their email response after purchase

“The joist to mezzanine beams connection is a welded connection except as specified by engineering.”

Email from their field service: June 20, 2017 7:28 AM

When the sales representative was later asked about this by the GC,  He advised that he thought the building was bolt together and felt horrible about this.  Apparently, not bad enough to come talk to me or provide any of the assistance that I paid for.

Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

4.4. Approval

Except as provided in Section 4.5, the shop and erection drawings shall be submitted to the owner’s designated representatives for design and construction for review and approval. The shop and erection drawings shall be returned to the fabricator within 14 calendar days.

Final substantiating connection information, if any, shall also be submitted with the shop and erection drawings. The owner’s designated representative for design is the final authority in the event of a disagreement between parties regarding connection design.

Approved shop and erection drawings shall be individually annotated by the Owner’s designated representatives for design and construction as either approved or approved subject to corrections noted. When so required’ the fabricator shall subsequently make the corrections noted and furnish corrected shop and erection drawings to the owner’s designated representatives for design and construction.

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

Go figure these connections failed to be addressed in the plans for permitting.

PAY ATTENTION TO DETAILS

First Red Flag

Committed Delivery Schedule

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems, Sales representative committed to 11/14/16 date to receive plans prior to signing contract, although I receive letter advising 11/23/16 date. I immediately contact rep and miraculously the 11/14/16 date was adhered.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged MBMA

Second Red Flag

In March after reviewing documents I contact them to change the anchor bolts from 3/4″ to 1 1/8″ on center columns. I am told this can’t be done?

“the request to use the 1 1/8” diameter anchor rods on xxxx, and due to the flange sizes of the main frame columns the base plates cannot be oversized to accommodate the pattern for the larger rods.”

Email from Sale Service Mgr. to Sale rep: 3/1/17 which was forwarded to us

I must tell them it can be done.

“Please advise why base plate for detail D and F can not accommodate the 11/8″ anchor rods as these base plate are 10″ x 1′-2″ and 1′ x 1’2″. I would also ask that you please confirm that the other base plates that are 8″ wide can not accommodate 1-1/8″ anchor rods.”

Email to Sale rep: 3/3/17

Low and behold it can be done. The 10 Center columns marked D&F on the plans can accommodate 1 1/8″ anchor bolts. Why does their consumer have to tell them how to do their jobs and yet they boast of exceptional customer service?

After speaking with design regarding the 1 1/8″ anchor rods, they determined that the 1 1/8″ rods could be used at the interior columns (Plate details “D” and “F”).”

Email from Sale Service : 3/3/17 which was forwarded to us

DELIVERY VS. DELIVERY STANDARD

On Friday 5/5/17 afternoon we received the last packing slip and were advised that we were to receive 10 truckloads of building materials scheduling one hour apart for each truck the following Monday morning 5/8/17. By the time we realize that they are sending all materials in one day and attempt to contact them. Their staff was apparently enjoying their weekend.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged Email

When we later raised issue that they created hardship on their consumer by attempting to deliver everything in one day.

1) Deliver−This delivery was scheduled by the IBS Scheduling group and Txxxx. At that time, both parties agreed on delivering 10 trucks in 10 hours. Apparently, a few of the trucks showed up before their scheduled time slot. One of the reasons that we schedule arrival times is the understanding that there will be no detention charges from the trucking company for hours that a truck is on-site before their scheduled arrival time. The fact that some loads arrived early did not have any effect on your 10 hour slotted time slot. The delivery issue and potential detention charges came into play when you were unable to unload 1 truck per hour as agreed upon, and trucks were their longer than their 1-2 hour appointment time.

Letter from their GM Operations: 6/6/17

We are advised it was agreed although do the written communications agree with this assertion? On 4/27/17 the sales rep notified them 5 trucks one day and six trucks another.

My best guess is that they would probably be able to receive 5 loads one day and six loads the next day???

Email from their sales representative to Sales Service Manager: 4/27/17

Immediately after receipt of this communication, I called the Sales Rep and even questioned why the bar joists were to be delivered in the same time frame as they would not be necessary for a few weeks. I was then advised the bar joists were shipping from a Florida bar joist manufacturer unlike other parts which were shipped from Inland in Alabama and I could just call in a few weeks to have them delivered. On 5/9/17 we arrive at 7 am to start staging for the trucks only to find the road lined with trucks.

Low and Behold the first three trucks are the bar joists

Truck Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Load Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Joists Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

By 9 am there were enough trucks lining the roads that the police arrived, and we were forced to cease unloading in order to establish a staging area up the road. We found many Materials improperly loaded and stacked misaligned with larger parts on top of smaller so that excessive time was even needed to unload.

Bent Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Removing Joists bent
Crushed Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Bad Load Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Glued Together Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

The sales Representative advised standing seam roof panels are crated.

The Standing Seam roof panels do not nest like the PBR screw-down roof panels requiring additional loads and they are also shipped in crates with 18 panels in each crate.

Email from Sale representative: 10/28/16
Crate Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Crate Definition

 

 

I just paid them roughly $350,000.00 and I and receive my new roof in ripped up paper wrapping and banded. All roof panels had flat spots from the banding and then they threw downspouts on top damaging the downspouts.

Ripped Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

My Crated Roof?

6.7. Delivery of Materials

6.7.1. Fabricated structural steel shall be delivered in a sequence that will permit efficient and economical fabrication and erection, and that is consistent with requirements in the contract documents. If the owner or owner’s designated representative for construction wishes to prescribe or control the sequence of delivery of materials, that entity shall specify the required sequence in the contract documents. If the owner’s designated representative for construction contracts separately for delivery and for erection, the owner’s designated representative for construction shall coordinate planning between contractors.

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

Did Inland/ Schulte Building Systems intentionally attempt to overwhelm their consumer to aid avoiding the discovery of the Defective, Damaged and Nonmerchantable goods being provided?

ACKNOWLEDGING DAMAGED GOODS VS. FALSE ACCUSATION AGAINST THEIR CUSTOMER

Even though we were put in an extremely unfortunate position having to accept the entire building, this filled the already congested jobsite with many materials that would not be needed for several weeks if an erectable as purchased structure had been provided. We did our best at identifying material quantities and damages. Picturing many of the damages right on the truck prior to unloading denoting them on the  Bill of Ladings prior to signing and providing back to the drivers. 

Inland had ignored our advisement and scheduling for delivery. Due to the amount of damages being documented, I immediately notified my sales representative asking him to come and make inspection as it was his communications I had relied on through this purchase. After the representative had not arrived during the unloading, nevertheless by the following Tuesday I provided documentation to Inland.

On 5/22/17  two weeks after notification, the sales representative arrived. On 5/25/17 rather than receiving replacement of the damaged goods, I received notification that I am not their Customer. Please Note Inland was paid in full at time of delivery, Is this Inland’s Customer Service after Paying in Full?

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

7/7/17 is the first date any of the reported damaged goods were replaced, two months after their reporting. Our original intention was to have the building nearly completely assembled by this time although we had spent months arguing over whether I was their customer, whether they will even have communication with me and what is proper notification in accordance with the Inland’s “Field Policy”.

 

Eventually all reported damaged goods from delivery were replaced.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems asserts they have created no delay, is this the customer service you expect?

DEFECTIVE GOODS VS. UNMERCHANTABLE GARBAGE

Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

6.4 Fabrication Tolerances

 

The tolerances on structural steel fabrication shall be in accordance with the requirements in Section 6.4.1 through 6.4.6.

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

7.14. Correction of Errors

The correction of minor misfits by moderate amounts of reaming, grinding, welding or cutting, and the drawing of elements into line with drift pins, shall be considered to be normal erection operations. Errors that cannot be corrected using the foregoing means, or that require major changes in member or connection configuration shall be promptly reported to the owner’s designated representatives for design and construction and the fabricator by the erector, to enable the responsible entity to either correct the error or approve the most efficient and economical method of correction to be used by others.

Commentary:

As used in this Section, the term, not the amount that is required at an individual location. It is not intended to address limitations on the amount of material that is removed by reaming at an individual bolt hole, for example, which is limited by the bolt-hole size and tolerance requirements in the AISC and RCSC Specifications.

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

In installing any metal structure, you will have numerous issues on fitment and that is to be expected. Some Manufacturers are better than others and every company can provide a building with issues. As stated above “moderate” refers to the amount of reaming, grinding, welding or cutting (misfit) that must be done on the project as a whole. The Building provided was defective to the point that more connections then not were MISFIT.

Several of the defect samples:

RF1-5 Column connecting to RF1-3 Top was out of alignment nearly four inches to the side. Upon notification to Inland, they immediately assert installation error. We asked them how bolting their two components together in accordance with their plans constitutes installation error? Their fix is to use a shim, even if this wasn’t as severe and a shim could have been used there appears to be no consideration by Inland as to the final elevation and effect on the roofing system that such a shim would have created. After finally making inspection, they agreed to replace the parts. We had already waited months and just retained welding crew to fix the defective parts as to avoid further delay and this was far less costly then replacement, although we received no acknowledgement that these parts were defective or reimbursement for costs incurred. Rather;

After discussion with Txxxx, the EB−2 and RF1−3 Inland will replace these 2 component, one of each.

Email from Field Service: 6/30/17
Samples of Defective Materials

Below you will see some examples of defective material. Please click at picture for larger view.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Canopies

The structure has canopies both front and rear and many of the connectors were out of alignment.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Hundred of Plumbing Tabs

Inland removed Hundreds of Plumb Tabs installed upside-down. All the Plumb tabs throughout the structure were welded upside down protruding down from the beams into the clear space.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Misfit Mounting tabs

Many mounting tabs were installed backward/wrong place/misalign. Picture show mounting excess tab that was cut

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Purlin hole punching

Purlins provided that were not punched and some were punched incorrectly

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Misfit

Hundreds of items had to be modified

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Misfit

Clips, Brackets, Beams

Many materials bore no identification marking at all
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

SECTION 6. SHOP FABRICATION AND DELIVERY

6.1 Identification of Material

6.1.1 The fabricator shall be able to demonstrate by written procedure and actual practice a method of material identification, visible up to the point of assembling members as follows:

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

Most of the painted metal components including the pour stop, columns and beams down to the clips were stuck or glued together as result of Inland stacking them together while the paint was wet. We spent countless hours salvaging items prying them apart. When advising one of Schulte/ Inland Building Systems representatives of this at the site, he told me to just take a screw driver and pry them apart. I gave him a hammer and screw driver. His email to his Boss is below.

This website documents my experience with my Metal Building purchase from Schulte/ Inland Building Systems.
This website is not affiliated or authorized by Inland Building Systems a Schulte/ Inland Building Systems.

Deceit, Neglect, Fraud is that Schulte/ Inland Building Systems?

  • Does Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Falsely advertise and represent the quality of their products and service?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Lie and Deceive in order to Falsely induce the Sale?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems ignore the established MBMA standards?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems fail to provide the building purchased?
  • When confronted did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems attempt to Lie and Deceive?
  • When Schulte/ Inland Building Systems attempted repairs did they retain an unlicensed contractor?
  • Were Schulte/ Inland Building Systems repairs outside the established standards?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems provide a properly engineered or did Schulte/ Inland Building systems engineer the structure as delivered at all?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems file suit against their consumer blatantly lying asserting they had fulfilled the contract?
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

8.4 Surface Preparation and Shop Painting Inspection

Inspection of surface preparation and shop painting shall be planned for the acceptance of each operation as the fabricator completes it. Inspection of the paint system, including material and thickness, shall be made promptly upon completion of the paint application. When wet-film thickness is to be inspected, it shall be measured during the application.

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

Apparently, the AISC feels that common sense dictates as they do not specifically note “Don’t Stack Items with Wet Paint On Top of Each Other” although do have concern on painting thickness that is substantially impacted as result of this action.

INACCURATE AND INCOMPLETE PLANS VS. UNAUTHORIZED REVISION OR BOTH

On 11/14/16 I received engineering for permitting, I was provided erection plans dated 4/3/17 for construction. Unfortunately, the 4/3/17 printed plans received failed to contain all the pages. We notified Inland and It took over two months to receive the missing pages. While we knew we had an excessive amount of defective items this was compounded with the incomplete and inaccurate erection plans provided.

Examples;

Plans clearly identify RF2−5 to RF2−3 to have a 3/8 of an inch difference between the two sides. 30′ 4− 11/16″ on one side and 30′ 4− 5/16″ on the other. There were no markings or labeling as to this and when talking to Inland they could not answer. We therefore had to measure all the pieces looking trying to discern a 3/8″ variation on materials that are over 30′ long. There were none found the plans are inaccurate. This is the same on all such columns. A representative for Inland finally acknowledged no variation after we wasted countless hours investigating.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

RF1-3 and RF1-5

Elevation on the left is 1/4″ different from elevation on the right.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

RF2-3 and RF2-5

Elevation on the left is 3/8″ different from elevation on the right.

3.3. Discrepancies

When discrepancies exist between the design drawings and specifications, the design drawings shall govern. When discrepancies exist between scale dimensions in the design drawings and the figures written in them, the figures shall govern. When discrepancies exist between the structural design drawings and the architectural, electrical or mechanical design drawings or design drawings for other trades, the structural design drawings shall govern. When a discrepancy is discovered in the contract documents in the course of the fabricator’s work, the fabricator shall promptly notify the owner’s designated representative for construction so that the discrepancy can be resolved by the owner’s designated representative for design. Such resolution shall be timely so as not to delay the fabricator’s work. See Sections 3.5 and 9.3.

4.2. Fabricator Responsibility

Except as provided in Section 4.5, the fabricator shall produce shop and erection drawings for the fabrication and erection of the structural steel and is responsible for the following:

(a) The transfer of information from the contract documents into accurate and complete shop and erection drawings&smi; and,

From AISC’s Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

Numerous components including Purlins and even columns are inverted or stated opposite of their intended location on the plans.

Finally, after we were provided the missing pages to the plans on 7//5/17 we realized the building provided from Schulte/ Inland Building Systems was substantially different than the building purchased. On 7/14/17 they provided unstamped unsigned drawings depicting a 5/1/17 revision.

I did not authorize the 5/1 revision. I was not advised the 5/1 revision had occurred until I was able to document the building was different than the plans delivered with the building. Why did Inland fail to provide accurate plans with the building? Why did inland hide the fact they changed my building? Why are these plans not Sealed and Signed? Please see Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges 4.4 Approval

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Original Permitted plan

Picture1 description

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Unauthorized 5/1 Revision

FFE is changed from 12′-4″ to 12′-5 ½”

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems has not offered any explanation or apology for changing my building nevertheless attempted to hide their revision. They have accepted no liability or blame for any delay nevertheless the extensive delays and damages that I have incurred. The unstamped or signed 5/1/17 revised plans were provided without any acknowledgement of any wrong doing or liability on their part. There only assertion in legal action and emails has been of their consumer and their consumers installation error. Consistently maintaining they have created no delay.

Inland asserts they have created no delay, is this the customer service you expect?

DOES A PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING REALLY NEED TO BE ENGINEERED?

I purchased a Pre-engineered Building, is there really an obligation of engineering It? Can incompetence be hidden with arrogance? Is the building I received Engineered improperly vs. Engineered at all?

As result of the questionable engineering I have received and finally been provided unstamped and unsigned plans depicting an unauthorized revision to my building. I made complaint citing numerous violations I believe committed, to the State of Florida Board of Engineers. They have found enough cause to investigate assigning a case number and this case is currently under investigation by them.

In response to the complaint specifically to the reason for failure to stamp and sign the 5/1/17 revision. Their engineer provided the following response;

“from his retrospective review, was able to determine that SBS, as an accommodation to the Buyer, delivered to the Buyer a revised drawing dated May 1, 2017 (Attachment 5 to Fxxx Complaint), which contained the as&minum;built joist seat depth of 4 inches. That May 1, 2017 drawing was neither signed nor sealed by Gxxx, or any other professional engineer associated with SBS.”

From their Engineers response letter to the FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Accommodation? SBS (Schulte Building Systems) Engineer that engineered this structure advises SBS sent the only plans that were in accordance with the structure provided as an accommodation. No engineer approved the revisions. Does SBS have no obligation or duty of properly engineer their Pre-Engineered buildings? Does SBS have no obligation or duty of providing accurate plans that reflect the structure they decide to send to their consumer? Does SBS have no obligation or duty to provide a structure in accordance with the purchase and the approved plans?

I am flabbergasted, I purchased a pre-engineered building they changed without any authorization or authority, intentionally attempted to conceal discovery of their revisions and only after they were caught provided plans that failed to be engineered. I believe this to be a crime not an “accommodation “.

To explain the 5/1 revision, they changed the bar joists being installed from a 2½” to 4″ seat although did not change the elevation of the beams on which the joists sit therefore raising the FFE (Finished Floor Elevation) by 1½”. When the seats were changed they also had to change many of the mounting tab elevations for the transverse beams and any other clips or tabs for proper beam and column location and mounting. It appears that part of the structure was built to the 4/3/17 plans, some of the structure was built to the 5/1/17 revision and I believe the rest they just put together to get it out and get the check.

Even if the structure would have been built in accordance 5/1/17 revision and properly engineered. The structure does not comply with the site plan or the approved permitting and is not as purchased.

Please keep in mind I am trying to keep this short and the described complaint above as well as all depictions in this site are not all the issues or complaints. Failing to stamp and sign plans is only one of the issues I believe in violation of Engineering Standards for Florida. The engineer’s response to the Board addressed 11 counts and I am sure there should be more.

After they abandoned repairs we attempted to move forward with the structure although continually ran into further issues and questions such as the seaming process for the TS-324 Standing Seam Roof. In accordance with the 9/18/17 plans provided the TripleLok method is to be used. According to my understanding due to the height of my structure and local code requirements the Quadlok may be required at least on the perimeters; although when this question was asked, we received the same response as we received on all other questions asked of their engineer. We received NO RESPONSE.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

TD118

Detail Drawing in our erection plan, in accordance with the 9/18/17 plans provided the TripleLok method is to be used.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

TripleLok™

The TripleLok™ seam is accomplished by seaming the entire seam with an electrical seamer. This seam will provide an allowable wind uplift loading of 56 psf.*

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

QuadLok™

The QuadLok™ seam is only required in extremely high wind areas such as coastal regions. This seam is accomplished by seaming special roof zones with an electrical seamer, when required. This seam will provide an allowable uplift load of 64 psf*, (or 120 psf over 2’6″ purlin spacing).

In accordance with section TD 29 of the plans (below), Inland provided a stock drawing for standard down spouts on a metal building negating to consider this structure has a canopy that runs the entire length of the building as shown from section A (below) of the same plans. As in many other instances, they give no consideration as to the depictions on their plans being accomplished in the field. Let the installers just figure it out and leave it to be the end user’s problem. When gutters and down spouts were purchased for this structure one would think they would be properly engineered to allow assembly in accordance with the plans provided. Was this structure just too complicated for Schulte DBA Inland Building Systems?

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

INFERIOR PRODUCTS VS. BAIT AND SWITCH

11/14/16 I received engineering for permitting these plans clearly denote the canopies to be standing Seam Roofing TS−324, 24 gauge and a Kynar coating. The material was changed on the 4/8/17 plans and I was provided PBU panels, 26 Gauge and a Standard SMP Coating Silicone Polyester. The PBU panel is a Cheaper roof, 26 gauge is thinner metal and lower grade and SMP is a much lower grade of finish. I am unaware of authorizing any of these changes nevertheless all of them?

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

11/14/16 Canopy Detail

Original plan for permitting shows canopies to be 24 gauge and a Kynar coating.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

4/25/17 Canopy Detail

Erection plan that was delivered with the building shows canopies were changed to 26 Gauge and a Standard SMP Coating.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Inland Color Chart

According to the color chart “Burnish” Slate is SMP and not Kynar color

All transverse Beams are specified on all plans including the 9/18/17 noted for Final Const. as a W14X22 Beam. These were replaced with a severely inferior plate beam they manufactured. When I complained of the replacement beams themselves and that they were being bent from their crew’s improper storage and handling. I was advised by their Manager that they would bend them back straight with their forklift? Please also note page E12 below is from the 9/18/17 Final Const. Plans. They denote W14x22 and the use of 3 A325 Bolts to be used.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Member Table

Mark MB-4, MB-8, MB-207 and MB-208 were replaced. The member table in plan still shows part as W14x22 although parts actually received are not.

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

ASTM A6 Standard Specification

American Wide Flange Beams-W Beams ASTM A6 Standard Specification for General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Actual Measurement

This is not 0.335

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Detail Drawing for Section MK

Final plan that show detail drawing for section MK still shows the beam part as W14X22

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Detail Drawing for Section MU

Final plan that show detail drawing for section MU still shows the beams as W14X22

Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged

Original Transverse beams

Transverse beams were originally installed and designed with three bolts and W14X22 Beam

Inland/ Schulte Building Systemsclip5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now two bolts on a three-bolt tab and Inland shop made plate beam. Inland believes just as good or good enough for their consumer. Is this another accommodation?

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems,washer1
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems,washer2

 

 

By email dated 09/19/17 they advised the 3/4″ washers provided were for the 3/8″ purlin bolts.

The washers being used at the slotted holes in the purlin will be addressed by latter with engineering stamps. The slotted bolt hole connections for mezzanine to the shear plate will require F-436 washers. Mxxx Mxxx is aware of the requirement and will install the washers and bolts. The washers will ship today and deliver Thursday.

The washers, previously installed by others, are the incorrect washers and are not acceptable. Inland Buildings was not notified of installation of these washers. The washers installed were the washers sent for used with the purlin.

Email from their field service to our contractor dated 09/19/17

 

“slotted holes in the purlin will be addressed by latter with engineering stamps” this was never addressed, and we received no such engineering. Are these Slotted holes or defective materials?

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

 

New bolts and washers provided to their crew. It is our understanding their crew refused using the originally provided bolts citing them to be too short and demanded washers for slotted holes.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Later when their contractor re-installed the beams, the right washers were provided although not enough to replace all necessary for slotted holes. Purlin washers and engineering were never been provided. Unfortunately, their crew failed to put bolts in all holes.It appears that the majority of bolts that failed to be installed were misfit and misaligned pieces.

Originally, we were provided many bolts that were too short for proper operation and no washers even for slotted holes.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

 

 

Plans call for 1/2″ majestic tape, material packing slip denotes 1/2″, the material actually provided was 3/8″. An 1/8″ is not a large difference, although Inland provided 25% less material than what was purchased, and the plans call for. If you purchase and paid for 100 lbs. of materials but you received only 75 lbs. Would you feel that you get less than what you paid for apparently Inland Don’t…

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

By the time Inland/ Schulte Building Systems abandoned repairs and we attempted to move forward with the structure most all of the glues and sealants had expired and hardened in their tubes and/or containers as they had a 12/17-1/18 expiration date pics.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

We upgraded all Purlins, Channels, Etc. to be Galvanized although most of them are already failing and rusting.

 
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Rusted decking

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Failing Galvanizing

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Rusting Galvanizing

Galvanized coating lifespan

According to the American Galvanizers Association, hot-dip galvanized fasteners (assuming a minimum 2.5 mil coating thickness) in the following environments can expect the following minimum lifespan before time of first maintenance: Rural: 80+ years. Suburban: 60+ years. Temperate Marine: 55+ years. Nov 12, 2015

 

 

We order the “Grey primer” although some parts we received are in “Red Oxide”. When we first objected we were told that you won’t be able to see this part any way. They sent us a new materials although still in “Red Oxide” and rusty!!

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Change Order#1

Change Order#1 clearly stated that primary steel coating is to be “Gray Primer”

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Material Received

Some of material received are in “Red Oxide”

PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THE MANY ISSUES SUFFERED AND AS RESULT WE FOUND THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE WITH THE STRUCTURE AND IT HAS SAT IN AN UNFINISHED STATE.

FIELD SERVICES

On 7/6/17, Inland/ Schulte Building Systems field representative finally came to inspect the damages. On 7/7/17, I sent an email to thank them. Unfortunately within days after this we learned of the unauthorized revision and all work was halted as we clearly understood that the building delivered was not the building purchased and was not in compliance with the permitting issued. Finally on 8/16/17 a field representative that was a certified welding inspector arrived to make inspection of the repaired columns and he advised Inland would be altering the bar joists and making necessary correction to alter the building into the building we purchased.

In anticipation with Inland’s Field Policy we provided two potential companies to do the work.

Rather than complying with their own Policies, I believe created a new contract making election of repair.

On 8/22/17 we were advised Schulte/ Inland Building Systems would be replacing all bar joists and they were looking for a contractor.

We again advised Schulte/ Inland Building Systems of our 2 chosen contractors. On 8/23/17 we again had a different a field service representative come to the property. He advised that we should continue erection of the roof and sidewalls. This was in direct disagreement with all other experts that we had view the premises.

A field representative again arrived on 8/29/17 bringing their own contractor; 3 men and a truck to correct the issues on the 32,910 sq. Ft building. From here the issues only got worse. Inland maintained a Field service representative onsite throughout the repair process.

I still am confused what his actual job function was. I know he ordered materials, periodically advising on their work schedule, primarily he sat in his truck at the road.

I made report to this gentleman of numerous concerns of their crew from alcohol to inappropriate handling and treatment of the materials and damages to the jobsite.

When I questioned that materials were being improperly handled and stored even in accordance with Inland’s own guidelines, as Inland’s guidelines require the use of a spreader bar on large materials. Their crew not only was not using one but didn’t have one at least on this job. The field Representatives response was “I’d use one”. What does that even mean, one would think he was there to assure Inlands standards are met. He didn’t appear concerned about my property, the job their crew was doing and most of the time he wasn’t even where he could see the job or what their crew was doing.

Public-Adjuster-Jacksonville-Insurance Inland Damages

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems crew started on 8/29/17 encumbering the job for 6 weeks, finally abandoning the job on 10/6/17. There is only two days that their crew possibly spent 8 hrs. on the site and I must state two as one of them I had leave and by the time I returned they were gone. They would typically arrive between 7:30 and 8:30 leaving for lunch at 10 or shortly after and returning many times near 2 and leaving by 4. I have never heard of a company having a 3 ½ hr. work day.

It was a standing joke amongst my guys that the Inland Crew where going to the titty bars as many times would leave at 10am or shortly after and return around 2 pm. Still typically leaving before four.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems PROVIDES CREW TO RESTORE THE STRUCTURE

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems Field Policy provides for reimbursement to the consumer’s contractor for repair of defects. The Consumer is to contract for repair services. In this case Inland retained their own Crew and from our knowledge, failed to even make contact of our proposed and recommended contractors?

Field Manual

Reporting a Manufacturer’s Defect / Field Modifications

  • Contact your sales service manager or the field services representative to report a possible manufacturer’s defect. Required information when submitting a possible defect includes: 1. Inland Building Systems’ – Job number. 2. Inland Building Systems’ – Erection drawing number and appropriated standard sections. 3. The part number of the item affected and the description of the problem. 4. Suggestion for a possible means of correction.
  • Required information regarding a potential claim or approval of corrective action: 1. The labor rate (verifiable). 2. The projected number hours required for the correction. 3. The cost of the necessary material to make the correction 4. Any other cost that might associated with the correction.
  • Method of Correction:

1. The Inland Building Systems’customer and Inland Building Systems’representative will establish the correction to be performed. Inland Building Systems will authorize the corrections after an agreement is reached regarding the corrective procedure to be used and the associated cost.

2. If the Inland Building Systems’ customer, or his representative, elects to perform the correction by any other means than the agreed upon Inland Building Systems’ recommendation, then the customer will bear the responsibility for all of the cost incurred, and the potential exists for withdrawal of the “design certification of the building” if the used correction does not meet the acceptance of Inland Building Systems.

What are Inland/ Schulte Building Systems policies as to their erection standards, they advertise that they are members of the MBMA and an accredited ASIC Member? Do they even abide by their own policies and/or standards?

INLAND MANUEL, SECTION 7. ERECTION AND INSTALLATION

A. Erection and Installation
1. A qualified erector, using proper tools and equipment shall perform the erection of the metal building components. Erector shall follow good, sound, safe procedures and guidelines in accordance with any applicable federal, state or local laws.

Is this a good, sound, safe procedure?

With the typical conduct Inlands crew maintained throughout their time on this site after this episode one of the gentlemen approached me stating; Huh, Huh, Huh, can I get a copy of that video? Apparently, Inland/s standards for alteration to my building was, Three Men and a Truck.

Guidelines in accordance with any applicable federal, state or local laws?

Does Inland Building Systems have a contractor/s license in Florida to effectuate such repairs? I was unable to find, and none was provided?

Public-Adjuster-Jacksonville-Insurance

Does Inland/ Schulte Building Systems require proper licensing of their Crews they retain? Apparently Not, it appears the crew they retained is currently under indictment for unlicensed contracting in another instance. This also brings up another issue does Inland do a Background check on their Crews? Apparently Not, The Crew Leader who advised that he was the owner of the business had also made boast of prior situation that he was involved where the company he was working for performing his services was unaware of their quantity of their supplies and he was able to take possession. When searching for the unlicensed contracting case in St. Johns County court records this came up.

Public-Adjuster-Jacksonville-Insurance

Is a contractor license really necessary? In accordance with advisement from County officials a contractor’s license would be necessary.

According to Highlands County Board of County Commissioners

What services require a State of Florida license?

Contractors
A Contractor is someone who demolishes, subtracts from, builds or improves any building or structure for compensation. Examples of compensation are cash, goods, services, etc. Essentially, if you pay someone to construct a building or a structure, make structural alterations to load bearing walls, or perform services such as plumbing or air conditioning work, that person has to have a state contractors’ license. If you have specific questions, please contact the department at 850.487.1395 or review the rules for the profession at www.myfloridalicense.com. You should also check with your county or city to learn whether or not a local business tax receipt or certificate of competency is required for services that do not require a state license. Please visit our Unlicensed Activity page to learn more about how you can help us

The construction of the building was already been permitted, a General Contractor is on that permit, why wouldn’t that suffice? They were not doing the work under the General Contractor and the building was being structurally altered in variation from the permitting issued.

Wouldn’t the latest set of plans dated 9/18/17 take care of the revisions? Proper plans would allow for proper permitting although these plans do not correctly reflect the alterations performed and would not excuse proper permitting.

We have repeatedly requested documentation on licensing, Certifications, Certificates on workman’s comp and Liability coverage. None was provided until litigation commenced although to this date we have received no documentation on workman’s comp. It does appear their crew’s principal may have been previous charged with providing forged documentation. The only information on welding certification is in email below.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems bas deformed

Inland/Schulte supplied their crew to preform structural alterations to the structure. Including Joist replacement, alterations to the tabs, fasteners and to the structure repairing manufacturing defects under their warranty; Welding should have been a prerequisite. Did Inland/Schulte provide a crew knowing they did not have proper certification or current certification? Why didn’t Inland conduct their own welding inspection?

Why didn’t their welding inspector inspect the alterations they did? In accordance with the welding inspection we had performed by a certified welding inspector on their work they had numerous failures. Apparently proper welding certification nor proper welding is a requirement for Schulte dba Inland Building Systems crews warranty work.
One of the first tasks that Inland’s crew under took upon arriving at the job was to remove all of the plumb tabs that were installed upside down at the factory. Of course, they only removed them and did not replace any. Then after removing the decking, bridging, joists and replacing the transverse beams with the inferior beams that have damage from improper handling and storage. They proceeded to advise they were going to start welding the joists back in, we questioned when they were going to plumb the structure. Inlands crew went throughout structure drawing arrows and writing figures on the columns displaying their belief on how and where the structure was out of plumb. Their crew advised us to plumb the structure is extensive work involving several days and it will be expensive. We asked to make their reports to Inland as that is who they were dealing with.

Inland should make sure the company has the proper tools and equipment in accordance with their own policies and/or standards. A spreader bar while required was never brought to our site nevertheless used by their crew. We are unaware of them having any materials necessary to properly plumb a structure nevertheless using them;

After removing the decking, bridging, joists and replacing the transverse beams with the inferior beams that have damage from improper handling and storage. They proceeded to advise they were going to start welding the joists back in, we questioned when they were going to plumb the structure. Inlands crew went throughout structure drawing arrows and writing figures on the columns displaying their belief on how and where the structure was out of plumb. Their crew advised us to plumb the structure is extensive work involving several days and it will be expensive. We asked to make their reports to Inland as that is who they were dealing with.

 

 

Inland contacted us and requested we hire their crew to plumb the structure.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

We advised that Inland took upon themselves to effectuate the alterations and repairs of their defects and having to re-plumb the structure is part of that process. We further advised that their demoing and continually abusing the structure and premises had significant effect on the building being plumb. They should have thought about this prior to removing most all of the plumb tabs that the factory had installed upside down and left them until they had brought the structure back into plumb. We would not be hiring their crew for this or anything else. We provided the engineers letter identifying the necessity of the structure being plumb prior to them continuing. We also provided statements from the sub-contractors that had originally brought the structure into plumb and the Concrete contractor that had verified plumb prior to performing his services.

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
pushing Building 22 Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
The structure was plumb and square upon their arrival
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

 

 

Inland-Schulte Crew Continually Drove Into Structure

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems
pushing Building 20
Many of the sheets of decking were ripped from the joists rather than unscrewing them completely.
Inland Building Systems Deck 1
Inland Building Systems Deck 7

They then advised they would have their crew plumb the structure. This was done as depicted at the beginning of this site. Please note their crew assert they performed this by pushing the structure with their lift and loosening only connections at first floor mezzanine beams. They did not loosen any of the anchor bolts or anything else and did not retighten what they loosened. Their attempts to plumb solely consisted of again driving into building, no cabling, no supports. These efforts to plumb the structure took less than 3 hours and then they were welding joists in.

pushing Building 2
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged switch
Below is Engineers Inspection of the structure after they had abandoned job and advised they were finished with repairs abandoning the project.
Public-Adjuster-Jacksonville-Insurance
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged metal

 

Inland had a representative onsite continually and should have been aware of the services provided. Inland was aware their crew did not have the proper equipment in accordance with Inland’s own policies. Inland was told by their crew that repairs Inland sites to be “Very important” are not done. Please see emails that are after Inland abandoned their alterations.

Inland Building Systems
Inland Building Systems
Inland-Schulte Building Systems Nor Their Crew, Never Returned to Property yet asserts in Action against me Fulfilled Contract. This is consistent with inland's handling of their issues.

CONTRACT BETWEEN INLAND AND THEIR CREW VS. SERVICES PROVIDED?

Provided by crew as contract in response to request to produce.
Inland Building Systems
Inland Building Systems
Inland Building Systems
Equipment and materials stored under mezzanine will need to be removed to allow access.

NOT DONE. Inland Building Systems paid their crew to move items we continually witnessed them having little to no concern of our property or care if they created damage. We ended up moving many items in attempt to avoid continued damages of our property from occurring although most materials suffered damages as result of Inland and their crew. After we moved some items Inland took upon themselves to request us to move materials. Such requests were made typically on a Friday afternoon asking materials be moved by Monday morning knowing we did not have staffing to work the weekends and would contain false statement such as approving the joists to remain ½ inch high as we only ever authorized the structure to be in accordance with purchase and permitting.

DONE. Crew hauled away joists themselves. I can verify the presence of banding and equipment as they created damages to Building Sheeting and materials using them as a work table for their banding.

This website documents my experience with my Metal Building purchase from Schulte/ Inland Building Systems.
This website is not affiliated or authorized by Inland Building Systems a Schulte/ Inland Building Systems.

Deceit, Neglect, Fraud is that Schulte/ Inland Building Systems?

  • Does Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Falsely advertise and represent the quality of their products and service?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Lie and Deceive in order to Falsely induce the Sale?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems ignore the established MBMA standards?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems fail to provide the building purchased?
  • When confronted did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems attempt to Lie and Deceive?
  • When Schulte/ Inland Building Systems attempted repairs did they retain an unlicensed contractor?
  • Were Schulte/ Inland Building Systems repairs outside the established standards?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems provide a properly engineered or did Schulte/ Inland Building systems engineer the structure as delivered at all?
  • Did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems file suit against their consumer blatantly lying asserting they had fulfilled the contract?
Inland Building Systems email 92917
Inland Building Systems damage1
Inland Building Systems damage 2
Inland Building Systems damage 3
Inland Building Systems driving into 4

I believe many items were damaged as result of complete and thorough lack of any consideration or care.
Here’s a video of them moving the decking that was staged on the 3rd floor. If they can’t move decking without destroying it imagine what happened with painted and delicate items?

Thereafter, with their crews’ general attitude one of the gentlemen approached me stating; Huh, Huh, Huh, can I get a copy of that video?

Many items were damaged as a result of their failure to move them and just work over them failing to cover or provide any protection as depicted below.

Concrete floor will be covered to prevent burning from torch.

NOT DONE.  Very seldom did Schulte/ Inland Building Systems crew cover floor and when they did it was insufficient. Unfortunately, this step was mostly skipped as a result torch slag not only damaged the slab but landed on many of the new materials creating substantial damages to many of the new materials and there was so little concern that there are numerous places the slab has large gouges.

Rusting and damaged Concrete from Torch Slag and Welding/ Grinding Debris

Inland Building Systems rust1
Inland Building Systems rust 2
Inland Building Systems rust 3
Inland Building Systems rust 4

Joists and steel on ground will need to be moved to provide room for erected Joist to be demoed.

Inland Building Systems green trailer

NOT DONE.  Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew worked over materials we had to move materials to avoid further damages. As stated above many items were damaged from their apparent lack of consideration for our property. They was no consideration given to proper material care and handling procedures. I was advised Inland determined all removed materials that were to be salvaged were inevitably determined to be unusable.

Joists and steel on ground will need to be moved to provide room for erected Joist to be demoed.

Some of the Decking was ripped from joists without even removing the fasteners.

Inland Building Systems Deck 1
Inland Building Systems Deck 7
Inland Building Systems Deck 8
Eastside Bay's of Joists and bridging will be cut free beams and removed & Westside 'of joist and bridging will be cut free and removed.
Removing Joists damage
Removing Joists bent
DONE. I asked the one Gentleman using a torch on my building how long he had been doing this and he advised it was his first time. He went on to advise that he had never used a torch before, He was apparently a Fry Cook and he just got this job.
Joists will be banded and Stage to be removed from site to allow access.
Inland Building Systems band1
band2 Inland Building Systems band 2

 

 

NOT DONE. They Worked over continually running into Building

Inland Building Systems cat 3
Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged traps
Tops of beams will be ground smooth and touched up with shop primer to prevent rust on concrete.

Incomplete. Only after continued advisement was any grinding done and primer applied

Cut Plumb/ stabilizing brackets to maintain 10 foot elevation.
Inland/ Schulte Building Systems

Incomplete. These were welded on upside down at the factory protruding into the buildings clear space. Rather than fixing, Inland had their crew remove. Most, not all these were removed although this was prior to any efforts to re-plumb the building. If you were going to remove the tabs used to plumb the structure wouldn’t you plumb the structure first?

  • Remove transition beams.

Done W14X22 Beams connected with three bolts were replaced with inferior shop made plate beams that are noticeably damaged as result of improper storage and handling and attached with two bolts.

  • Located and drill missing holes.

NOT DONE. I am unaware of this being done at all. Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew didn’t even retighten the bolts they loosened nevertheless install the bolts even in the first-floor mezzanine that were misfit?

Inland Building Systems clip3
Inland Building Systems clip 4
Cut and reweld Taps throughout the building per RFI.
  • Not necessary as Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew replaced transverse beams with inferior ones and only used two of the three holes in these taps

  • Verify overhang and adjust if required.

Not done at all, had to hire another crew to complete

  • Verifying beamline per RFI and adjust.

INCOMPLETE and INCORRECT. This is to be the identification and repair of beams installed on tabs that were at the wrong elevations. Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew removed adjusted and then welded the beams to the tabs rather than adjusting tabs and bolting. Numerous beams are welded to the clips from the obvious Manufacturing errors. Anywhere the beams had yet to be installed such on the South End Wall the tabs were cutoff. Many places contained the wrong tabs such as a 3-hole tab for a 5-6 hole beam. Tabs were altered and then “should” be installed at correct elevation. This was not done correctly either, please see the picture below. The beams are still 3/4″ of an inch below the height of the joists they installed. Further modification is necessary to support the decking.

Inland Building Systems deck 4
Inland Building Systems deck 5
  • Verify elevations.

INCOMPLETE. I would certainly assume Schulte/ Inland Building Systems has Representatives and retains Crews capable of reading plans although must believe Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Representatives and Crews incapable of reading plans provided by Inland. This is evidenced in the pictures above as Inlands crew at the direction of Inland’s site representative was incapable of installing the beams at the same elevation as the joists so that the decking properly rests on them. Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew couldn’t even figure out all the mezzanines were at the wrong elevation and argued to leave the third floor asserting that it was the correct elevation. After continued conversation and repeatedly showing them the 5/1 revision that was provided solely “as an accommodation to the Buyer” unfortunately this is the only documentation Inland ever provided as to the building as delivered. Comparing the 5/1 plans to the 11/16 plans clearly shows 1 ½” difference that we never authorized or agreed to purchased. Schulte/ Inland Building Systems finally conceded altering third floor elevation.

5/1 plans vs 11/16 plans 3rd floor elevation

Inland Building Systems tplan1114e7

Original Permitted plan 11/14/16

Inland Building Systems tplan51e7

Unauthorized 5/1/17 revision

Erect new transverse beams

Inland Building Systems new beam 2
Inland Building Systems beam2

INCOMPLETE IMPROPER & DAMAGED. Not all were installed nor installed properly. W14X22 Beams connected with three bolts were replaced with inferior shop made plate beams that are noticeably damaged as result of improper storage and handling and attached with two bolts.

Erect new westside joist, bridging, and perimeter angle per what was removed & Erect new westside joist, bridging, and perimeter angle per what was removed.

INCOMPLETE IMPROPER & DAMAGED. Again, I would certainly assume Schulte/ Inland Building Systems has Representatives and retains Crews capable of reading plans although have to believe Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Representatives and Crews incapable of reading plans provided by Schulte/ Inland Building Systems . This is evidenced as most joists were installed opposite of the plans. Joists were furnished that the front of the structure has shorter joists 29’11 ½” as they stop just past the beams and meet the front concrete wall. The rear of the building is a standard sheeted exterior of a metal building so the joists extend past the beams to be flush with the Purlins 30′ 6½”. By welding them in backwards we could have either removed all joists and welded them in correctly according to the plans although opted for the quicker and easier solution of cutting the overhang of the joists many times having to lengthen the opposite joists. 

In numerous instances also having to modify the seats and reweld the joists as result of insufficient bearing and faulty welds as evidenced in welding inspection. Further we did not want to remove the joists as they have already been abused by their improper handling and storage by Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew. I will never un-see a man over 400 lbs. jumping up and down on a joist in attempt to straighten it from their mishandling. The plans also call for the joists parallel with the transverse beams to be bolted, they are not. They are also welded. They did remove bridging although, I am unaware of Inland replacing the materials in any event we were forced to purchase bridging to complete. The bridging Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew crew installed looks like a drunk installed it and from their assertions possibly did. The one gentleman did advise me he had sweated out the two beers he had drank that morning by 9 am. Inland was advised of this assertion to me and I am unaware of any action taken. No perimeter angle was done, and bridging was incomplete from what was removed. Had to hire crew to complete.

  • Replace existing Eastside beams.

They didn’t remove them, apparently found it easier to run their equipment into the structure then doing job right, Therefore, didn’t have to replace them. Although did loosen many first floor fasteners in their so-called attempt to plumb the structure. None of these were re-installed or tightened.

  • Lay deck on new Joist (per what was removed)

NOT DONE. Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew didn’t even stock back the decking that they removed to get at the joists and they certainly DID NOT Re-install any of the decking they removed. Probably not able to, on their warped joists.

steel twisted joists
New joist, decking, bridging and deck will remain bundled
  • PRIMARILY NOT DONE. Some of the new joists were left bundled many sitting in the dirt, Loose joists were strewn about the site. We were not provided additional bridging and had to purchase to finish. Decking remained bundled as Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew did not install any or even restock from where they removed. Decking shows damage from improper handling and storage.

  • Concrete will be cleaned every day to assure no rust issue

NOT DONE. I am unaware of Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew even having a broom or cleaning up after themselves the entire time they were on the site. Schulte/ Inland Building Systems Crew created numerous damages throughout the slab. How would you feel if Schulte/ Inland Building Systems crew ties up your entire Job site, working three- and four-hour workdays taking excessive lunch times and encumbers the site for nearly six weeks but only working the equivalent of two?

WHY WOULD ONE EVER THINK AN INTENTIONAL EFFORT WAS MADE TO BE RAN OFF THE JOB?

 

 

What would you think if their crew laid a bundle of your joists on its side with one piece of cribbing in the center? Will this permanently distort joists?

twisted joists 1

 

 

 

What if their crew laid your joists in dirt and then stacked beams on top of your joists? Could this damage your goods?

twisted joists 2

How would you feel if their crew ties up your entire Job site, working three- and four-hour workdays taking excessive lunch times and encumbers the site for nearly six weeks? Other contractors estimated two weeks for the entire repairs and restoration.

 

 

How would you feel if their crew stores your new replacement beams like this?

Bent new beam 1
Inland Building Systems new beam 2

How would you feel if they stored your materials like this throwing them in the dirt right in front of your equipment where you can’t get your equipment out?

Bent new beam 3
Bent new beam 4

Maybe if we clear the road and properly stacking the materials that they improperly handled and stored, they will get the idea. Please notice the new materials are filthy from their crew strewing them in the dirt.

Bent new beam 5
Bent new beam 6

 

Or maybe not, same area blocked just different materials strewn in the dirt?

Bent Joist 3

 

Communication is key, we have a talk with them and arrangement clearing an area for their goods to be stored, further discussing the necessity of proper storage and cribbing to keep materials clean and straight. I run out only to return finding our parking area filled with materials, set in the dirt.

Bent Joist 4

If we tried to continue the installation of the structure and they were working say on the South end and I put guys up on the north end. The building is 253′ long we have to be able to stay out of their way. Within minutes they move working directly in under us so that we must stop. Coincidence as this happens time and time again?

Inland/ Schulte Building Systems building

They continually drove their Heavy Equipment into the Structure on a regular basis?

Running into building 10
Running into building 11
driven over Schulte/ Inland Building Systems damaged deceit
Running into building 13

 

They apparently had no concern or obligation to avoid driving into the structure’s walls, over survey stakes and/or elevation markings, Concrete Forms or damages to the utilities?

Running into building 17

 

 

Damages across the Jobsite are to be of no concern?

driven over 7
driven over 9
driven over 11

Damaging the Slab is apparently acceptable, right?

Slab Damages
Slab Damages 2

 

 

Continually we found our New Materials improperly stored and strewn across the roads?

Damaged Decking

 

 

They would use the sheeting and other Job site materials as work benches?

Inland Building Systems band1
band2 Inland Building Systems band 2
Schulte/ Inland Metal Building Systems damaged
LITIGATION OR ARBITRATION

After Inland/ Schulte Building Systems abandoned the alteration we filed suit solely to take the deposition of the local Sales Representative as I still don’t understand all the happenings in this fiasco. Schulte filed for Arbitration in Houston, Texas seeking the Arbitrator to find they have fulfilled their contract and award them attorney fees.

CLAIMANTS’ (INLAND/ SCHULTE) ORIGINAL DEMAND FOR ARBITRATIONAND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

After Inland abandoned the alteration we filed suit solely to take the deposition of the local Sales Representative as I still don’t understand all the happenings in this fiasco. Schulte filed for Arbitration in Houston, Texas seeking the Arbitrator to find they have fulfilled their contract and award them attorney fees.

1. This case is about an October 21, 2016 Purchase Order entered into between XXXMeXXX and XXXGeneral ContractorXXXX ( “Respondents”), on the one hand, and SBS, on the other. Pursuant to that Purchase Order, SBS agreed to manufacture and supply and Respondents agreed to purchase the components Respondents required to construct a pre-engineered metal building.

2. SBS performed as contracted, and supplied Respondents with a complete building that complied with both Respondents’ engineered drawings and the documentation and support drawings expressly referenced by and incorporated into the parties’ Purchase Order.

3. After the building had been completely delivered, the period for rejecting the goods had lapsed, and construction of the building had commenced, Respondents, primarily xxx ME XXX, began raising complaints regarding certain features of the building supplied by SBS. SBS went to great lengths to address Respondents’ concerns, lengths that included sending an SBS representative to the building site over numerous weeks to consult with Respondents regarding, primarily, their own installation errors.

4. On October 19, 2017, xxx ME xxx filed a lawsuit in Orange County, Florida, against XXX Sales Representative XXX−one of the SBS representatives with whom Respondents had communicated in connection with the Purchase Order. In the lawsuit, XXX ME XXX seeks to depose XXX Sales Representative XXX and obtain, through XXX Sales Representative XXX, documents relating to Respondents’ Purchase Order with SBS. In his lawsuit, XXX ME XXX claims such discovery will substantiate potential fraud and other claims against undisclosed parties.

5. Disputes over the Purchase Order are governed by an enforceable arbitration agreement. Accordingly, in seeking to construe its obligations under the Purchase Order, SBS and XXX Sales Representative XXX have initiated the instant arbitration.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

15. SBS is an accredited manufacturer of pre−engineered metal buildings, steel framing systems, and building components. XXX Sales Representative XXX is one of SBS’s XXXXX Managers.

Inland/Schulte has never acknowledged any fault, provided an apology or any acknowledgement of any wrong doing. Rather they have continuously laid all blame citing it to be the result of our installation error. They asserted I am not their customer for communications or resolving any issues, although assert I am their consumer for legal action? When I took the only avenue I knew solely to gain deposition of XXX Sales Representative XXX they demanded Arbitration. Are their assertions untruthful?

As result of Inland/ Schulte Building Systems demand for appraisal full blown litigation has been initiated and see no end in sight. I am currently unaware if the untruths being asserted are just legal posturing or if Inland/ Schulte fails to even advise their counsel of the truth. I can assure that I have the tenacity to see this through and if they do as well we may very well end up with a verdict for all to see. It is my belief that a new contract was formed as their contract was not an erection contract. I believe the truth will prevail.

I cannot believe I am the only customer Inland/ Schulte has treated in this manner.

Inlands council has requested how I have been damaged? I expected the structure erected July of 2017 and the entire complex to be completely operational by the end of 2017. We are now coming to the end of 2018 and the building is still not completely erected and still finding new issues. I still unaware of all the ways I have been damaged. I purchased a metal building because they are represented to be put up quicker and more cost effective than conventional construction. This is not true with my Inland Building.

CONTACT

I sincerely wish to aide anyone from encountering similar issues. If you have had a similar experience, please let me know. Please email us your thoughts and opinions:

inlandbuildingsystemsreview@outlook.com

Your input is sincerely appreciated.