In This Article
The moment before signing a roofing contract on a Tequesta luxury home is the moment of maximum leverage — the point at which the homeowner has the most information about the competing proposals and the most ability to influence the project’s outcome before any money changes hands or any work begins. Most Tequesta homeowners underuse this leverage by focusing their pre-signature evaluation on price comparison and general contractor reputation rather than on the specific, verifiable, consequential questions that reveal which contractor will actually deliver the long-term outcomes the project should produce. These five questions — drawn from 22 years of observing what separates excellent Tequesta project outcomes from mediocre ones — are the questions that matter most before you sign.
Question 1: Can You Show Me the Florida Product Approval Number for Every Component?
This is the single most revealing question you can ask a roofing contractor before signing a contract in Tequesta — and the answer tells you more about the contractor’s specification quality and HVHZ knowledge than any portfolio, review rating, or years-in-business claim. A Florida Product Approval number is the HVHZ-specific product certification that every roofing component installed on a Palm Beach County property must carry. It is assigned by the Florida Building Commission after testing to TAS standards, it is searchable in the Florida Building Commission’s online product approval database, and it is required to be referenced in every HVHZ roofing permit submittal.
A contractor who can immediately provide the FPA number for the specific tile or metal panel, underlayment system, fasteners, metal edge system, and flashing products they are proposing — and who can do so before you ask them to look it up — is a contractor who works with these products regularly enough to know them by heart. This is the baseline knowledge level of a contractor who genuinely specializes in HVHZ coastal roofing. A contractor who responds to this question with uncertainty, with a brand name instead of an FPA number, or with a promise to “get that information to you” is telling you that their standard practice does not include FPA documentation — which means their permit submittals may be imprecise, their product substitutions may not be disclosed, and their installation accountability is reduced.
The follow-up to this question is equally important: verify the FPA numbers provided against the Florida Building Commission’s product approval search at floridabuilding.org before signing. This takes five minutes per product and confirms that the FPA number is current, that the product listed matches what was described, and that the approval includes HVHZ listing for the installation method being proposed. A small percentage of contractors provide FPA numbers that are expired, that do not cover the specific installation method being proposed, or that are for a different product than the one described. Verification catches these discrepancies before they become mid-project disputes.
Question 2: What Is My Property’s ASCE 7-22 Exposure Category and What Does It Change About the Specification?
The ASCE 7-22 Exposure Category classification for your specific property determines the calculated wind design pressures that the roofing system must resist at every roof zone — and those pressures determine the fastening pattern, foam adhesive scope, flashing gauge, and metal alloy specification that is correct for your property. In Tequesta, where exposure zones change meaningfully street by street depending on proximity to the Intracoastal, the Loxahatchee River, and the Jupiter Inlet, a contractor who applies a generic “coastal Florida” specification to every project — without evaluating the specific exposure category — is applying the wrong specification to a significant percentage of the properties they work on.
The correct answer to this question is specific: “Your property is Exposure Category D based on its location within 1,500 feet of the Intracoastal Waterway on the southeast elevation” — or “Your property is Exposure Category B, which is typical for the Country Club Drive interior community, and the design pressures for your project are calculated at X psf in the field zone and Y psf at the corner zones.” This level of specificity demonstrates that the contractor has actually evaluated your property’s exposure context rather than applying a default assumption. It is also the information that drives the specification decisions for flashing gauge, fastening patterns, and material grade — so a contractor who cannot answer it specifically is implicitly telling you they have not made these decisions on a site-specific basis.
For Tequesta waterfront homeowners on the Intracoastal or lower Loxahatchee River, the exposure category question also reveals whether the contractor understands the material grade implications of direct coastal exposure. A contractor who knows that Category D properties within 1,500 feet of open water require 0.032-inch aluminum minimum for flashings rather than the 0.019-inch minimum that satisfies code in Category B environments is a contractor who has done this work before in this environment. The question surfaces knowledge that is invisible in a price comparison but determinative of whether the installed materials will serve their expected service life in Tequesta’s specific coastal conditions.
The correct answer is specific — an actual category letter with a specific reason “Exposure Category D based on proximity to the Intracoastal” is a correct answer. “Coastal property” or “the standard Florida coastal specification” is not. Specificity demonstrates that the contractor evaluated your actual property conditions.
Ask before the proposal — not after — to get a specification that reflects the answer Raising the exposure zone question before the proposal is submitted means the proposal will reflect the correct specification from the start. Raising it after the proposal is submitted means you are requesting revisions to a document built on potentially incorrect assumptions.
For waterfront properties, this question surfaces the material grade knowledge gap A contractor who connects Category D to specific flashing gauge, aluminum alloy, and fastener specifications has done waterfront work in this environment. One who cannot make this connection has not.
Question 3: What Wind Mitigation Ratings Will This Project Produce and How Will You Document Them?
The OIR-B1-1802 wind mitigation form’s Section A, B, and C ratings are the mechanism by which a completed roofing project translates into annual insurance premium savings — and the specific ratings your project will produce depend directly on the specification choices the contractor makes. Asking this question before signing ensures that the contractor has thought through the wind mitigation outcome, included the structural upgrades necessary to achieve maximum ratings, and has a documented plan for capturing those ratings through the post-installation wind mitigation inspection process.
The correct answer describes specific expected ratings. Section A — roof covering — should achieve the maximum rating through the use of an HVHZ-approved roofing system, which any compliant Tequesta contractor’s installation will accomplish. Section B — deck attachment — depends on the nail type and spacing pattern. Maximum Section B rating requires 8d ring-shank nails at 6-inch field and 6-inch edge spacing, documented with photographs taken before the underlayment covers the deck. If deck re-nailing is not included in the contractor’s proposed scope, Section B will reflect the existing nail pattern — which on pre-2002 Tequesta properties is frequently the minimum-rated smooth-shank nail at wider spacing. Section C — roof-to-wall connections — depends on the strap type at each rafter or truss. Maximum Section C requires double-wrap straps at every connection. If strap installation is not included in the scope, Section C will reflect the existing connections.
A contractor who answers this question with “the wind mitigation inspector will determine the ratings after the project is complete” has not made the connection between specification choices and insurance outcomes — and their project will produce whatever ratings the existing structural conditions happen to support. A contractor who answers with specific expected ratings for each section, explains which upgrades produce those ratings, and describes the documentation process for capturing them has built the wind mitigation outcome into the project specification from the beginning. The financial difference between these two approaches — at Tequesta luxury home insurance premium levels — can be $5,000 to $15,000 or more annually.
Question 4: What Does the Project Closeout Documentation Package Include?
The documentation a contractor provides at project completion is the permanent record of what was installed on your property — the record that supports insurance renewals, wind mitigation filings, property transactions, and future contractor assessments for as long as you own the home. Asking what is included in the closeout package before signing tells you both what documentation you will receive and, equally importantly, what documentation the contractor routinely produces on their projects. A contractor who produces comprehensive closeout documentation as standard practice is a contractor whose projects are built to be verified — a fundamentally different accountability standard from a contractor who does the work and considers the project complete when the final payment clears.
The minimum acceptable closeout documentation package for a Tequesta luxury re-roofing project includes four elements. First — the building permit number with the final inspection certificate confirming the project passed all required HVHZ inspections. This is the foundational public record of the project. Second — the FPA numbers for all installed components, ideally with the FBC database links, confirming that the installed products match the specified products with current HVHZ listings. Third — mid-project photographs of the deck nail pattern at multiple representative locations, taken before underlayment installation, that provide independent verification of the deck attachment for wind mitigation documentation purposes. Fourth — the wind mitigation inspection scheduling confirmation, confirming that the post-installation OIR-B1-1802 inspection has been arranged and the report will be filed within a specific number of days after permit closeout.
The mid-project photographs deserve specific emphasis because they are the most commonly omitted element in the standard contractor’s closeout package — and the most difficult to recover after the fact. Once the underlayment is installed over the deck, the nail pattern is permanently hidden from view. The only way to document it for Section B wind mitigation purposes after the project is complete is through limited attic access, which provides at best a partial view of nail heads rather than a systematic documentation of pattern and spacing across the full deck area. Mid-project photographs taken systematically before underlayment installation are the definitive documentation — and their absence at closeout is a gap that cannot be filled retroactively.
Question 5: When Is Final Payment Due — and What Triggers It?
The payment schedule structure of a roofing contract is both a cash flow arrangement and an accountability mechanism — and the trigger for final payment is the clearest single indicator of whether a contractor is accountable to the completed project outcome or only to the project’s physical completion. There is a meaningful difference between a contract that requires final payment on the date the crew finishes and removes their equipment, and a contract that requires final payment upon passing of the county’s final building inspection. The difference is not semantic — it is the difference between a contractor who is done when they are done and a contractor who is done when the county independently verifies the work meets code.
The correct payment structure for a Tequesta luxury re-roofing project is a three-milestone schedule: a deposit at contract signing (typically 25 to 35% of project cost) to fund material procurement; a progress payment at deck inspection passing (typically 40 to 50% of project cost) that confirms the structural work is compliant before it is covered; and a final payment at passing of the county’s final building inspection (the remaining balance), which confirms the complete installation meets HVHZ requirements and closes the permit. This structure keeps the contractor financially accountable to each inspection milestone rather than allowing them to collect the balance before the county has verified the work.
A contractor who proposes final payment upon “substantial completion” — a term that means the work looks finished but may not yet have passed final inspection — is a contractor who wants to receive full payment before the county’s independent verification of code compliance. In a market where final inspection deficiencies can require partial tile removal, flashing correction, or underlayment work to remedy, receiving final payment before that verification gives the contractor reduced financial incentive to resolve deficiencies promptly. The homeowner’s leverage in the deficiency resolution process is directly proportional to the payment balance the contractor has not yet received.
Final payment should be triggered by passing of the county’s final inspection — not crew departure The county’s final inspection is the independent verification that the project meets HVHZ code. Your leverage to resolve any deficiencies is directly proportional to the balance the contractor has not yet received at that point.
Three-milestone payment schedule is the correct structure for Tequesta projects Deposit at signing, progress payment at deck inspection passing, final payment at county final inspection passing. Each milestone ties payment to an independent verification event rather than to the contractor’s own assessment of project status.
All five questions together create a complete contractor accountability framework FPA documentation, exposure zone knowledge, wind mitigation planning, closeout documentation, and final payment trigger. A contractor who answers all five with specificity and confidence is a contractor whose accountability extends through the full project outcome — not just the installation day.
Ask all five questions of every contractor before signing — use the comparison The difference between contractors who answer all five with specificity and those who cannot is the most useful information available before signing. It reveals the actual quality standard you are buying — more clearly than any portfolio photograph or review rating.
