The tape acts as a bridge, covering the joint between two surfaces.
The action of embedding the tape in the fresh compound will create a rough surface which is then tooled to a relatively smooth surface, which entails drawing some of the compound onto and over the tape.

So, despite the fact that the repairs will be covered by cabinets and moulding and won't be seen. What visible problems do you anticipate?

Thanks for your input snoonyb. I am concerned that the tape will eventually curl at the edges and separate from the joint compound, leaving the seams exposed to cracking and air leaks. Of course, I'll never know if this happens because it will be hidden.

It will be fine as it is so you shouldn't worry. But if makes you happy, he could put another coat on it. Just don't ask him to sand it smooth - it's not necessary.

You can do that easily yourself since it doesn't have to look pretty. Personally, I think he is a slob without pride in workmanship. I'd ask for it to be completed and painted like the rest of the room it's a part of. I just like the walls completed and mud sealed even if no one else in the world approves. Offer to pay the extra if he didn't include it.

He will be doing this sort of thing with everything, probably even when something is necessary. This may not be, but continue to check around. The paper might deteriorate over the years, as paper does. DIY for your own peace of mind if he wants a lot of money. Simple as pie.

I have read others who want all their walls finished, fresh and clean even when the cabinets are going over them. It's your house, do what makes you comfortable.

gnocchinow:

Before we engage in any contractor-bashing, what does your agreement say? If he's doing this gratis, you should be grateful, silent, and mud it yourself. If he's agreed to patch, you should insist on being happy.

Gratis? Soffit removal would require repair. I think that since the OP is reasonable enough to inquire if they are being unreasonable in asking for it to be finished indicates this is not a favor. Along with the concern about shortcuts. Think they would have mentioned it otherwise, if this were not a paid for services job, ie not included or discussed ;)

Now we are not to assume workers are being paid? Or assume ungrateful customers are complaining about things they are not paying for. lol

This post was edited by snookums2 on Tue, Apr 22, 14 at 16:28

Many many contractors do not do 100% finish level work behind cabinets or in garages. It satisfies fire code to do the single mud coat, so contractors who have experience with doing the cheapest possible job for the cheapest possible client tend to price it that way because no one wants to pay for even the smallest of upgrades. It does take extra drying time to do 3 coats plus paint, and time IS money. Not to mention the extra mud and paint too.

Your better quality contractors, who are used to dealing with customers who don't nickel and dime them to death, will often do small upgrades like that without even listing them as a line item on the job. It's SOP for them. It's one of the differences between the $1.98 guy and the $2.98 guy that those who relentlessly price shop don't tend to understand. You never get what you don't pay for.

Let's assume that the cabinets will cover the unfinished surface completely. It's the contractor's responsibility to know the cabinet layout and finish the areas that will be visible to the level of finish specified in the contract.

A single coat of mud embedding the tape at the seam is adequate to satisfy the fire code. Additional layers of mud are purely cosmetic.

The work your contractor did is perfectly acceptable and your concern of the tape peeling is unfounded.

If your contract specifies that the wall behind the cabinets be taped, finished to a level "n" smooth surface, textured, and/or painted, you have a performance issue with the contractor. But why pay for the extra work?

Every wall I've ever removed cabinets from required significant patching and painting to look like the rest of the walls. It doesn't matter if the wall was already textured and painted before the cabinets went up. The back of the cabinets sticks to the painted surface and pulls off much of the paint and texture with it.

"contractors who have experience with doing the cheapest possible job for the cheapest possible client tend to price it that way because no one wants to pay for even the smallest of upgrades. "

So were you given the option? Told what would/wouldn't be done, what things were considered upgrades, what shortcuts he was going to take that you could then agree to?

Was this the cheapest guy you could find?

snookums2:

Here is the OP's first sentence:

"As part of my kitchen remodel, I took down my old soffit which ran around the perimeter of the kitchen."

It seems to me anyone doing part of their job is doing so to try to save money. Nothing wrong with that, but it can lead to misunderstandings as to where their part ends and where the contractor's begins.

There are "standards of practice", and "standard practices."
What the contractor did was a standard practice common where the repaired area will be covered with permanent fixtures and is generally termed as "fire tape" and would not affect the dwellings performance, or resale value.

While home owners have certain "expectations," iterating those can involve some level of sophistication, and others will want textures matched. Which will usually be met with verbiage such as; match existing wall texture as close as possible using trade available material and methods.

Not all tradesmen's hands are the same.

So, is a mismatch acceptable?

Or, is the standard practice acceptable?

With regards to the post by live_wire_oak dated April 22, the point regarding doing the job just so it meets the fire code is well taken.(I do not believe that only the "cheapest" of home owners would take this route.) However, the live_wire_oaak's comments taken as a whole are infuriating and the honesty necessary to post them is refreshing. My lifetime's experience as the owner of three upgraded homes backs them up. This is not to be taken as a slam against live_wire_oak because he is the "messenger" in this case. He has given us a birds eye view into the evolution of the convoluted thinking of the average general contractor, a situation that practically guarantees that a win-win outcome, for homeowner and contractor, is very nearly impossible on any home project or job, no matter how small, in one's home.

The other comments, while trying to be helpful to the OP, offer further evidence of the land mines that await even the most conscientious of home owners. For instance there is a discussion as to whether this part of the contractor's job was being done "gratis." If fire codes must be met then why would this "patching" of drywall not be part of the job and not an upgrade. Then there is the discussion as to whether the OP did the demo, personally removing the soffits, and leaving the drywall patching work to be done once the contractor enters the picture. That this would have been part of the bidding process is left to one's imagination. The OP has not been back as far as I can tell.

The fraught bidding process makes me want to add here that in my experience (I include that of close friends also) it has repeatedly been close to impossible to get "everything in writing" and in a signed contract, up front, first in bids and then in a definitive work agreement. That is why and this is the important part of this rant, for which I already apologize this beautiful Saturday morning, but it has to be said one more time. One must do the homework and make the extra effort to locate and deal with only the honest general contractor. This contractor will have a portfolio (in whatever form) of which they (he/she) are proud and which will be willingly offered to you, just as a recent and verified reference list (with contact numbers) is provided to you. This contractor will not balk at providing references, with the hesitation to do so implying you already do not trust their word or their work.

As my last comment (as I have fallen very close if not on-the-money as to "contractor-bashing") I will say also from personal experience, that these honest contractors are out there, everywhere. I personally accumulated a go-to list of them when I lived in California and they never let me down. (I haven't had the same luck here in N.E. Florida but hey I've only lived here 15 years!). It is unfortunate and it seems a fact of life that their numbers appear to be outnumbered by the unlicensed or unscrupulous person who will make you sorry you ever bought the house in the first place.

What is infuriating about live_wire_oak's comments? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

As a whole, i find that "honest contractors" do what clients drive them to do...over time. Too often, that means they need to deliver both value AND a good (or better) price, in terms of real numbers and perceptions. (This even goes for contractors that have been recommended by trusted friends, etc.) If a contractor gets the "blend" wrong in their bid/offer/discussion, the client is off to the next one. The challenge with dealing with clients is trying to figure out the true nature of their expectations, regardless of their own declarations...in fact, I might say, in spite of them. Not meant as an insult, it's just the way we all work. (Yes, even us, when we are on the other side.)

The included description is an example of the industry standards.

Here is a link that might be useful: Drywall finish level.

So, while a Level 1 might be recommended for the job, the problem here is a lack of communication. The contractor didn't discuss or ask what finish level they wanted. Expectations of the customer can not be met that way. A homeowner has no reason to think the wall wouldn't be a finished surface like the rest. It just looks like sloppy work you don't want in your house, although some people wouldn't care one way or the other or know anything about fire code requirements.

Key to the article and the point of the level definitions:

"The document was created to "precisely describe" the desired finish of walls and ceilings prior to final decoration. This precise description enables contractors to better understand the requirements of architects and building owners in order to enhance the satisfaction of the client. "

Exactly. However, that list is much like code requirements

Initially designed and intended to protect the owners of structures from shoddy workmanship, codes requirements are often now used by cities to restrict what can and cannot be done for reasons other than safety/reliability.

Many contractors use the drywall level as a 'given'---level three for interior house walls, for instance. The level has to do with providing a base surface for the desired finish, not what a contractor wants to provide as a cost saving service.

This area was the reason popcorn ceiling treatment was developed. Smooth painted ceilings require at least a level three and should be a level four. Popcorn means the ceiling can be done at a level one and sprayed---cutting days and many man hours off construction times.

Level five is required for surfaces painted with gloss paint/etc.

The problem is that contractors seldom discuss the level with future owners, because the time it takes can be significant and many have never had that discussion---leaving that to architects/designers---who seldom explain the levels either---because they leave that discussion to the contractor.

And many remodlers have no idea that system exists.

Thus the confusion.

Let's say the kids crawled up on the countertops and drew pictures on the ceiling/wall that would be covered by the cabinets. Insisting that a contractor remove the children's artwork before installing cabinets is the same as expecting a level 3 finish behind drywall.

It is a complete waste of time and money. If the homeowner wants to pay extra, fine, but I'm sure artwork removal and/or level 3 drywall finish in unseen areas wasn't in his original proposal.

"There are "standards of practice", and "standard practices."

There are also, "standard practices," which can become "standards of practice", and directly reflect upon the ethics and integrity of the vendor.

Complacency, is just that.

Thank you all. I've been tied up with my kitchen remodel and other home repairs the last few days and return now to find many interesting comments on my OP.

For what it's worth:
- I have nothing against contractors and have had many excellent quality ones over the years
- I have above average DIY skills, but I know my limits. One of them is that I cannot feather joint compound like a true pro.
- I did get references for the contractor doing the work; all were positive
- Our contract specified that I do the demo (my choice to save a few bucks) and the contractor do the drywall patching. The contract was vague (shame on me) and only said that drywall repairs would not be "paint ready", which I took as "not primed, but finished and sanded". I was working with a kitchen/bath showroom, and they would not accept any modifications whatsoever to the contract.
- I believe the contractor completed the drywall stage to a reasonable level behind the cabinets. Based on Handymac's link, they took it to stage 2. Thank you Handymac for providing this useful link.
- The contractor did offer to take the drywall to a completely finished stage for extra $
- In the end, I was not happy with the overall work of this particular contractor. He hung the upper cabinets before finishing the exposed drywall next to my cabinets, where the walls are to be painted. So with the cabinets in place, he attempted to repair the drywall right up to the edge of the cabinets - mudding, sanding, everything. He ended up getting compound all over the new cabinets…and he chipped and scratched 2 of them. Not too smart, and now it's another problem for me to deal with. And not the subject of my OP.

Thank you ALL again for your insights and expertise regarding drywall.