3 Equal Manufacturers or Suppliers?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Brian Payne Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 164 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 03:53 pm:    So I need some help here. Some of the so-called tile manufacturers are just suppliers, but they are the only source for the tile in the U.S. Do I list them as a manufacturer? Brian Payne Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 165 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 03:56 pm:    For Example: http://www.stonesource.com/ Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 733 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 05:02 pm:    Brian, In looking at the Stonesource website, their products can be sorted by manufacturer. So you could specify TIle ABC by (mrf) XYZ, distributed by Stonesource." Normally I don't specify distributors, but if these are foreign manufacturers and are available in the US only through one distributor, by specifying the distributor you're pointing bidders to the desired products. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 262 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 08:02 pm:    StoneSource may be an unusual case, w/ the line between manufacturer & distributor not always clear. Many of the lines they represent seem to be branded as their own. I frequently receive product selections where StoneSource is identified without a particular manufacturer named. I simply list the product as the basis-of-design and name StoneSource without identifying their role as "manufacturer" or "supplier." Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Ardmore PA J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1054 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - 09:45 am:    This is a particular problem with younger architects and interior designers who don't understand the difference or why it might be important. It can be particularly problematic when the project is requiring a certain percentage of locally sourced products. There are so many layers to the issue. Who is the manufacturer for stone? Is it really the quarry or is that just the location you are sourcing the slabs from to fabricate into the pieces that will go into the building. So is the "fabricator the "manufacturer?" I heard of a project in Hawaii in the early 1990s where the stone was fabricated in South Africa, fabricated in Italy, and shipped to the Big Island. For the sake of the schedule, the stone was being fabricated before the shop drawings were approved. I have gotten product data from my clients that is a web page from a distributor with a price. Sometimes, I have only found the manufacturer by looking at the picture for a tradename. Which brings me to another issue; confusing the tradename with the manufacturer. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1177 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - 10:05 am:    Brian, is this a public project? Are 3 "equals" required? Are you working as a consultant or in-house? In either case, are you budgeted with finding "equals"? I often ask our designers if they know of "equals". If they do not, I try calling a few of my usual reps in that industry to see if they know of anything reasonably similar. The other issue is when distributors give products unique names so the same product can be known by a variety of names. This is especially true of natural stone. This is an issue with glass as well. Too many people don't know the difference between glass manufacturers vs. glass fabricators. I can't tell you how many times I've been given Viracon as the 'manufacturer' and get the deer-in-the-headlight look when I ask whose glass we're using. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1056 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 10:19 am:    Ken raises a point about fabricators. Do we need 3 glass manufacturers and 3 fabricators? I will admit to "cheating" on this with glass by listing a particular glass product (tinted glass substrate and low-e coating) as a basis of design and giving the performance characteristics. If someone wants to go to the trouble of finding a comparable product from another manufacturer (and there are some with similar performance) they can try and get it through the architect's review. In some cases the selection is relatively specialized with the designer carefully selecting a particular palette of exterior materials, and a product with comparable performance and tint may not be exactly right. This is one of the few places where the whole competitive pricing concept breaks down. I can make the case that the competitive pricing comes from fabricators (unless you are using a relatively unique Viracon coating) and the installer. Now when people start selecting a particular brand of a more commodity product (like tile mortar or Type X gypsum board), I have to put my foot down. I think sometimes that some designers would want a proprietary specification for sand if the thought ocurred to them. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1722 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 12:14 pm:    Every once in a while I will get flack from an architect that I have to specify three equal (equivalent) products. I did a lot of research and could not find where that is required by law. So I made a bet that I would buy someone a nice dinner if they find it. So far I have not lost. BTW, this does not apply to federal government work. I don't do fed work and I think in that case there is a requirement, but I have not researched it. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC EA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 11:58 am:    I'm constantly surprised that the idea of "needing" three manufacturers and suppliers gets as much traction as it does with specifiers who should really know better. I have yet to see a law or regulation written such that it requires, and only allows for, a minimum of three products, manufacturers, suppliers, etc. to be listed in the specifications.* Instead they require that we don't restrict competitive bidding. In fact, I think there is an argument that in only listing three, and restricting selection to those three, you have limited competition if there are for example six manufacturers that could all produce a comparable product. One of the three that didn't get listed could make a claim. Why don't we push back on the notion that we must list three in the specs? I will admit I have clients that have specifically requested this, but usually I can explain the concept of competitive bidding and, with probably a 95% success rate, get them to loosen the request. Why aren't we educating our clients better? The other 5% where I don't succeed is usually because the client can't be bothered to challenge their own assumption, or they claim it is a requirement of their financing (or something like that) with nothing to back the claim up. *I actually have seen some written that ask for a minimum of three manufacturers, etc. but they also allow for descriptive specifications as well as long as the spec isn't written to limit competition (ie. don't describe the product in a way that only one manufacturer can meet the spec), thereby foregoing any requirement to list three in all cases. Refer to MA law for example: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIII/Chapter30/Section39m ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1179 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 12:43 pm:    EA, I agree but we do run into this often. I'm not sure but possibly Federal DOT projects require listing of 3 equals; they also require US made products (Buy America vs. Buy American). I've worked on many state funded projects where the state PM required 3 "equals" while refusing to show us where the requirement was written. Some NGO clients have it as part of their requirements and are unbending in those requirements. It's a lot of fun when their in-house folks want us to specify a product only made by one manufacturer and we tell them that we can't unless they get the okay from their "superiors." Talk about entertainment. We've had clients buy the product and have it installed as OFCI to get around the issue. CSI addresses the differences between open and closed proprietary methods of specifying regardless of whether one or more manufacturers are listed. The two are not mutually exclusive. The Specifier needs to pay attention to how they write their specs. And yes, it is possible to write a closed proprietary spec as a prescriptive or descriptive spec without ever mentioning the product, just ask the Army COE, NAVFAC, and the folks at UFGS and Specsintact. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1724 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 12:50 pm:    I don't limit my specifications to only three manufacturers. That said I don't list every manufacturer. I try to list only the manufacturers whose products I am familiar with or whose products are distributed locally. I have actually had Owners that wanted me to limit the number of manufacturers to only five. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1761 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 01:35 pm:    I think there are probably a lot of governmental entities that require a listing of 3 manufacturers. How that is interpreted depends a lot on the administrative body that interprets the regulations of the government involved. I did scores of public projects in Massachusetts, and I can say that while it is true that descriptive specs that don't limit competition are legal, and can work, we were almost always better off doing the homework and listing three or more. That way there were far fewer disputes during construction about whether a product met the descriptive spec. I can also say that the degree to which the need for three items would be battled by contractors depended on the consequence of limited competition. For example, a VCT brand/color was normally supplied no problem. More complex or costly items, like windows, definitely would be a source of potential dispute. I will also add that the bidding authority in Massachusetts can limit competition for certain bona fide reasons. Maybe an addition needs to use the same HVAC controls for compatibility, for example. Bottom line, I would give three products where at all feasible - things would go much more smoothly. On private work, some large owners would want competition to control costs, but were flexible as to when to require three, and when to be proprietary. Sometimes they just had preferences. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 866 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 02:42 pm:    Is the intent to get 3 unique products or a minimum of 3 prices? I suggest the latter. While I try to specify materials based on performance criteria there are a number of structural products that I have specified by name even though competing products exist. For example wood joists. Besides the additional design time the design documents would need 3 separate sets of details to deal with different dimensions and connecting hardware. On one project where the contractor requested a substitution to use another project the additional time to revise the construction documents actually cost more than any savings the contractor would realize. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 428 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 04:11 pm:    I know manufacturers that set up shell corporations or private label brands so they can provide the same product through multiple "manufacturers". Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 28, 2018 - 12:32 pm:    An A/E on one of our projects once tried to limit hardware to Corbin/Russwin, Sargent, or Yale, all of which just happened to be Assa Abloy companies.