Lots of Changes - C.R. Laurence Co.,

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

Author Message Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 412 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 12:47 pm:    Received a few minutes ago: We are pleased to announce C.R. Laurence Co., Inc. is being acquired by Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope, Inc. (OBE) You may know that OBE is part of a large public company, CRH Holdings, Ltd. based in Ireland. CRL will be a standalone division of OBE, which also includes the Architectural Glass and Storefronts (tempering) and Engineered Glazing Systems (storefront/curtainwall) divisions. Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.200.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 601 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 12:59 pm:    Does this mean the Blumcraft is off the rose? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2040 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 01:14 pm:    Perhaps this will improve the ability to find things on the CRL website? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 01:40 pm:    In general, does it make a difference to you, as a specifier, when a vendor is acquired by a holding company? Does service improve or decline? Does product quality change? Does the brand's pace of innovation rise or fall? Do you feel differently about the brand? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 865 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 02:04 pm:    To answer Michael's question; it depends. Does distribution change? Do brands change. In this particular case, there were brands that were owned by brands that were owned by CRL (now by Oldcastle). It actually makes it a bit harder to specify (and more discouraging). Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 323 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 02:23 pm:    As I recall U.S. Aluminum was also part of CRL. http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/10000/nahled/1210-1242156850ss7a.jpg Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1339 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 02:35 pm:    In the specification: "Product: XYZ; an ABC brand of QRS, which is a division of LMNOP, which is a subsidiary of EIEIO." Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 507 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2015 - 04:06 pm:    Provide products manufactured by one of the following: 1. Oceania. 2. Eurasia. 3. Eastasia. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 178 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, September 02, 2015 - 08:26 am:    Makes it kinda tough when you can't sole-source. :-) I also got an email from Bayer AG yesterday letting me know that Bayer Material Science (not that old of a 'brand') is now Covestro - a name that is practically dripping with meaning [sarcasm]. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, September 02, 2015 - 01:00 pm:    One problem on public work is finding competitive brands. I've seen specs where 3 manufacturers were listed, and all of them were owned by the same holding company. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 285 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 02, 2015 - 04:10 pm:    Oldcastle also bought Vistawall 2 or 3 years ago. So they have the Vistawall (which they don't call Vistawall) and the CRL storefronts and curtain walls, formerly U.S. Aluminum. Looks like something or someone is getting squeezed out. U.S.Vistaluminum is on its way. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1640 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2015 - 02:56 pm:    I don't think that it is necessary at all to list the entire chain of ownership when naming a manufacturer. Just name the brand/company that the product is marketed as such as there is not confusion about who is meant. Remember that every single company (except private ones) has such a chain of ownership: they're called stockholders. Many public companies have a few large shareholders who do not own enough shares for the owned company to be considered a subsidiary per financial regulations, but nevertheless have seats on the board and significant influence in how the company is run. A purchase of another percent may make the entity a subsidiary and none of us would even know, unless you're really into reading multi-hundred page SEC filings off EDGAR (the SEC's online system). Furthermore, It's not clear at all that two companies with some sort of common "parentage" would be considered a single supplier for the purpose of public bidding. This is quite different from one company with two brands. I'm quite sure that one of the key determiners of this would be whether the firms in question regularly compete against each other for work - and I believe many do. I don't even thinks it's up to the specifier to make such a determination as long as an attempt to list the required number is done in reasonable good faith. Doing some sort of extensive research, which is really what would be required, is well beyond the purview of the designer. This issue would come up through bid protests by the companies involved - let them fight it out in the courts where it belongs. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1340 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2015 - 03:56 pm:    John, I agree to a point. MasterSpec seems to be leaning to the identification of parent companies, divisions, etc. However, I can speak from experience that not being specific can lead to problems. On one particular project I had specified Brand A, B, and C, but not Brand D, because the owner had a bad experience with Brand D. The problem is that the manufacturer of Brand A is also the manufacturer of Brand D, which they acquired and is of lower quality and, of course, cost than Brand A. However, the name for Brand A is also the name used by the manufacturer for both brands; thus, the manufacturer assumed that ALL products under that name are acceptable. Needless to say, Brand D was submitted. The owner complained, the architect (with my support) rejected it, and the contractor defended its use. It was a bloody war: many lives were lost and families destroyed...well, maybe not that bad. But it was an uncomfortable position to be in. The owner relented, but the contractor had to provide additional oversight during installs and frequent testing after the installs. Now I try to make sure it is a brand that I'm specifying and not a parent or holding company. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1644 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, September 07, 2015 - 03:00 pm:    Ron, Yes, I can see the dilemma in that situation. But as I noted, a listing needs to be unambiguous as to what is desired. In the case you describe that perhaps wasn't possible or practical. We all hope to have the kinds of requirements that would have excluded Brand D when making a listing, whether in the product listing or in the performance standards cited. And shame on the company in question for allowing its superior product to be cannibalized by a lesser one. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 866 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 07:56 am:    I did a specification for a urethane concrete floor system that explicitly excluded epoxy systems. Guess what? Yup. We got epoxy! Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1341 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 11:12 am:    Peter, but it complied with the title of the section, "Resinous Flooring." So, what's your problem? [Sarc off] Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com