definition of "approved"

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

Author Message Scott Conwell, FAIA, CDT, LEED AP New member Username: sconwellimiweborg Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2016 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 06:52 pm:    I sit on an ANSI committee currently developing an installation standard for a specific type of tile. In the Installer Qualifications section of the standard, I am proposing a requirement for the tile installer to meet one of three industry-recognized installation certification programs... with a final option being "Or other approved certification program." My co-committee members are challenging me on the word "approved," asking "approved by whom?" My response is "approved by the designer, during the submittal process." Is my suggested use of the word "approved" reasonable and proper in this context? Thank you! (I am brand new to this site, and hope to visit often.) Scott Conwell, FAIA, CDT, LEED AP Director of Industry Development International Masonry Institute Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 196 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 07:15 pm:    You are creating a standard. Let the standard be clear in its intent and meaning. If there are certification programs, name them. A specifier can always modify his or her spec by saying, "Comply with XXX, except that the installer can be certified by the county mental health officer." If you know what I mean. Welcome to the site. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 07:15 pm:    Have you considered "equivalent" instead? This effectively might/would defer any "approval" process...later, to a project's construction documents...in a process which should be better defined in Division 01 (submittals) section. Although your committee cohorts might then question who determines equivalency? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2085 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 08:27 pm:    "Or other certification program as approved by the Design Professional. Submit program for approval." You can also point the contractor to Division 01 for the submittal process. That might be sufficient to deter the contractor from bothering to use another certification program, which would be good. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 800 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 09:41 pm:    Why is it necessary to state that somebody must approve? Does this not violate the principle that the specifications, and by extension standards, should only address two entities the owner and the contractor. The design professional makes recommendations and the owner approves. Does naming the design professional create a contractual relationship between the designer and the contractor thus making it easier for the contractor to sue the designer directly? What is the basis of approval. Is it a quantifiable standard or is it whatever the designer says it is? If it is quantifiable is the designer likely to have the skill set to determine compliance? If the approval is based on whatever the designer says this would tend to suggest that if anything goes wrong the designer is responsible for approving it. Why would the designer want to specify this. If this is a commercial standard, not referenced in the building code, then the designer could and probably should exempt that part of the standard. If the standard were to be referenced in the building code then you would have the building code regulating the designer and imposing a contractual duty on him or her to approve something. Since the legal entity regulating the practice of architecture is likely not the same legal entity that adopted the building regulations I would argue that the building code could not properly regulate the designer. Why do you need to impose this requirement. Specify the technical requirements and let the contract define who is responsible. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 801 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 09:57 pm:    My response did not fully appreciate that you are talking about a certification program but the issues are essentially unchanged. I suggest that in general we should not incorporate what we understand to be normal project practices in standards or codes. Focus on objective technical criteria. On the subject of standards that become part of a regulation use care that you do not inadvertently create a monopoly in favor of a specific certification program. I would assume that your institute had briefed you on the anti-trust minefield for industry people on standards committees. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 197 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 10:01 pm:    I agree with Mark's comments. I recently went through a similar issue with the NFPA committee on lightning protection. A proposal was made to allow the AHJ to accept "as equal" items that did not conform to the standard. I argued that, 1. An AHJ does not need a standard writing body's permission to accept or reject anything. 2. That if the proposed item did not meet the standard, it would not meet the standard no matter who accepted it. And 3. Few AHJs have the training, inclination, or mandate to understand the scientific data underlying lightning protection. A standard is not a standard if it allows non-standards. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 651 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 10:08 pm:    "Approved by the designer, during the submittal process" is not biddable. It is the same as specifying "performed to the satisfaction of the Architect." To paraphrase Mark, specify objective quantifiable and defined criteria. Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 63 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 11:12 pm:    The designers I work with have a hard enough time grasping tile installation methods themself, much less certification programs of tile installations. I'm in agreement with Mark. I also don't understand why I would want to be automatically forced into requiring any certification program if I specify the installer to use a specific install method. Those seam like two separate requirements. Scott Conwell, FAIA, CDT, LEED AP Junior Member Username: sconwellimiweborg Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2016 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 09:42 am:    Thank you, all. The in-progress ANSI standard addresses installation methods for this new type of porcelain tile in great detail (e.g. direction of troweling the mortar and other work techniques for full embedment); the methods are unconventional due to the unique nature of the tile. Over the past couple of years, various suppliers of tile and setting materials, as well as labor and contractor organizations have developed specific training and certifications to ensure qualified installers and to guard against failures of this tile. The standard will encourage designers to specify "qualified installers," and to that end, the standard identifies the certification programs that qualify installers. By referencing the standard in your specs, or better yet, by calling out the certification requirement, we hope to limit bidders on your jobs to only those who are qualified. In addition to listing the recognized certification programs, we wanted to add an "or equal." My initial question was should the "or equal" really be "or approved equal," putting the onus on the architect, and not the contractor, to assess whether the tiling workshop offered at Home Depot is equivalent to a supplier-administered class or industry-administered certification. Scott Conwell, FAIA, CDT, LEED AP Director of Industry Development International Masonry Institute Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 198 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 10:51 am:    Scott: One way to accomplish what you want is to separate training and certification from the installation standard. That way, we can specify installation according to the ANSI standard, and identify acceptable installers based on an independent certification or some other criteria. What is the new tile on which you are working? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 11:13 am:    I agree with those saying you don't need to have the certification of installers in the standard. The standard is the standard. If it gives the information needed to install the tile properly, why does one need to be certified to follow the standard? The standard should be written clearly enough that anyone can get the standard and follow it. In effect, the standard is the qualification. Let the designer, or the contractor, or the tile manufacturer determine who is allowed to install the tile. The architect could require the installer be certified by one of the programs in the spec. The contractor could only solicit/entertain bids from certified installers. The tile manufacturers could only sell their tile to certified installers. The standard doesn't need to require this. You shouldn't need to limit the available pool of potential installers with some extra language in the standard. Rather the standard should expand the pool because it outlines how to achieve a proper installation. Offer explanations of the certification programs in an appendix and recommend them (don't require them) if you want to point out the programs in the standard and educate those looking at the standard of their existence and potential benefits. This then allows the design professional, the contractor, the manufacturer, etc. the option of requiring them as they deem necessary. Anon2 (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 01:15 pm:    Agree wholeheartedly with last Anon post. Not something the standard should attempt to address. And likely will only cause heartburn later when this requirement is at odds with the tile manufacturer's position on this when Architect attempts to enforce the language in the standard and is overruled by the Owner when it is explained by Contractor that it is not a requirement of the manufacturer, and will cost more $$. Anon2 Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 802 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2016 - 02:30 pm:    So the industry, that is better represented on the standard committee, is trying to dump the problem on the designers without any concern for the concerns of the designers. If the contractor decides to have Home Depot do the work the contractor not the designer should be responsible for the problem. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 637 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, August 19, 2016 - 12:39 pm:    On a side note, i have required certification for installers on a couple of projects and every time it has led to and RFI requesting that requirement be waived due to lack of certified installers.