Manufacturer's Certification

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

Author Message Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 165 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:01 pm:    Do any of you use the following Part 1 submittal statement and why: A. Certification: Certify that products meet or exceed specified requirements. Unless I’m missing the point, this seems redundant and unnecessary. It seems like the submittal itself is the certification, right? I mean, a product should not be submitted if it doesn’t meet the requirements. And if a product is submitted that doesn't meet the requirements, what good is a certification then? It still doesn’t meet the requirements. Is this a statement that is supposed to bind the submitter to a more stringent set of legalities or code of ethics? Certifying the product does not make a non-complying product compliant, so what’s the point? Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:04 pm:    Maybe we should require "verification" instead-- as in substaniate your claim that its complies. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 108 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:09 pm:    Brett, This type of language would come into play in a substitution request. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 679 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:30 pm:    Product data and other similar documents are typically marketing material, and usually don't tell the whole story. The purpose of a certificate is to make the manufacturer put in writing that its product complies with all the applicable requirements of the specification for that specific project--not just a generalized statement found in its brochure or product binder. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 115 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:17 pm:    It also works well for materials that cannot be stamped for aesthetic reasons. This may be used to satisfy a building inspector (think ASTM E84) or as part of LEED certification. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 141 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:29 pm:    Often a specified requirement is that the product being specified be compatible with a product specified elsewhere. We want a certified in writing handshake between (for example) a sheet waterproofing and a sealant that they are compatible. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 166 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:52 pm:    I’m thinking out loud here but I am wondering if it has something to do with having the manufacturer provide an express warranty for fitness of use which they typically disclaim in their standard manufacturers warranty. Fitness of use is an implied warranty that the product or material is appropriate for the intended use, but the UCC allows them to disclaim this along with merchantability. I guess “appropriate for intended use” and “conformance with requirements” are not necessarily the same thing. The issue is however covered from the GC’s point of view in A201 paragraph 3.5 warranty statement. I guess from the manufacturer’s point of view there is nothing binding them to conform to the same requirements. Hence the need for the certification. I just don’t see how providing a certificate stating that the product meets the requirements is really any different then the act of providing the product itself. If the product doesn’t meet the specified requirements, then it is in non-conformance, period. How does a certification from the manufacturer change that? I dream on… Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:49 pm:    Depends on how one defines "certificate." AIA Masterspec defines as "...on mfr's letterhead certifying compliance..." To me this is a more "active" and affirmative process of attesting to compliance, etc. than just "glossy" brochure. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 267 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 06:01 pm:    One is implicit, the other explicit. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 79 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 06:22 pm:    A manufacturer might be quick to claim that their product will meet all the requirements only because they want to sell their product. But then, when problems occur, they might try to blame the architect for designing it improperly or blame the installer. It then becomes a tug-of-war as to who gets to pay to fix the problem. If however, the manufacturer had to put their signature on a piece of paper that testified that their product would meet the requirements, they know that they cannot lean on all the usual excuses. The owner has a written and signed promise from the manufacturer that trumps all excuses. Owners generally like to have all the ballast they can get in forcing manufacturers to comply with requirements. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 826 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 08:04 pm:    this is an old old requirement that has come via GSA requirements and other projects where they are publicly bid and you can't have a restricted product list. I think this requirement is not particularly useful if I limit the spec to two or three manufacturers, but if I'm not allowed to do that, the certification of compliance would be useful. I generally take that submittal out if I sole-source the spec. Now, compliance with other things (like the adjacent waterproofing "handshake" mentioned above) I do ask for a certification. Lisa Berryman (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 19, 2008 - 04:02 pm:    I am a sales rep ( no sales pitch included) new to the industry, have limited resources, and curious how to begin getting a product spec'd for a particular application. I have a "performance bulletin" indicating product values showing we meet the requirements for this application. Would this meet your expectation of the manufacturers certification? Where would I begin to submit this to? Is this something best contracted out to someone in your field? Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 333 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 03:41 pm:    The MASTERSPEC requirement for a product certificate or material certificate is defined as a statement on manufacturer's letterhead indicating that the product meets the requirements of the contract documents (Div.01 Section "Submittals Procedures"). Implicit in this requirement is an understanding that an authorized representative of the manufacturer has read the requirements for a particular project and made this determination. The specifier might retain this requirement for products for which making such a determination is not straightforward and the manufacturer's involvement and assurance is advisable - such as paints and coatings whose formulations are frequently modified by manufacturers without notification, or for product groups whose industry reference standards are subject to recent or frequent changes, such as aluminum windows. The manufacturer can only issue this document on a project if they have indeed read the specific project requirements; if they have nothing more than a purchase order from a distributor, they cannot issue it. Some manufacturers decline to issue certificates as a matter of business: they are not engaged in determining where their products are being installed. So when deciding to require a manufacturer certificate, the specifier must determine whether or not a manufacturer can actually issue one. Another approach used by some AEs is to require a contractor certificate, sometimes notarized, stating that the products they are procuring for a specific section meet requirements; this is an informational submittal provided in lieu of product data and other submittals. It can streamline the submittals process, but it also assumes that the contractor is able to and does read and interpret the specifications correctly - an assumption that sometimes holds and sometimes does not. It is more reliable when the proprietary method is used.