| Author |
Message |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 40
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 09:12 am: |    |
Anyone else getting flack from requiring NTMA membership for terrazzo installers? We have a case of a "bid protest" during bidding (I thought a bid protest happens after bid is awarded... either they are choosing harsh words to get attention, or the concept of protesting a bid can begin early in the process- would make sense I guess).
The prospective installer who is complaining is not an NTMA member because their example work they have to submit with memership was below NTMA quality standard, according to the NTMA spokesperson I contacted, who also just happens to be a competitor of the installer in question. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 168
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 10:57 am: | |
I can only give you moral support.
Since you are asking for NTMA membership as a way of assuring quality and their example work didn't measure up, you are not being arbitrary by asking for it. There are NTMA members in the area. Hopefully more than one (who can bid the job)
So let’s review
Your not being arbitrary (your asking for quality assurance)
Others can bid the job who DO meet the qualification.
Double check with the Owner’s attorney (because the protest will land on the owner’s lap) and then tell them to kiss my marble chips.!! |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 41
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 11:08 am: | |
There are several NTMA member installers in the area.
Due to the pressure primarily from the project's CM, we are considering adding a process for prequalifying non-members, marked by (***):
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Installer Qualifications: A qualified installer (applicator) who has been certified by epoxy terrazzo manufacturer to install manufacturer's products.
1. Engage an installer who is a contractor member of NTMA (***or prequalified non-member***).
2. Engage an installer who has at least 5 years of satisfactory experience in installation of epoxy terrazzo.
3. Furnish experience resumes of key personnel including supervisors and technicians to be utilized on project, including project manager, field supervisor, head mechanic for placing and lead grinder.
4. Furnish documentation of at least 3 epoxy terrazzo projects of similar scope and using same material as specified for this project, that installer has installed during the past 5 years, including the following:
a. Project name.
b. Square footage of terrazzo installed.
c. Lineal footage of precast base and cast-in-place base.
d. Address of facility with contact name and phone number.
e. Contact name, address and phone number of general contractor or construction manager.
f. Field experience resumes of key project personnel including supervisors and technicians.
...
(***F. Prequalification of installer: In lieu of NTMA membership, installer may submit qualifications to Architect for consideration. In addition to preceding Installer Qualifications requirements, installer shall make available previous installations for inspection by Architect or Construction Manager. Installer shall submit letter of recommendation attesting to the quality of workmanship on previous installations from previous architect, construction manager or owner’s representative. Decision of the Architect is final.***) |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 01:50 pm: | |
Why would you, as architect, want to take-on the added responsibility of "approving" installers? If CM is "pushing" for that, let him/her take that responsibility to waive the contract document requirement that you, as architect, required! |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 222
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 04:32 pm: | |
A/E's require installer pre-qualification all over the place. AWI for cabinet shops is an example that leaps to mind, mainly because they came up in a similar discussion here just last week.
If a CM or contractor wants to waive your pre-qualification requirement, I would suggest the Owner is due a credit, at a minimum. In theory, those installers who are approved by [insert agency name here] certainly had to pay a monetary fee, and have to spend additional time in QA/QC and training. [Agency name] perhaps has additional guarantees and remedies available to the Owner if installer does not perform. And [agency name] is THE authority on proper workmanship and installation methods.
Sure, an installer who has not been certified or approved or otherwise blessed by [agency name] is certainly potentially capable of doing work up to the quality standards you desire for your project. But because they've chosen not to participate with [agency name], they cannot give you what you specified, and your owner is due consideration in the form of a credit because they are not getting everything that should have been included in the original bid price. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 392
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 05:25 pm: | |
we have found also that even though we may get an installer who says "they do it just like the _____" (whatever agency) we have no way of actually verifying that statement unless we spend more time checking their work. if we have a certification from an installer that they comply with published standards, then if there is a problem, we can call in the agency to mediate the problem -- and that is worth a lot of money to us and to the Owner. with a third-party verification of performance, we don't have to get into a back and forth pointless argument.
in short, I think the Owner is due a credit; and the Owner also needs to provide the design professional with a letter approving the use of the installer. we also need to make sure we're in writing about why we cared in the first place and what the possible hazards are.
the few times we have waived a requirement for an AWI casework fabricator, or NTMA installer, we have easily spent twice the cost savings to the owner in our time spent nattering over what we expect to see on the project and why what we're seeing isn't adequate. I'm sure if we billed for that CA time, the owner would see no cost savings at all. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 43
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 06:11 pm: | |
Since we're still in bidding a credit is not the issue. It's the supposed argument that we are wasting taxpayer's dollars on this public project if we limit competition to those with a membership, as though it is some kind of social club. Of course the installer who is crying foul play was rejected from membership for what we are told are quality issues.
The other side of this coin is the potential of wasting much more taxpayers' dollars on a poor job or even one that has to be redone. Not to mention the A/E's time spent defending our spec. The burden of proof is supposed to be on the person submitting the substitution request, but of course we still aren't safe from legal action if the "bid protest" is determined to be legitimate and we ignored it.
I like the idea of letting someone else take the responsibility of the approval, but since the CM is quick to help shove this down our throat I don't think his judgement is safe to go on alone. |
John Hunter
Senior Member
Username: johnhunter
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 08:53 pm: | |
Since the intent is to get a quality installation, and membership in a trade organization doesn't by itself assure quality, it can be argued that the only certification that matters is the manufacturer certifying installers for their products. While successfully completing similar work, and the Architect's review of installations may provide indicators of a Contractor's competence, factors such as the responsible project managers or mechanics no longer being with the company, etc. cannot be accounted for.
This seems to be a clear situation where strict mock-up requirements offer the best assurance of a quality installation. A detailed mock up incorporating the most difficult aspects of the project that will be required to stand alone and not be allowed to be incorporated into the Work should provide an accurate measure of the Contractor's ability (and willingness) to do the work. Requiring its construction well before the installation is required will allow opportunity to review, reject, refine, etc. so when the time to execute the terrazo, you should be able to get a good job. Presumably, the increased competition would result in lower prices to offset the cost of the mock-up. |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 94
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 11:00 am: | |
A CM is never as interested in quality as he is in getting the lowest possible price. His judgement would be skewed by his own interests. I wouldn't include the CM in the decision-making process.
The problem with waiting for a mockup to demonstrate quality is that the sub would already be under contract when the mockup is completed. It could be almost impossible to remove him from the project at that point. The owner would still have the expectation of quality work and you are the one caught in the middle.
If the trade association is willing to say that this sub did not meet their requirements, that should suffice as a cause to not include him as a qualified contractor. NTMA is the authority on what the standard is for terrazzo work.
Having the architect do additional work to determine each potential installer's proficiency is exactly what the certification process is intended to make unnecessary. But if this is the only bidder making waves, you may be prudent to allow him to demonstrate his capabilities with a certain number of completed projects of comparable scope and complexity. What would really be nice is if you could get compensated for your time and travel expenses. If that doesn't work, I would set a limit of some reasonable distance from your office you are willing to travel at your own expense.
Finally, if the owner is unwilling to back you up on your efforts to set the bar for quality, he should be willing to accept substandard work. A well-crafted letter to that effect may go a long way toward covering your behind when the work turns out less than satisfactory. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 164
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 02:39 pm: | |
Consider, too, the implications of this non-NTMA member winning the subcontract. Will the CM then be as strong an advocate, and fully support the Owner when the NTMA members file a bid protest? |
|
4specs.com Home Page