| Author |
Message |
Julie Root
Senior Member
Username: julie_root
Post Number: 69
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 08:01 pm: |    |
I need to set my sights on learning the MPI standards. I work for a small/medium size firm and do not know if we can belly up for buying the standard from the MPI web site.
Do we really need a copy of the full standard? We have a full MasterSpec subscription and it seems like there is a real good information in the 099100 Painting Evaluation.
Any advice on getting started? Resources? Trials and tribulations?
Thanks! |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 100
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 12:07 pm: | |
The standard, or I should say standards if you do any repainting, have detailed descriptions of the systems you are specifying.
If you are willing to trust Masterspec, you can get by without looking at the manuals and produce a valid spec.
A much bigger problem in using the MPI standards is the limited number of products approved for any given coating number and the difficulty of finding even one manufacturer that can meet the spec for all of the coating systems required for the project. For example, specifying the high-performance achitectural latex instead of the "regular" latex coatings will severely limit your options.
The situation is a little less of a problem if you are on the west coast, since more of the local manufacturers there have submitted products to MPI. In other parts of the country, especially those with evironmental restrictions, the available products list may be reduced to zero. |
Stansen Specifications
Senior Member
Username: stanspecs
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 01:05 pm: | |
I went ahead and bought the manual so I could better understand the systems being used in MasterSpec. It has been hugely helpful to me. I use it to describe systems in better detail and understand them better. The caveat is that not all the products listed under any given type of coating are apples-to-apples. I do not list manufacturers, only describe the system. With submittals of product data this seems to be working so far. |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 757
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 01:35 pm: | |
I use the MPI manual and sometimes specify MPI paints. The problem I see (and have heard from paint reps) is that MPI causes "a race to the bottom". That is manufacturers are trying to just squeak by the quality requirements to be classified. You won't find premium products in MPI.
Also it costs manufacturers to have MPI list their products so manufacturers do not list all their products. |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 02:03 pm: | |
The problem I run into with MPI is that it excludes some high quality products and reliable manufacturers. Our office has had really great results with a particular manufacturer, but their company and products are currently excluded from MPI and, consequently, have been removed from Masterspec. It is a time-consuming problem for me when the architects want that specific manufacturer but Masterspec requires me to specify everything according to MPI standards. They could very well be above the MPI standard of quality. At my request, one reliable manufacturer sent me the following regarding MPI:
“Pros of MPI:
Easy selection of complete coating systems organized by substrate, third party evaluation of major paint companies, quickly becoming the industry standard, allows someone with little paint knowledge to write a decent spec, allows for more competitive bidding, saves a ton of time doing research.
“Cons of MPI:
MPI is a business too -- Independent testing is very expensive for paint manufacturers, therefore the product selection is sometimes biased towards larger companies that can afford to have one or more products tested for each category. Coatings systems called out in the manual (MPI # Primer, MPI # Intermediate Coat, MPI # Finish Coat) don't always have tested products from a single manufacturer that are compatible with each other. Manufacturers tend to send in products that are "commercial grade" as opposed to "premium grade" in order to be competitive. The products listed aren't always the best blend of high-performance and reasonable cost. For this reason MPI can never be a substitute for product reps rather than a reference.” |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 101
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 02:13 pm: | |
I believe you will find that all the products listed under a given MPI number do meet the same performance standards. The test protocol is intended to provide a "real world" measure of durability. However, there are many products that easily exceed the criteria, often provided by the manufacturer to at least get something in there to be competitive. They may have never tested their products with the MPI test protocol and frankly don't know know what will pass.
There is more resistance to adoption of MPI by some of the bigger manufacturers because they may have hundreds of products; in both consumer and professional lines, for each coating type and gloss level, and in several grades of quality for each. They may also have coating types for which there is no appropriate MPI number to fit into.
That said, until MPI provided uniform testing, each manufacturer was free to design and conduct their own tests. At least using MPI is a more objective standard than accepting each manufacturer's word that this is his "best quality" product and therefore equal to his competitor's best.
I am currently writing specs for a very large project where the owner's spec masters, which we must use "as is," are based on "Manufacturer's Best Quality", not MPI. When the submittals come in, we will have to accept whatever we get. |
Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 114
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 02:19 pm: | |
Just because MasterSpec requires you to use MPI doesn't mean you have to do what MasterSpec says.
It is possible to identify quality painting systems using a "3 or equal" rule, I realize it's a bit more trouble and you need to know what you are looking at, but at least you will get (hopefully) the quality you want on your project. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 410
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 02:24 pm: | |
and keep in mind also (part of this was my response to some of our local reps who were complaining that they had higher quality than some of their listed counterparts) that for many projects, you really don't need high performance anything. I would say that 90% of the paint on my projects goes on interior wallboard and the Owner is on a 3 to 5 year repaint schedule no matter how durable the finish is. we're not looking for a wall that will hold up for daily washing for the next 8 years, like we used to need for health care work.
for high performance coatings, I do specify them by name and system number. |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 161
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 03:01 pm: | |
Regardless of opinions to the contrary, my opinion of MPI’s rating system (and Arcom’s adoption of that standard) is less than enthusiastic. I specify, and expect to receive, high quality paint materials. I do that by listing three specific manufacturers and their specific products for each substrate and gloss level appropriate to each project. Were I to blindly require compliance with a certain MPI standard, #53 for example, I could, and most assuredly would, get a manufacturer’s “Third” quality since they have three separate and distinct paints listed under the same MPI System.
Further, there’s no way I could even reject a submittal of that “Third” quality since it does comply with the specified MPI Standard.
As long as MPI Standards continue to list 100% Acrylic Latex paints and Vinyl-Acrylic Latex paints as apparent “Equals”, their standards won’t appear in my specs.
I'm pretty hard-headed,, but feel free to try to convince me that I'm wrong. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 359
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 03:09 pm: | |
Doug:
That is a very real concern which I've tried to address in my masters by adding the following:
"If a manufacturer provides more than one product within a MPI category, provide the highest quality product within that category."
Although I haven't used the new MPI sections (yet), I can't verify whether or not this will actually work...I'd like to think it would.
I'm still stuck in the ol' "specify exactly what you want" mode, because one of my favorite manufacturers has not submitted to MPI...but they're starting to consider it now. So, I might be making the MPI switch here shortly. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 607
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 03:47 pm: | |
In response to Richard Baxter's observation: He notes that MPI "excludes" many manufacturers. Actually (as Richard is no doubt aware) the manufacturers are excluding themselves! Either they refuse to belly-up to the bar and test, or their product cannot meet the minimum MPI standards for the coating type they are trying to get approved. If the manufacturers are sufficiently pressured to use an objective standard such as MPI, they will test. One excellent place to start to apply the pressure is the specifiers. We need to repeat to their reps over and over: get tested or get lost. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 210
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 09:33 am: | |
I make frequent list of MPI's approved product list http://www.paintinfo.com/mpi/approved/index.htm and list only products from manufactures that I want to include. There is no charge for access to this list. This takes a bit of extra time, but MPI's list is frequently updated so I know it is current. I share some of your other frustrations about manufacturer's attitudes toward this system, but it does level the playing field somewhat. |
Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: lawrey
Post Number: 56
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 02:22 pm: | |
Unless you are specifying for a government agency or a large organization with facilities here and/or abroad, I don't know why anyone would want to introduce the complexity inherant with the MPI rating system. Many of the major issues have already been brought to light.
However, one that hasn't been elaborated upon is review of submittals. Paint is among the last submittals received. At this point there are few budgeted hours remaining to perform lengthy evaluations. The project team mostly is making sure they get the specified colors and sheens. Additionally, While MPI is known and understood to varying degrees by specifiers, I don't believe this to be the case with many project architects and interior designers. Furthermore, I would guess that the standard is not in most firms' libraries.
Since most of our work falls in the one region, I specify the three or four manufacturers whose representatives we have built strong relationships nd the specific products which our firm has come to rely upon. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 608
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 09:55 am: | |
I think reviewing a properly prepared MPI submittal takes the least time of all. If it's the MPI coating number you spec'd, and it's on the MPI approved list, (as evidenced by the copy of the list included in the submittal), you're done! No trying to figure out if the alternate brand and model is actually equal to what you listed. Plus, compare this with how many hours go into preparing an office master with "equal-ed" lists of paint brands and models. Mucho, I can tell you. |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 162
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 03:01 pm: | |
OK, I’m going to try this one more time to see if anyone can help me understand this MPI system. Using specific examples from MPI System #53, and using Pittsburgh Paints as an example, there are three separate and distinct Pittsburgh paints listed under #53. I’m going to focus on two of them. They are (with manufacturer’s tech data):
Manor Hall; 100% acrylic latex; coverage 400-450 sq ft per gal; 1.3-1.5 dft; vol solids 36%
Speedhide 6-70; vinyl acrylic latex; coverage 400-500 sq ft per gal; 1.1 – 1.3 dft; vol solids 32%
A quick comparison of the numbers clearly shows that these products are Not Equal. Yet they are both listed as “Meeting MPI #53”.
Now let’s say that I really do want a high quality acrylic latex paint. I can’t just say MPI #53 cause I might get Speedhide 6-70,, right? If I say “100% Acrylic Latex meeting MPI #53”, I won’t really know if that’s what I’m getting unless I, or someone else in my CA group, spend time doing a detailed review of the submittal,, right? But, if I know that I want “Manor Hall”, and say that I want “Manor Hall”, I should get what I want and submittal review is a slam dunk.
I think the time spent doing product research (that’s my job after all) to determine the proper “Equals” for paint is time well spent when I can be assured that the paint on my projects is exactly the kind of paint that I believe is appropriate. Frankly I don’t see how this is any different from roofing, sealants, waterproofing, or curtainwall. I sure wouldn’t rely on some industry standard to determine for me if various products of various manufacturers for those important building elements are Equal!
And Ronald, I don't think that asking for the Manufacturer's highest quality will necessarily get you what you want. Using my example, Speedhide is PPG's Highest Quality "Professional" grade paint while Manor Hall is their high quality "Consumer" grade paint (I think). |
Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: lawrey
Post Number: 57
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:17 pm: | |
Doug's example illustrates my point. I did my initial research several years ago. Other than a yearly review of my "equals" there is little maintenance required on my Section 09 90 00.
About once a year a print my "equals" list and hand it to four manufacturers representatives. Among my requests is for each to verify current production and OTC/VOC compliance. Sometimes they will note a new product. Many times these are "niche" products that don't have equivalents among the other manufacturers. They don't get into my master.
As I mentioned in my earlier post we have strong relationships with these representatives. They are all active CSI members and all come into the office regularly to update their information. I can't remember ever having an issue with our specified products.
In my mind it is more clear and more concise to specify "Manor Hall; 100% acrylic latex" if that is what the owner (or architect) wants, rather than "MPI System #53" (with or without exceptions).
It should literally take minutes to compare a data sheet and a draw-down to the specified requirements. What could be easier? |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 365
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:28 pm: | |
The MPI system has to be viewed like any other standard--it's a minimum performance threshold.
Are all resilient wall base products that comply with ASTM F 1861 equal? No.
Are all ceiling panels that comply with ASTM E 1264 equal? No.
All you can expect is that the products meeting these standards have achieved a certain level of minimal performance. It is still up to the specifier to further define the salient characteristics that narrows the list to those products that meet the specific requirements of the project.
If you're fortunate enough to be able to specify a particular product, then ignore the MPI system and specify that product outright. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 609
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 06:59 pm: | |
I am not going to defend the limitations of MPI that exist, mostly because of manufacturers who won't participate. But...
Maybe one knows that a one PPG coating is better than another PPG coating because the PPG rep advises you of that. However, there is NO objective way to compare two different brands, no matter what the reps tell you. Solids content does not do it. There are ASTM standards for testing durability, hiding and scrubability of paint, but outside of high-performance coatings, you will not find a manufacturer who will share this data.
MPI does this testing for you, using their own test methods which you can get from them.
If you want a higher-performing system than INT 9.2A Latex (which includes coating #53) then you can select 9.2B High Performance Architectural Latex. (Yes, I know there are fewer products there. This is why manufacturers need to be shoved towards MPI.) |
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco
Post Number: 62
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 10:51 am: | |
"Test methods which you can get from them"
John,
I was not aware this information was available; we have their binders, etc. Where can I obtain MPI test methods? Can I also get product test results? |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 610
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 11:37 am: | |
MPI sells copies of their test methods. Unfortunately, they are a bit pricey if you want the entire collection. I'm pretty sure they do not share test results for specific brands, but if they list a product, by definition it has met the test criteria. I should note that not every coating type is actually physically tested. When looking at the approved product listings, you will see a bar near the upper right that says "MPI Intended Use" or "MPI Evaluated Performance." Only the Evaluated Performance products are tested. The Intended Use products are evaluated on the basis of product data and certifications submitted by the paint manufacturer to MPI.
I have been told by MPI that occasionally they have had products from known, reputable manufacturers that have not passed the test for the category the manufacturer was testing in. Thus emphasizing my point that objective testing is sorely needed. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 211
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 12:02 pm: | |
The product listings are regularly updated with specific products being added or deleted with each update. Some of these changes are the result of manufacturers playing around with their formulations.
Although this does give me some confidence, it is also somewhat disheartening to have a familiar product disappear. |
ken hercenberg
Junior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 06:12 pm: | |
Sorry, but I refuse to use MPI unless specifically required by clients. It is not a useful tool, manufacturers are being held hostage and we are not receiving useful information. For example: Who cares about abrasion resistance of a primer; if it's not going to receive a top coat, it probably won't be abraded. Still any manufacturer who wants to be listed must pay a monopoly to test a product. My understanding is that many manufacturers have had their MPI failed products tested at independent testing labs with passing grades. The entire process is suspect. Folks, take the time to learn your project, determine the products that best suit your needs, and support the manufacturers who provide you with good product and good service. Then start leaning on the industry to develop a real, quantifiable set of standards. That's the only thing that works in other parts of our industry. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 630
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:04 pm: | |
I strongly agree with Ken on some points, strongly disagree on others.
As to the MPI system in general, Ken expresses my opinion entirely. Seriously, its about as time consuming to go through understanding their system in its entirety (which you must do to do any good for yourself) as it is to simply sit down with the major paint manufacturers in your region of practice and go through comparisons with them (where you make them compare and accept each others paints in the same generic type).
My head starts to hurt with the former, only my voice may hurt with the latter.
Indeed, we must be responsible and know the products and know the project. But leaning on the manufacturers to make something happen? Doing this with paints since 1976 and knowing I am not doing it alone, and knowing exactly what other and how many other really major architectural firms have done this has not produced anything. Not in this particular industry nitch anyway (paints).
In some industries, especially smaller industries and more importantly those that are closly involved with the architectural process that this can work - leverage is there in the form of it benefits them monetarily to respond to our requests. There are even some nitch areas of the paint industry itself that this can work.
But general painting? Architectural applications of general paints is not where the money is. They could almost totally ignore us and still be extremely successful.
Don't get me wrong, there are manufacturers (and more importantly their product reps) that I really respect. I know that they go out of their way to provide assistance.
But lets get serious about leaning on the paint industry in the area of general field painting standards. That's just not going to happen if it has not happened in the last 30 years.
William |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 632
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 09:32 am: | |
It's easy to take pot shots by making claims that can't be "disproven." The fact is, in many industries there are issues with the repeatibility of test results, and these do need to be addressed. (One major example is STC ratings of door and window products.) But this test done at an "independent lab," even if supporting the paint manufacturer's position, will most likely never be made available to the specifier. This is because of the paint industries Omerta (code of silence) regarding testing of their products.
Yes, good paint reps are extremely helpful--as are good reps in any industry. But they're as much in the dark as we are regarding the performance of architectural finishes.
If manufacturers don't want to play in MPI's sandbox, there are plenty of ASTM standards that they can test to, and share results with specifiers who wish to compare performance. For example (forgive my abbreviation of titles):
D2486 for scrub resistance,
D3450 for washability,
D3928 for sheen or gloss,
D4213 abrasion,
D4400 sag resistance,
D5150 hiding of roller-applied paint,
D6736 burnish resistance, and
D4946 resistance to blocking.
That's just a smattering of the ASTM tests that are available to manufacturers that they can have done by (or observed by) any independent lab that they choose. However, I doubt there's any specifier or architect who has ever seen any of these except perhaps on a rare occasion. I know I have repeatedly asked for these for years--never seen a one.
Yes, MPI in combination with Masterspec is cumbersome to use. However, once one has gone through it a couple of times, it becomes relatively easy.
I simply cannot garner any sympathy for manufacturers who bristle at the supposed monopoly, costs or inconvenience of MPI. They chose to play the game this way, and now that they're being challenged they're starting to cry. Boo hoo! |
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco
Post Number: 78
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 12:57 pm: | |
I have been listing paint products by MPI number and going to the MPI "Product index by Category" and selecting products. I don't think it is completely appropropriate to require bidding contractors to go through and make these selections at least until this standard settles down a bit. (but this last thought could use more discussion).
I also have paint manufacturers review my schedule of products. I recently learned that MPI number 135 has no listings, which did have listings previously. The category had product listings then dwindled down to one listing and now there are no listings.
What gives? |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 253
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 03:42 pm: | |
I made a conscious decision years ago to restrict my paint products to national brands, such as SW, BM, and ICI, that I trust and that have large R&D budgets. In Part 2 for basis of design I specify the products from one brand by their name for each of the subtrates encountered and gloss levels required. Even if I specified proprietary from one brand, I have competition between painting contractors.
I am sure I am not the only one who uses this approach and I may be missing out on some equally good products, but frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.
I should say at this point ALL my clients are private.
MPI does make available certain advantages that are not related to their product listings. For example, I routinely use MPI's descriptions for gloss levels or surface preparation or repainting.
Their guide specs also offer some useful wording examples for describing general requirements for color selection to bidders when the colors have not been selected at time of bidding. These general requirements work very well to describe intent when combined with a room finish and color schedule. Go to www.paintinfo.com.
Wayne |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 773
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 06:32 pm: | |
Wayne,
Don't forget KM.
If you get a substitution request for a certain paint product, how do you evaluate it? |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 633
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:42 am: | |
Kelly Moore, Frazee, Dunn-Edwards, and probably others I don't know, are well known brands in the west, but are not available nationally. If you want national brands, ICI, S-W and Ben Moore are more or less it.
Paint substitutions cannot be properly evaluated because there is no objective basis (other than MPI) to do so. |
|
4specs.com Home Page