| Author |
Message |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 02:42 pm: |    |
Are Federal Standards still applicable? I remember years ago that the Federal Government was phasing out their standards in lieu or ASTM standards. Are there any valid Federal Standards left? |
J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 02:53 pm: | |
I believe you mean Federal Specifications (Fed. Spec. or FS) rather than Federal Standards. Most, if not all, have been replaced by ASTM standards, almost verbatim in some cases. Although I do believe there are a few that are still in active use (vinyl wall covering comes to mind), in most cases a reference to a Fed. Spec. number means that someone has not updated their specifications in more than 14 years (sealants, gypsum board, and acoustical ceiling panels come to mind). |
Gerard Sanchis
Senior Member
Username: gerard_sanchis
Post Number: 17
Registered: 10-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 09:37 pm: | |
There used to be a FS for rubber chicken (no joke) and for just about anything man-made; one that everyone uses or has used in the past was for duct tape.
I'm curious to know what the ASTM numbers are for these two items, assuming there is an ASTM number or numbers. |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 250
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2011 - 09:03 am: | |
Here is a link to a listing of current FS.
http://apps.fas.gsa.gov/pub/fedspecs/ |
Jim Sliff
Senior Member
Username: jim_sliff
Post Number: 51
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 08:02 pm: | |
I actually still have my Federal and Military Specification Abstract binders for paints, primers and special coatings. eBay? ;-)
It's amazing to see how far we've come since the days when Contracting Officers REFUSED to accept top-of-the-line interior wall flat from a major manufacturer because there were no certified test reports showing that it met tt-p-29c (a lowest-common denominator, bucket-cost more-to-make-than-the-paint pail of swill).
Government project paint submittals in the 1970's/80's were...well, "an adventure into a 4th dimension" is about right. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 10:28 pm: | |
...and now we have MPI-approved paint instead...just as lame as FS compliance! |
Jim Sliff
Senior Member
Username: jim_sliff
Post Number: 52
Registered: 08-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - 11:25 pm: | |
"...and now we have MPI-approved paint instead...just as lame as FS compliance!"
I respectfully disagree. The Fed Specs and Mil Specs consisted of a limited assortment of "conventional" products to make both internal maintenance and outside contracting a single-choice proposition for each product type.
Unfortunately they opted for a single lower-performance formulation (in many cases actual formulae were specified; in others partial formula info and basic performance. were used). The kicker is that compliance was not on a a "meet or exceed" basis - it was "meet". As in identical, exactly the same, cloned etc. So a maker of a *better* product was, in most cases, unable to sell it even if the contractor wanted it and a 50 year warranty was offered. I danced that dance with dozens of contracting officers, and it became a joke when air quality regulations eliminated products manufactured to comply with the Fed or Mil Spec. The government wants a product that meets the spec AND is VOC compliant". Sorry - you can have one...or the other...but not both". You don't understand - that's NOT what the government wants". (insert endless eyerolls here).
With MPI's Approved Products there is a wide range of general "formulation approaches" a manufacturer can take, which results in subcategories NOT mandated by MPI, but able to be created by the specifier or consultant. Meaning - you CAN get what you want and it'll be legal.
Fed and Mil Specs are a slide rule with missing numbers while the MPI list is a high-tech tool with multiple applications.
I don't work for MPI or a paint/coating manufacturer. I'm just an independent coatings/waterproofing consultant who is happy that MPI has created a tool that can be used to develop specs that are restrictive...or flexible...or just about anything in between.
I think you don't really have a grasp on either - or were posting in jest. |
4specs.com Home Page