loyatly program

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

Author Message Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 358 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 03:54 pm:    I just took a short Building Design & Construction survey about commercial flooring. I was surprised to see one of the questions, asking if I am involved in a "manufacturer loyalty program" that apparently gives a kickback for specifying a specific brand of flooring, presumably exclusively. I've joked about this sort of thing, but I always assumed it was a joke. Is this real? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 359 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 03:57 pm:    OK, that would be "loyalty program". Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 202 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 03:59 pm:    I would assume that this is something that would be discussed with your client not to create a potential conflict of interest. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 360 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:06 pm:    That would be quite the discussion. "Let me assure you that I will choose the most suitable products for your project. And if it happens that they all come from Dante's Flooring, who just happen to give me a percentage of the cost of the flooring, I'm sure you'll realize that's just a coincidence." Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 54 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:06 pm:    Actually Sheldon, you just got on a manufacturer's emailing list by filling out said survey. You are also going to get more and more surveys from them. I just deleted mine when it came up. I suckered for one and now I get an email from a manufacturer at least once a week. The survey said something about improving the BD&C magazine, but as I went through the questionnaire, I realized that it was targeting a product. First I thought that I misread the email, but then I also felt a little deceived by the survey. No harm, but just getting all the ad emails is getting to be a pain. Lesson learned... Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 247 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:09 pm:    This is Absolutely not a Joke Sheldon. There are organizations out there who have made arrangements with certain Manufacturers And certain Owner/Client types and certain General Contractors that “Encourage” the use of their partner manufacturers on projects. I’m speaking from experience dealing with one of those outfits on a project right now and they’re trying to get me to specify manufacturers from their preferred list. This organization’s preferred manufacturers list is pretty heavy in MEP work but does extend to waterproofing and finishes as well. The marketing is pretty slick too. Apparently the project’s Owner gets a check at the end of the project the represents a certain percentage of the overall combined contracts awarded to the member manufacturers. I could go into more detail but I’m afraid I might miss-quote because it’s a little confusing. Ultimately I’ve got an outside organization telling my client to tell me to specify products of a specific manufacturer so that they can get a check at the end of the project. Oh yeah, and how am I to respond to that request when it might be for a manufacturer who’s products I wouldn’t have on my doghouse? Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 899 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:28 pm:    oh... in my last job, we had a client like that who had arrangements like that. For items that didn't seem to affect the function of the building -- let's say, the toilet accessories -- we specified them as the owner requested. for the waterproofing and roofing products, however, we refused to specify those products (same comment as Doug regarding doghouses) and reminded the client that we could not assure quality control using those products. (I've also worked in comparable situations where we asked the owner to write a hold-harmless regarding some product and if they didn't, then we didn't). it does require that your partner-in-charge have the gumption to stand up to a client, and remind them that your firm is the one with the license -- but it also may require that you do enough research to convince the owner otherwise on this one job. (this may not be likely, however). In short, I think it requires you to be strategic about which products you're going to refuse, and which ones you can go ahead and specify without too much damage to either the building or to your reputation. a counterpart to this is when a public agency such as a school district has requirements for products, typically roofing and M&E, because of their maintenance issues. However, in these cases, the products usually work. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 203 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:30 pm:    The proper way for this to be handled is for the owner to cut the deal with the manufacturer. This may not be possible on public projects. One project I worked on where the developer/contractor did a lot of projects we were told to use manufacturer X's products. The developer was fairly sophisticated and was not trying to cheapen the project. The manufacturer was a well known name and we had no problems using their product. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 358 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:44 pm:    I wrote a "President's Message" column for the newsletter of the CSI Honolulu Chapter 25 years ago. I received more feedback about that column than any other column I wrote in 2 years. I have heard of a manufacturer offering an architect a very nice chairs and one architect who after selecting the seating for an NBA arena was offered money. Mostly we stick to lunches and pens and note pads with the occassional tote, but there are trips to manufacturing facilities with corporate dining rooms and jets not to mention the occasional golf outing, ball game, or fishing trip. Have not heard of the "loyalty" program discussed here, but am not too surprised. The critical issue is influence on professional judgment with a secondary (but not necessarily less important) concern being the appearance of influence. Can we can be bought? Can we be bought for a plate of barbeque? or does it take a bottle of single malt scotch, or carpet for the deer lease cabin or courtside NBA tickets? Or does it take a 6-figure check (or a bag of unmarked bills? More importantly, when does an effort to cultivate a close business relationship cross the line to an attempt to exert inappropriate influence on a professional design decision? Marketing strategies include identifying decision makers and providing them with information to influence the decision. Some people (in some cases marketers in other cases marketees) firmly believe that appropriate information can be in the form of cash. And when the Owner (or an owner's rep) is the inappropriate marketee, your should write a letter to the Owner stating why, in your firm's professional opintion, this product should not be specified. If they ram it down you throat, write a disclaimer letter and make sure that it is handy when the maintenance people call you less than a year after the building is occupied complaining about the stuff you specified. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 55 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:48 pm:    In the end, the architect should probably inform his insurance carrier if he does not agree with the product. Ultimately, if any issues arise they will be the one who bears the cost of the problem. The problem with this is that the architect could possibly be construed as approving the item by writing them into the spec. While I feel that it is underhanded way to get a product on a project, I also realize that owner is looking for the best financial deal. Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 35 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 06:41 pm:    I wonder if something like these "loyalty programs" is behind some school districts having "district standards, no substitution allowed" for commodity products like paint, vinyl wall covering, ceiling tile, furring clips, etc. I realize standards are valuable for owners because of maintenance knowledge, repair parts, etc. but furring clips?!! It couldn't possibly be that someone in the school district is getting kickbacks, could it? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 345 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 08:29 pm:    Alan is correct - I delete all survey requests I receive 1. I don't have time for them 2. As Alan said, you sart getting a whole bunch of e-mails that just clog your mailbox An Architect/Specifier getting "kickbacks" smells of unethical behavior in my opinion - regardless of whether it is public or private work As for Owners/School Districts, I can see where some "District Standards" may come from that - if the person is really adamant about a product is can raise questions Purchasing Agents are notorious for that kind of behavior As for me - I'd basically tell them to get lost Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 248 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 - 11:12 am:    Let me be absolutely clear about one point in this discussion. The Architect gets absolutely Nothing from the deal I described earlier. The only financial reward (or any other reward) goes to the project’s Owner. There is no question of impropriety as far as any design professional’s actions are concerned. We have been offered nothing (except to opportunity to do more work than necessary). We/I don’t even get a free ballpoint pen! Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 359 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 - 11:12 am:    As anyone with very much experience knows, it doesn't take much for a good product to fall from grace. "Standards" may come into play for a variety of reasons, but "just because" isn't good enough. I would understand if a local government entity or school district wants to support local vendors, maintain a degree of consistency, or facilitate routine maintenance activities, but much too often IMHO there isn't that much care given to such decisions. I heard of one facility whose interior design staff had standardized around a particular paint so they could get consistent colors, but were selecting colors from a fan issued before VOC restrictions went into effect 10 years ago several years after all the paint manufacturers had changed their colors because of paint reformulation. Moreover, it was discovered that their maintenance staff was buying their paint from another company. So much for standards. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 346 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 - 02:54 pm:    The Scottsdale, AZ USD was put on probation in 1999/2000 by the then State Attorney General for an alleged bid rigging scheme between the District's Purchasing Agent and certain interior finish materials suppliers - one almost went to jail. I was once told by a PM in another firm that I worked for to remove a certian lockset mfgr from my spec because the facility's locksmith didn't like them - I told the PM to ask them how much the locksmith was getting from the other lock mfgr's rep. This smelled of a "kickback" as this was one of multiple buildings we were doing for the same client and didn't get that request on the other projects and in fact the alleged lockset was installed on one or more of the other buildings.