Pay to play

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

Author Message J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 726 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 07:49 am:    For the second time in about a year, I have heard a rumor of an incident that involves a specifier requiring a manufacturer to pay a fee to have their product included in a specification. Has anyone else heard of this? Is it prevalent in certain markets? David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 79 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 08:51 am:    Peter, The few instances of this problem I have seen in the Midwest have been specifiers or so-called consultants who were not working for or being compensated by architectural firms. In one case, a public owner hired a door and hardware distributor to write a door hardware specification for renovating all of its facilities. The lists of manufacturers and products were somewhat odd, and there were frequent reminders in the body of the specs that no substitutions would be considered. But no one though too much about it at first. The pay-to-play factor was revealed after a few projects when the spec writer refused to consider substitutions even when proposed by the design firms who were using the spec as a guide. That spec writer was fired by the door/hardware distributor and was not seen much after that. It is important to note that the person who orchestrated the deals was NOT an AHC. A somewhat related incident occurred when a food service equipment distributor was hired by the same owner to prepare specifications and schedules with the proviso that it would not bid on the project. But, the supplier owned another business that successfully bid on and was awarded contracts for several projects. Following these two events, the owner put clear provisions in its consulting agreements to assure such problems would be less likely to occur. A third occurrence involved a roof consultant who was paid by an owner for design and CA services. He also was awarded commissions by the suppliers of the products he approved. Such acts amount to fraud. Human nature being what it is, we can be sure the problem will present itself now and then. We must be alert to this possibility and expose such bald-faced self-interest whenever we can. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 753 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 08:54 am:    Isn't that extortion? David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 80 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 09:19 am:    Good question. Extortion involves threats and intimidation, and I don't think that is what is at work here. But fraud may not be a sufficient label either. Fraud is "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." The second example (food service equipment)certainly involves a deception. But in the first and third examples, it isn't quite clear. We need an attorney to get involved in this discussion. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 727 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 09:50 am:    I am not sure that such actions rise to the level of extortion, but they certainly indicate a conflict of interest. In my mind, a "professional" is one who acts at the direction of the client, in the best interest of his client, in the interest of public health and safety, and in his/her interest as someone engaged in commercial activity. This is not a prioritized list. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 647 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 11:36 am:    One Word: "Unethical" Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1801 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 11:41 am:    Yeah, and if I had my druthers, "unemployed" Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 60 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 12:13 pm:    Are you sure we're not speaking of MasterSpec where companies have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get listed in just one section? So if you're creating a master that goes to 20,000 Architects it's okay. If it is to one project, it's not? What about having to pay a local or national code agency to have them "review and approve" a company's product? A single test by an "approved" lab can easily cost upwards of $100,000. It just limits competition to those already approved and in the "club". It stifles innovation and protects the powerful. Just sayin'... The line could be grayer than we think. That's why the rumor mill stinks. On an individual project basis, it shows an absolute lack of professionalism. As we all know, the difference is in who are you working for. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 61 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 12:19 pm:    Let me add to Wyatt's specific anecdotes. Dishonesty and a lack of professionalism abound in this world. That is why good professionals, like this group are needed and can make a difference. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1574 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 02:13 pm:    I am an occasional paid consultant to Arcom MasterSpec writing individual spec sections, and I can tell you categorically that companies DO NOT pay MasterSpec to listed in their specifications. I don't know where that comes from, and you should be careful slinging such accusations. When writing a section I make decisions about what manufacturers to list, and it is based upon whether they have products that are appropriate to the section, and whether they have a reasonably large distribution area, say, more than just one city or state. Manufacturers can also request to be listed in future updates, and I have sometimes been given such a list to consider including in an updated section. Further, all the manufacturers that an author selects are listed and linked in SpecAgent without any manufacturer's fee. I believe that manufacturers can pay Arcom for posting of additional information via SpecAgent, but not merely to be listed. (Note that I'm speaking for myself here, not on behalf of Arcom. I just couldn't let this post stand as it was.) Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED BD+C Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 124 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 02:24 pm:    Reminds me of the Phillip Johnson quote “Architects are pretty much high-class whores. We can turn down projects the way they can turn down some clients, but we've both got to say yes to someone if we want to stay in business.” I believe this was after the AT&T building in New York. Russ Hinkle J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 728 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 03:09 pm:    I know that ARCOM does not charge manufacturers to be listed; they do charge to develop Product MasterSpec for specific manufacturer. The fee paid by the manufacturers includes the manufacturers' right to distribute the electronic file to whoever they want even if the recipient is not a subscriber to MasterSpec. I have heard that BSD SpecLink charges for listings, but I don't know that to be a fact and would be somewhat surprised if they did. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 81 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 04:35 pm:    John and Peter, Thank you for explaining how Arcom develops its manufacturer lists. That needed to be made clear. Acting in a professional manner extends to everything we broadcast to the public. I heard a pretty good benchmark for integrity. It's what you do when you think no one is watching. Sounds Mark Twain-ish. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1803 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 04:41 pm:    Of course, someone is always watching. Have you heard of YouTube? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 513 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 05:32 pm:    YouTube? NSA! Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 10:56 pm:    Company's don't pay? I've had specific conversations with multiple manufacturers who have said otherwise... Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 258 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2014 - 03:10 am:    They certainly do not pay to be listed in MasterSpec. There are add-on features, mentioned above, that they can pay for. That's where confusion sometimes arises. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 146 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2014 - 12:25 pm:    When I've told manufacturers that MasterSpec is often where I start when looking for manufacturers, they tell me it costs too much money. I say that MasterSpec has told me that it costs nothing to be listed, but the add-ons are what cost something. The manufacturers return by saying that they believe won't be found easily unless they do the add-on. Yesterday I explained to a manufacturer that the manufacturers are listed in alphabetical order. So I think there might be something about the way MasterSpec is marketing to manufacturers that leads people to believe that unless they pay for the add-on stuff, it won't be worth the bother of getting listed. I feel bad about this because I tell manufacturers and product representatives that this is often how I start my research. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2014 - 12:50 pm:    That clears up the mud a little bit. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1575 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2014 - 06:17 pm:    Richard and Liz, The only explanation I can come up with is that manufacturers don't understand what being listed in MasterSpec means if they think it costs them money. And Liz, there is no "bother of getting listed" because they don't have to do anything at all. I believe that some manufacturers have probably tried to convince Arcom that they have a product that should be included in a particular section. Occasionally the answer is that it is not appropriate for the section or article. All of us can easily imagine how such a conversation might go - my thing is just as good as their thing (even though, in fact, it's a totally different thing). I hope you both set them straight from now on.