Archive through July 27, 2009

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

Author Message Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 61 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 05:47 pm:    Early in the design of a current project we (the design team) and our client met with a manufacturer. In addition to explaining how the type of product they make would benefit the project, they also made a pitch for their specific product. So far, so good. During the negotiated bid, the contractor offered a value engineering credit for an alternate they happened to know about. I contacted that manufacture and received verbal and written assurances that their product contained the same “special ingredients” as product A. I discussed that with my client and they decided to go with that product and accept the credit. Today, my client received an e-mail and voice message from manufacturer A stating that product B is not an equivalent product. I forwarded Manufacturer B’s written comparison between them showing they are not the same. My client forwarded that to Manufacturer A. My client then received a longer and more pointed e-mail essentially stating that manufacturer B is lying, and he can prove it. Should I 1) forward the e-mail to manufacturer B, but otherwise stay out of the fight, 2) forward the e-mail to manufacturer B and let them know we will conduct the test (which may or may not be relevant – it’s a chemical reaction, and I’m not a chemist), or 3) just tell manufacturer A to pound sand because the change in products is part of the contract. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 301 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 05:51 pm:    AH...I couldn't track who was A and who was B in your narrative. What is the basis of design, A or B? what is your liablity for accepting an alternate that does not meet the clients requirements as determined by the basis of design? Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 62 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 05:58 pm:    Sorry, I didn't write it clearly enough. Manufacturer A was the basis of design, but Manufacture B is essentially the same thing. The scare story is that product B will cause the steel studs in the exterior walls of the building to rust and or allow pests to infest those walls. If the manufacturer meets the ASTM standards they claim to meet this is not problem. We will look at test reports in the submittal phase. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 06:58 pm:    Last I recall from one of the many excellent legal programs at recent CSI Conventions, the Architect has the right to believe manufacturers' claims, especially when presented in writing. I doubt you want to get in the middle of a 'he said - she said' between manufacturers A & B. So, will using the second product result in warts and bad breath as well? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 32 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 07:06 pm:    As a follow-up, why not post this on the "Product Discussions" part of this Discussion Forum and see what others have to say about both products? Frankly, I'm kind of curious. While we do have to be aware of our responsibility for accepting substitutions since they do carry the same liability as specifying a product, the above comment still stands. Unless you know with some certainty whether or not 'manufacturer B is lying,' the client already signed off. You seem pretty much obligated to go along with the change from the way you've described this. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 778 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 07:21 pm:    I'm in agreement with Ken. You made a decision on the information that was requested and presented to you, and the owner agreed. Let A sue B for false advertising or false claims. If A wins, and the product from B fails to perform as claimed, the Owner may also have a claim against B. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 235 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 10:52 am:    I follow the PRIOR APPROVAL methodology for substitution request created by Maynard Blumer. When substition requests are accepted during bidding, a PRIOR APPROVAL Addendum is issued that deals only with substitutions. One of his requirements states "Approvals are based upon the opinion, knowledge, information, and belief of Architect at time of issuance of this Addendum and reliance upon data submitted. Approvals are therefore interim in nature and subject to reconsideration as additional data, materials, workmanship, and coordination with other work are observed and reviewed. In proposing items allowed by this Addendum, Bidder assumes all risks, costs, and responsibilities for items final acceptance, integration into Work, and performance. "Interim in nature" is the important wording. You may want to consider adding similar wording to your bid documents in the future. If you wish to see the Maynard's article, post your e-mail address. Wayne J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 346 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 10:09 am:    I frequently have to remind architects (especiallly younger ones, but some experienced ones as well) that by sealing a set of construction documents, the Architects accepts professional responsibility for design, including product selection and detailing. Although many manufactures will claim that they will stand behind their products (and most do), the Architect still has a higher level of responsibility. Although a material may be fine in and of itself, it may be detrimental to other materials if it is installed in close juxtaposition (aluminum and cementitious products must be separated; doesn't mean the aluminum is a bad material, just means it needs to be detailed/spec'd carefully). I am of the opinion that the Architect cannot easily shed this responsibility/liability, shifting it over to a manufacturer (or the Contractor or an Installer), nor do I believe that this is a good idea. I do agree that is problematic; I believe that an understanding of high school chemistry and physics will go far in understanding products, but as products get more sophisticated, this is often not enough. Courts have recognized that marketing claims may contain "puffery" which assists in the sale of a product. Some manufacturers "puff" more than others. At the end of the day, the Architect does have the responsibility to research a product/system. In some cases, a discussion with a rep may be sufficient, in other cases, one needs to delve deeper. This does not mean simply talking about a product over 2 margaritas after work. If one can document a satisfactory level of due deligence, I believe that the Architect's professional obligations are met. In my experience, most firms are very conservative about product selection. They have very long corporate memories about product failures, and when the failure involves a new product, they tend to become even more wary of any new product. Those that jump on every new bandwagon that passes through soon learn that this is not a very good idea. I recently had to explain to a product rep that there was a direct relationship between weight (more correctly mass) and the density of his product. His marketing literature claimed his product weight a lot less than other products but was only slightly less dense. His techinical department agreed, but somehow the marketing people weren't convinced. Mmmm... I would be very much concerned if it was true that product x did not "play nice" with product y, especially if it was part of the building envelope system. In this particular case, IMNSHO, the testing that needs to be done needs to focus on compatibility issues, not the product itself. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 885 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 12:07 am:    I'm not sure (because you don't really explain what the products are) how the varying chemical reactions change the products A and B, but I think it gets back to the old argument that we often have: 1) do you really care if the products are "the same" or do you care that they can perform the same function? if they are somewhat different, but can do the same thing, then you as architect can certainly choose one or the other. 2) however, we often get into the chemical compatibility issue, especially with sealants, sealers, coatings, membranes and the like. I've started asking for a letter signed by the manufacturer that AS OF THE DATE OF INSTALLATION that there were no known compatibility problems with adjacent or overlapping materials. I typically work on projects with several years between specifying and installation, and even if I select compatible projects in 2009, there is certainly no assurance that the same products will be the same products, or be compatible when they are installed in 2012. so far, I have not had any issues at all with the compatibility letters from manufacturers; sometimes that requirement means that more waterproofing/sealant products are consolidated into fewer manufacturers, which generally makes for a smoother installation anyway. I agree with Peter that we cannot really give away liability, but we certainly are not privy to manufacturer's formula information, and most definitely not their future intentions. In my last office, we definitely gave away the responsibility for technical detailing and compatibility to carefully selected and overseen subcontractors. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1070 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 12:10 pm:    Another issue: Sometimes the specified product happens to have an attribute that is not important to the project--you selected it because of a bunch of other attributes that were important. Hopefully, (and depending upon what specification methodology was chosen) the "unnecessary" attribute was not specified. The proposed substitution may not have the attribute that was determined to be unimportant to the project, so it is acceptable. Does this mean they are not completely equivalent? Yes. Does this mean that the substitution will not perform? No. Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 63 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 04:02 pm:    Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I'm dealing with cellulose insulation, and the issue is whether or not the fungicides and fire retardants will create galvanic reaction with the metal studs when moisture arrives, which has to do with the amount of impurities in the borate. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 338 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 04:20 pm:    Randy, I did some research many years ago on cellulose insulation, and one of the issues I discovered at that time was that because it is cellulose, a wood by-product, it also had the capacity to attract vermin. You might want to run this by the manufacturer as well. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 181 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 04:33 pm:    It is my understanding that when borates (SBX) are used to treat wood for termites and decay, there is no special concern regards corrosion. On the other hand fire retardants for wood that use boric acid along with other chemicals have real concerns regarding corrision. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 236 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 04:55 pm:    Sodium Borate (SBX), also called Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (DOT). Trade Names: Advance Guard, SillBor, Tim-bor, TimberSaver PT, Smart Guard, Hi-Bor, Cal-Bor, DuraBor, DuraSill, and Composibor. Use stainless steel or double hot-dipped nails or screws (ASTM A 153, minimum coating G185) with boarte treated lumber. Maze Nails provides double hot-dipped galvanized fasteners commercially under the STORMGUARD trade name. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 182 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 05:29 pm:    Sodium Borate (SBX)and Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (DOT)are not the same. They have different chemical composition. They are also preservative treatments and not fire retardants. I cannot find referance to DOT in the AWPA standards but it is addressed in an ICC-ES evaluation report. I would appreciate the source for recommending stainless steel or double hot-dipped galvanized fasteners for use with SBX and DOT treatments. This is contrary to what I have seen. Note that Simpson StrongTie which has been pretty aggressive in addressing corrision issues only recommends their lowest level of galvanizing and does not recommend the use of stainless steel when these treatments are used. Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 64 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 06:23 pm:    Richard, The borate apparently acts as a fungicide and a fire retardant. Hard to decipher what else is added as a fungicide. The scare claim is that the substitute insulation uses borate that is not free from ammonium sulfate. Both product claim they use pure borate. Both borate and ammonium sulfate are salts and both are used as fire retardants. I don't know how either reacts with galvanized steel. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 237 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 06:32 pm:    Mark, My statement "SBX and DOT both stand for Sodium Borate treated wood" was sourced from the Simpson StrongTie website table titled "Preservative Pressure Treated Woods Trade Names" updated 12/17/07. They repeated the statement twice. http://www.strongtie.com/productuse/ptw-tradenames.html I do not think I referred to SBX and DOT as fire-retardants so I am not certain about that rebuttal. As a building envelope specialist with Morrison Hershfield (www.morrisonhershfield.com) in the PNW, I (we) opted for redundancy and always specified Maze STORMGUARD nails/screws or stainless steel for Borate "preservative treated" wood products and stainless steel only for ACQ preservative treated" wood products. The Borate treated materials were always concealed in a rainscreen applicaiton from direct contact with wind driven rain. The borate will leach out of the wood of it gets repeatedly wet and dry. ACQ was treated differently. Self-adhesive membranes were also used to separate the ACQ lumber from the galvanized hardware such as manufactured by Simpson StrongTie. Simpson StrongTie promotes the minimum. MH went further. A little risk management in practice. Wayne Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 183 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 07:10 pm:    Wayne Thanks. While SBX and DOT may be similar I still stand behind my statement that they are different chemically. The practical difference may be that SBX is formally addressed in the code while DOT is considered an alternate system. My comment regarding fire-retardants resulted from an understanding that the products under consideration wanted to be fire-retardant. No objection to being more agressive. I just want to understand the reason. One reason for not being more agressive than necessary is a concern that hot-dipped galvanized or stainless steel nails are not availible for nailing guns. Thus if they were required the installation costs for nailing plywood on walls would be significantly higher. Mark Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 238 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 - 07:15 pm:    Maze nails provides the nails collated for nailing guns but it may require purchasing a new gun(s).