Paint Quality Assurance

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 947 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, November 05, 2012 - 11:09 am:    "Single-Source Responsibility: Provide primers and undercoat paint produced by the same manufacturer as the finish coats." This is a standard line taken out of Maasterspec that we have used year after year, on a current job a GC objected to it - any theories why? I asked, but was ignored. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1353 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, November 05, 2012 - 11:22 am:    No-- just object to his undefined objection and tell him to follow the specs! Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 492 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, November 05, 2012 - 11:26 am:    in some areas, I specify a high performance anti-fungal primer, like Kilz, so various topcoats would not be a same mfr. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1062 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, November 05, 2012 - 11:36 am:    I use that MasterSpec language, too, and have had no objection to it (at least not to my knowledge). I would definitely keep the undercoat paint by the same manufacturer, but you could modify it by stating that primers by other manufacturers are acceptable when approved by the manufacturer of the paint coats (undercoat and topcoat). Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 365 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, November 05, 2012 - 01:50 pm:    Keep in mind that some manufacturers, like Sherwin-Williams, own numerous companies. Too bad the Contractor isn't communicating whether that's the case here. Are you using MPI as your basis for design? If so, the Contractor may be in compliance by using components from multiple brand names while still providing a system from a single company (such as Sherwin-Williams or Akzo Nobel). I don't think MPI identifies the 'parent brand' in all instances when a tested coating is listed under a subsidiary so you may not know if/when a system is in compliance, at least theoretically. Another potential issue is when you are getting something that has a shop primer (primer by Company A) and follow-up coats by another, unrelated company (Company B). In this case, the Contractor will certainly need the topcoat manufacturer to sign off on the primer used. Otherwise the Contractor will have to pay to remove the shop primer or use a manufacturer approved tie-coat, or other intermediate coat, to create an acceptable sysetem by the topcoat manufacturer. They may not like it, but it's SOP. If the second scenario is the case, expect a lot of push-back. You really have no choice but to enforce this. If the system fails, there is no one accountable except the GC, a battle you don't want to fight. The Contractor should have complied with the spec. Now, if this is that project where you're writing the spec after-the-fact, I'm not sure how you can really enforce this without saying that the Contractor is due a change order, but you already knew that was coming.