APA Standards vs. NIST PS standards

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

Author Message Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 63 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 12:25 pm:    Colleagues, I have a rep for a manufacturer of construction panels telling me that I *shouldn't* use APA reference standards in my specifications because the APA standards are (his words) "not non-proprietary". He recommends that I reference the NIST PS standards. Last time I checked, APA was the industry association for engineered wood products. The current member directory lists over 150 members. It seems to me that a standard produced by a industry association with a large number of members would not produce a reference standard that favored any one manufacturer, or group of manufacturers. APA references the PS standards (and gives them away on their website) but has their own set of performance standards. It also looks like a lot of manufacturers mark their panels as conforming with both. Does anybody know of a reason to NOT continue citing APA? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 530 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 01:37 pm:    APA is exclusionary of non-members. There are many very good manufacturers who are not APA members and can therefore not stamp their boards as being APA compliant even if they are. NIST PS is a Public Standard (PS). It takes a bit more work weeding through the PS; APA is a great resource and makes specifying easier. If you can specify using content of APA guidelines but not list APA "standards" or require APA stamps, you may be okay. You just need to be careful how you word your requirements. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 64 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 02:12 pm:    Thanks, Ken. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 65 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 02:38 pm:    I've looked at about a dozen Rough Carpentry specifications available online from various public sources (WBDG, BART, hospitals, state governments, Federal laboratories, etc.) and all but one or two had a weird mixture of PS and APA standards. Many cite the PS standards, but then elsewhere in the specification require that the plywood bear an APA grade stamp. One (the BART guide spec, I think) went so far into confusion as to list PS-1 as an APA publication (!). It's hard to believe there is this much confusion (or just plain bad spec-writing out there). Colleagues, what is your experience? Do you see one or both? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 531 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 03:24 pm:    From the APA website: APA and APA EWS trademarks are the manufacturer’s assurance that the product conforms to manufacturing and product performance standards shown on the trademark. The mark appears only on products manufactured by APA members committed to APA's rigorous program of quality inspection and testing. In my book, that's proprietary. I believe you're just running into some bad spec writing. For example the UFGS guide spec for rough carpentry - http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2006%2010%2000.pdf lists PS-20 for lumber but not PS-1 for plywood. It does, however, list APA standards which is probably a legal problem that they should fix since they're not supposed to use proprietary specifying. For private industry work there should be no problem specifying around APA. It's a good organization and does a lot in terms of ensuring good quality and educating people who reach out to them. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1505 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 03:33 pm:    I don't think these are proprietary because there are many manufacturers that use the stamp for any given type of panel. In addition, the manufacturers that don't could probably do so if they paid for the inspections or whatever protocol is required. So there is plenty of competition for APA-specified products and I would be surprised if any public agency really had a problem with this. A parallel may be lumber grading. A mill has to pay for one of the grading agencies to grade their materials (and use the grading agency mark) yet that does not make it a proprietary material. I have always used APA as a basis for specifying panel products and never heard of any issues doing so. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 591 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 04:02 pm:    While researching this topic I found the following from the American Standards Lumber Committee, Incorporated. Nothing to do with structural plywood but everything to do with softwood lumber. American Softwood Lumber Standard PS 20 One of the main functions of the ALSC is to maintain the American Softwood Lumber Standard (Voluntary Product Standard PS 20). The current edition is PS 20-10. The ALSC serves as the standing committee for this document. It is developed in accordance with the Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product Standards of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Developed through a consensus process, PS 20 establishes sizes, green/dry relationships, methods of assigning design values, industry nomenclature, inspection provisions, re-inspection provisions, and grademarking requirements. PS 20 provides the basis for policies and procedures developed by the ALSC and enforced through the Board of Review. The American Lumber Standard system is the result of this process. PS 20 is published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) operating under the U.S. Department of Commerce. PS 20 is available as an Adobe pdf version on the NIST web site. Good luck with this. I found it through BING. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 66 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 04:11 pm:    Thanks, John and Wayne. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 573 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 - 07:12 pm:    To follow on John's observation. WCILB grade classifications could be considered "proprietary" since a strict interpretation of a spec calling for WCILB No. 1 grade Douglas fir would preclude using WWPA No. 1 grade Douglas fir. I recently ran into a local cast stone manufacturer who has been doing this for 30 years in areas all over SE Texas, but he isn't a member of the Cast Stone Institute and his plant is not certified by the Cast Stone Institute. He doesn't want to pay to be a member and does not want outsiders snooping around his plant. Does that mean that being a producer member of the Cast Stone Institute is "proprietary"? Not really, but it does mean that if I am to recommend accepting his products on my job, I have to do a lot more work. Same with non-APA members. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 638 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2013 - 01:29 am:    "Proprietary" is not a bad word. It is one of the four methods for specifying recognized by CSI: Descriptive, Reference Standard, Proprietary and Performance. Under Proprietary, there are two distinctions: Open Proprietary and Closed Proprietary. The difference is the use of the magic words, "or equal", to distinquish "open" and "closed" specifications. For example, an acoustical panel ceiling spec which names three manufacturers (such as Armstrong, USG and Certainteed) but does not include the magic words "or equal" is a Closed Proprietary spec. ONLY products of the three named manufacturers may be used. An "or equal" or Open Proprietary spec may not name other manufacturers but the Contractor is not restricted to only using products of the named manufacturers. Descriptive specifications, which describe in general or specific detail the attributes of a product, may be "restrictive" specifications if they are determined to be "de facto proprietary" or restrictive specifications. That is, only one manufacturer can comply with the specified attributes. That's a very sticky position for a design professional to be in and it should be avoided. Funny (?) but most manufacturer-produced specs are de facto restrictive specs. The issue is not the naming of manufacturers, it is the restriction by the specifications to one or a restricted number of manufacturers. In California Public Contract Code Section 3400, which addresses this matter (poorly), it is recognized that there are reasons in the public (or owner's) interest) to restrict the specification to a single source and one or only a few products. Those are cases where the specified product shall match existing products. An example would be restricting lock cylinders to the keyway and masterkeying of one manufacturer used in the existing building or elsewhere on the campus. Real life is proprietary. That's why my preference is to write using the open proprietary method. Real products from the real world are identified, and may be more readily obtained than obscurely written descriptions. I also include elements from the Refernce Standard and Descriptive methods in Proprietary specs, to state the significant attributes that shall be met should a substitute product be proposed by the Contractor or for review during construction of submittals. If you want to get very confused, try to write a spec for a finish material, such as ceramic tile, that is NOT proprietary. "Creamy yellow background with marble-like veining of burnt umber" or "Match industry standard Navaho White" wouldn't do. Sometimes the specs will end up restrictive. All potential manufacturers may not meet the specs issued for bidding but enough would. This is where the substitution provision, described in detail in a substantial Section 01 62 00 - Product Options, comes into play. If alternative products and methods of construction will be entertained (and how they can be entertaining!), then the substitution provision can be applied. The issue is then, adjustment to the Contract Time and Contract Sum if the alternative product is accepted. All the huffing and puffing and smoke and sparks from an excluded manufacturer might to defused by an adequate substitution provision. But then again, it might take work by such a manufacturer, who would much prefer the specs to be dumbed down to where its products would comply. "Oh, it's just as good as the specified product. There's no difference in time or cost." "If that's true, then provide the specified product. You are offering no benefit to the owner" (ignore the matter of life cycle performance and cost; initial cost is apparently the only thing that counts). Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 569 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2013 - 02:52 am:    Are we talking about wood products used structurally? If so why is your structural engineer not part of the discussion? First start with what does the building code or the reference standards require. You can specify wood products without specifying compliance with APA standards. The code requires compliance with PS1 or PS2 for sheathing products. Different agencies can certify compliance with these standards. The reason whether or not to specify products is not about the quality. Organizations such as AITC and APA that certify product make more money if you use their licenses thus they try to get you to specify them. Then their licenses can charge more money. I know of no reason to believe that products with an APA certification are necessarily better than products with another certification. With sawn lumber you need to specify a grading agency. You cannot be generic. Sometimes you can give the contractor a choice of grading agency if you have checked that the allowable stresses are acceptable. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 68 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 02:11 pm:    Thank you, gentlemen. Normally, I'd tell a pushy rep giving me unsolicited spec-writing advice, "Thanks!" and then quietly purge his products from my project manual :-) I don't have that luxury any more. I'm being super-extra-duper-nitpicky careful here because I am writing (revising, really) a <stage_whisper> master specification </stage_whisper>. Mark's point about structural use of construction panels is well taken, but there's no structural engineer involved because it's not a real project. (Our masters are written around IBC, to the extent that they address code issues at all, but there is no way for us to know what code will be enforced on the hypothetical project.) I'm also trying to make the specification as open and flexible as possible to make it as useful as possible to the hypothetical end user. So, it becomes a question no just of "APA vs PS", but of "one, t'other, or both?" I'm leaning towards "both", but if I do that, I'm required to furnish notes to the user explaining the difference between the two and why he/she might choose one over the other. Thanks again, everyone. Your wisdom, and the effort it took to reply, is much appreciated. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 592 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 02:40 pm:    Scott, If yuo need further assistance, please contact David Alderman at NIST at 301-975-4019 or david.alderman@nist.gov. David can explain the voluntary product standards process that is used to produce PS 1 and PS 2 (http://gsi.nist.gov/global/index.cfm/L1-5/L2-44/A-355). Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 570 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - 05:24 pm:    In these situations you need to select a target code and I will suggest the latest issue of the IBC is the best choice. Essentially all state and local codes are be based on the IBC and even when there are local modifications the structural provisions will not deviate much from the IBC. Good specification sections are well focused. The problem is that when you try to write a section that covers to broad of an area it looses that focus. If you are writing a master specification section dealing with the use of wood for non-structural partitions you can likely write it without input from an engineer. Otherwise you really do need to involve an engineer. This section is all about engineering issues and I have yet to find a generalist specification writer who has read all of the reference standards. I personally do not understand the logic of specifying APA standards for PS1 and PS2. You cannot adequately specify sawn lumber without specifying grading rules. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 69 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 07:58 pm:    Thanks again, all. After looking thoroughly at both standards and at the history of PS 2's development, it looks like I'll be rewriting the construction panel part of the specification to reflect that standard. The major difference between the two is the certification process. There are minor variations in terminology. Many, if not all, of the minimum performance values shown (dimensional tolerances, performance under racking load, etc.) are identical between the two standards. To top is all off, APA publishes their own version of PS 2 (with a preface and an extra appendix about APA's panel marking convention) and APA's panel markings reference both standards. PS 2 is the broader-based standard for the simple fact that APA requires the mill to be a member in order to get the certification.