Mr. Morrissey has continued a long line of unfounded comments, distorted
observations and misinformed (perhaps willfully) conclusions to which it is
decreasingly constructive to continue to respond. Generally, and more
constructively, I would suggest that there are core issues in this industry
which need more than oversimplified, "pat" answers (if the pun fits, use
it). I would restate these and suggest them as topics for ongoing
discussion.
1. Architects and Conservators
Nobody owns these people. They make judgements based on what they know,
what they perceive and what others tell them. They aren't always right
because they don't know everything, they're imperfect human beings (as most
of us are willing to admit) and may be working with incomplete or
inaccurate information. It is their ongoing obligation, just as it is ours,
to contuously learn more. Some have recognized that specifying a single
product is usually not in their clients' best interests. The Conservator
who specified Jahn for New Haven City Hall specified Edison on another
project afterward. This hardly amounts to definitive proof of anything
except that the process itself is highly variable and the lack of objective
standards for historic repair materials doesn't make their job any easier.
The need for consensus standards has never been clearer, and these must be
developed by the widest possible cross section within our industry to
assure that they are objective, reality based and even-handed.
2. Track Records
Someone told me a long time ago that only two kinds of people have never
had a problem: Liars and people who don't do anything. Where does that put
someone who claims to have never had a problem that wasn't somebody else's
fault?
The long and the short of it: It simply ain't so. There HAVE been
situations where Jahn patches installed by Jahn installers following
recommended guidelines have failed, where competitor's patches did not.
This business of a perfect track record and no unsatisfied specifiers is
patently ridiculous. Nobody is perfect, no product can't be made better, no
technology remains stagnant because knowledge and experience continue to
grow over time. To be unwilling to face your shortcomings and to improve on
them is one thing, to stonewall the subject is something else. That
"something else" may even result in dissatisfied Jahn customers and
specifiers calling us.
3. Testing & Scientific Methods
The original point, way back in December, was that good forensic analysis
of problems is an essential prerequisite to successful project completion.
No single test is definitive, especially when there are a thousand details
that can unfairly influence a test. The reason we have standardized test
methods is to minimize the inherent inaccuracies in any procedure. Those of
us who perform standardized tests on a regular basis know that there are
enough potential sources of inaccuracy even when things are rigidly
controlled. The serious question that was asked, but never answered, was
how to design meaningful and objective field tests, which are by their
nature far more difficult to do accurately than lab tests.
For example, all materials would have to be installed under the conditions
required by that material's manufacturer, which may or may not be the same.
And you can't do one in the sun and one in the shade. You can't do one at 8
AM, when sun, wind and temperature are in one state, and directly compare
that to a patch installed at 11 AM. You can't do one at 60 degrees and do
the other one a week later at 40. If you're doing time studies, you have to
pick patches of the same depth and size, and assign the same amount of
manpower and equipment, and what you do for manpower and equipment has to
have some correspondance in reality with what will be done when the actual
project is done. These are just a few of the obvious complications. To
ignore them is to obtain data for which the margin of error is greater than
any differences being measured.
4. Historic Restoration and Engineering
"Commercial" and historic repairs have some differing needs, but most needs
are the same. To dismiss engineering performance properties with the claim
that with ICRI guidelines and "concrete" repair, failure is expected in the
"parent" material not the repair, while in "historic" repair the repair
mortar should be sacrificial to the substrate demonstrates a poor grasp of
engineering basics. It has nothing to do with "stronger is better". It has
a great deal to do with the things that define compatibility and long-term
durability. Low modulus and high creep, which define a material's ability
to relieve stress and better protect the host substrate are of primary
mechanical importance, no matter what the non-structural application. The
idea is supposed to be that if anything is going to fail in historic
repair, it should be the patch. But the ideal is that neither fails, and
that neither is compromised by the other. The ideal is that the patch
relieves the stresses between itself and the substrate. Latex modification
provides a big plus in this critical area.
Bond strength does not have anything to do with whether host or substrate
are being compromised. It has only to do with how reliably the patch will
achieve the bond strength required to stay in place for a long time. You
can properly specify a minimum bond strength of 100 psi in historic repair
work, because the substrates we are repairing all have tensile strengths
greater than 100 psi. I can recall co-teaching an ICRI course with Peter
Emmonds, who literally "wrote the book", and also chaired the ICRI
guideline committee on repair materials. His #1 point: Adhesion is the most
important property, because without good adhesion, none of the other
properties matter.
This whole discussion underscores one of the weaknesses in Historic
Preservation curricula, as there is little engineering influence on many of
these programs. On the other hand, I was pleased to learn recently that at
least one of the major HP programs has recognized this and is beginning to
draw more effectively on the expertise of their University's Engineering
faculty. This is where this industry needs to go, so we can get past the
mythology that leads to the suspension of good engineering practice in
historic preservation work. Of course, not all engineers are created equal
either. Some design skyscrapers, others sell goop.
5. Proprietary Specifications
We all like them when they favor us, we all hate them when we are left out.
The agendas of the players are obvious, usually. One contractor told me the
only reason they like Jahn specifications is because they know there will
be fewer bidders and they can get higher prices. Another contractor, on a
job where both Edison and Jahn were specified, told me that he was quoted a
40% discount to go with Jahn (he didn't). I had the rare experience of
being a Federal witness (not in Witness Protection!) on a case where one of
our competitors (definitely NOT Cathedral Stone - I don't want to even
imply that) eventually admitted to giving $38,000 in cash to a public
official to keep us out of the specifications and to throw out the bids
when the Architect issued an addendum accepting us as an "equal". Our price
was half theirs for essentially the same item. (The competitor turned
Federal witness and was relocated to Oklahoma under witness protection. 3
public officials were sentenced to 8 years apiece in the slammer.) That is
not to say that all proprietary specs are inherently corrupt, just that
overly narrow ones will unnecessarily tempt some human beings to take undue
advantage.
Where does the cost difference go? In a competitive bid the difference goes
to the owner, whose interest we are all supposed to be serving in addition
to our own. As for quality vs. low bid, this is a quite separate issue.
Whether somebody wants to drop a few thousand dollars to get "certified"
for a project has little to do with whether they are honest, intelligent or
conscientious. A training course doesn't make an artist out of a hack.
Other pre-qualification procedures are more effective.
Mike Edison
Edison Coatings, Inc.
|
