The intent of this paper is to share my thoughts on both the necessity of using coating inspection on all coating & lining projects, as well as providing insight into who should and who should not be engaged in performing those duties.
Every day a new specification comes out naming coating manufacturers reps as performers of Coating Inspection duties on projects. These often include multiple scheduled job site visit commitments and having the manufacturers rep sign off on inspection hold points. I know that in some instances this is due to old outdated engineer and owners specifications where this stipulation has been in the documents for years and no one ever bothered to remove it, even though they may agree with me on this point. Still many people do not fully understand the issues created when Coating manufacturers reps are tasked with being a coating inspector on a project.
So, what’s the issue? The owner is indirectly paying for the coatings or linings that are being installed on the project by way of a contract or agreement with a contractor to supply and install the materials. The coating manufacturer sells the products, typically to the contractor.
Installation of Coatings and linings is an expensive process, and all parties should have a vested interest to ensuring that they are installed correctly. My goal for this paper is to define what the role of the coating manufacturer should be, and to outline some of the challenges when the manufacturers representatives are asked to perform duties that should be considered outside of their role. Do not misunderstand what I am saying, manufacturers reps need to be involved in the project. They need to be available for technical queries, site meetings, and overall project support. That should never include being the coating inspector on the project or having any final sign off responsibility. Why?
In a nutshell, this presents a major conflict of interest issue. It is more complicated than simply conflict of interest, so I will try to lay out the issues that can be part of the over all process.
Firstly, lets discuss the conflict of interest issue. Someone who sells the material and has a direct responsibility/relationship to the person performing the work should never be expected to be 100% objective for quality control of the contractor. This presents a very difficult slippery slope for manufacturers reps to navigate. Authority for go or no-go situations and contractor quality control should never be the manufacturers rep decision or responsibility. It is an extremely unfair and uncomfortable position for the rep to be placed. Manufacturing companies design, manufacture and sell products to contractors; in the event where bad news must be delivered that the contractors work is sub par, or does not meet the project specifications, the manufacturers rep should not be the person responsible for making that final call, even if they are in agreement.
This responsibility rests on the owner or owner’s representative’s (Engineering Firm) authority. This should be monitored and administered through a properly selected and experienced 3rd Party inspection firm hired by the owner. Contractor’s often hold contempt for those delivering bad news. This puts the rep in a bad position considering he relies on selling to the contractor to earn his wages. This puts the rep in a potential scenario where if they say the work is sub standard and the contractor disagrees, that relationship is strained and this can be held against the rep. Remember that the rep gets paid to sell paint to contractors, that is his bread and butter. I think it is unreasonable and unfair to put a manufacturers rep in this position. This is true for both experienced reps and reps newer to the role. The news needs to be delivered, the project needs to be completed properly and to the quality expectations of the specification and the owner, it shouldn’t be at the potential detriment of the sales rep’s livelihood.
Secondly, Risk Management. I know that Risk Management is something that everyone considers on small and large project alike. Everyone is risk averse to a degree. There is no signed contract between the owner and the coating/lining manufacturer. The coating manufacturer sells the material to the contractor in almost every project scenario. The owner/engineer select or allow the contractors to bid their projects and sign a contract with the contractor to provide the product and installation of the products. The manufacturers responsibility is to provide qualitycontrolled products as per the specification documents, delivered on time, in full and at the agreed upon price. Good manufacturer back up their product with warranties and technical knowhow and support. That is essentially the entirety of the manufacture’s responsibilities. The waters get extremely muddied when the expectation is that the duties of the manufacturer stretch beyond this. Quality control of the surface preparation and installation of the products falls solely on the contractor. Quality control is always the contractor’s responsibility, 100% of the time. Coating failures are caused by defective coating or lining materials < 1 – 2% of the time. That means that 98-99% of the time coatings fail for other reasons. This could be a poor design, poor specification, insufficient or improper surface preparation or installation and contractor error. This means that the owner rarely has any recourse to pursue the manufacturer for damages. How is having a non contracted manufacturers rep who is directly tied to the contractor performing quality assurance inspection good risk management? It isn’t in any way. Quality Assurance is in the owner’s best interest to audit the contractor’s quality control. Having the right person preforming quality assurance inspection is good risk management.
Thirdly, can a manufactures rep deliver quality inspection? As mentioned above, proper coating inspection should never be taken lightly. While the majority of manufacturers reps hold some level of NACE or SSPC Coating Inspection certification, this does not prepare them for, or constitute them having this responsibility. Most manufacturers reps, while having the inspector certificate, have never been full time coating inspectors. Good coating inspection (especially on complex projects) requires significant experience. You do not want a manufacturers rep who may have < 2 years experience and a NACE or SSPC Level 1 certificate to be the signing authority on your project. It isn’t proper even if they have achieved Level 2 or 3 status. Additionally, most manufacturers reps do not have all the necessary inspection tools or test equipment to preform the duties properly and effectively. Due to the nature of most projects, and if achieving maximum quality is desired, full time coating inspection is required. Full time meaning that when the contractor is performing critical work such as surface preparation, mixing and application of coatings or linings and final testing and confirmation of film quality and cure, the coating inspector must be available to keep the project moving forward. A manufacturers rep can never supply full time coating inspection. Manufactures simply cannot charge enough money through product sales to cover the cost of having a rep doing full time inspection on a project. Hold point or part time inspection on most projects is non effective. Good Inspection Firms will typically refuse to engage in hold point inspection projects. Hold Point inspection means that the inspector is not on-site full time and is only required on site for what is deemed critical hold points. Typically, these include after surface preparation, after priming, after each coat of the application and for final testing. While this may seem reasonable, it isn’t. How does the firm provide the inspector with full time employment with part time duties? Projects are typically not close enough together to visit multiple sites per day.
Lastly, there are cost implications. I understand that 3rd party inspection costs money, sometimes a considerable sum depending on project size and scope. I would argue that properly selected experienced 3rd party Inspection is the best insurance money can buy on a project. A rep’s job is to sell product and make profit for the company. This requires them to be on the move constantly throughout their day. They cannot be affective at their job if they are on a project site every day inspecting contractor quality. I understand municipal budgets are often tight and receiving what amounts to “free” inspection from a coating manufacturer appears to be a good deal for the owner. It may appear to be, it isn’t, and it certainly is not a good deal for the manufacturer if the rep was to do the job correctly and thoroughly. Be aware of manufacturers who offer this to secure a project. The inspection will not be sufficient or thorough. It cannot be. We need to change the way we think of the role of the coating manufacturer. They can provide many valuable services including specification and product selection assistance, project support and trouble shooting, ensuring high quality products delivered on time and in full. Coating inspection should never be one of those duties. Let’s support the multitude of independent coating inspection firms and individuals who do this very well and effectively. Let’s leave it to the professionals.
