American Architectural Manufacturers Association Archives | The Miller Clapperton Partnership BlogThe Miller Clapperton Partnership Blog

This is not a story that I wanted to write. In fact, I had intended to write about “Drawdown Lines in Custom Color Matched Samples”. That subject will be addressed in an upcoming installment, so get ready to discuss it.

What I am writing about is the Changing Market. It is not news that there will be more challenges for anyone in the Construction Market going forward. Many in our industry have adequate backlog for 2009. The wildcard is what we are bidding now that will either make or break us for 2010. None of us expect to be able to book business at the same volume and margin levels that we were able to book in the recent past. That would be an unreasonable expectation.

In other words, I expect to lose some work to valid competitors at reduced margins because the market is smaller. That is classic economics and I am willing to compete on a level playing field.

However, the playing field is becoming less level. I will give you an example. We recently lost a medium size Project (Approximately, 5,500 SF) to a company that we are certain has no tested systems. They will not be fulfilling the requirements of the specification, in all likelihood, and no one seems to care. The GC is looking at price (the lower the better); the Architect probably does not fully understand the Specification that has been published because he probably subbed this out to an outside Spec Writer. The Architect probably had his fee reduced to get the Project in the fist place and has little money left in his budget for doing Contract Administration, so the likelihood that there is no tested system being provided will probably never be challenged.

Meanwhile none of the “full service” MCM Fabricators, that have made this product such a success, will get this Project. Why?

One of the reasons is that the knowledge base of the design community is very low on our Product. Many designers still specify; Alucobond®, Reynobond®, or Alpolic® and feel they have provided an adequate Specification. That type of Specification is for sheets of MCM Material.

For example: If the Specification calls for Reynobond®, this is the extent of the Specification. That type of Specification calls for a flat sheet of material.That is analogous to specifying Georgia Pacific Plywood and expecting to get a great set of cabinets.MCM Sheets are formed by MCM Fabricators into an endless variety of shapes, with tested attachment systems as shown in these photos. Laboratory Testing by MCM Fabricators verifies that Systems meet the required performance requirements.

Transforming the MCM Sheets into high quality MCM Panels that can actually be used on a building is the expertise of MCM Fabricators. They are the ones who cut the panels to size, rout the panels along their folding flanges, design and provide tested attachment systems, then assemble the panels and install them on buildings. A specification that only calls for the name of the MCM Sheet Manufacturer addresses none of the following: Attachment System, Experience, Services Offered (Fabrication, Engineering, Installation), or Financial Strength.

As I outlined in my first Blog, the Metal Construction Association has developed a Certification Program for Premium Certified MCM Fabricators that does address these requirements.

See the attached link: HERE

As an industry we must get the word out that specifying a Manufacturer of MCM Sheet is not adequate.

Another thing is also happening. With the shrinking of the Construction Market, suppliers and subcontractors, who are not MCM Fabricators of any type, are entering our Market and bidding against MCM Fabricators. Roofers are “throwing in” the panels in order to get the Roof. They have no experience in fabricating panels, no tested systems, and no expertise in installing the panels. They have one thing, and one thing only to offer, a low and uninformed price.

These problems will never be completely solved but it is important that we point them out and make an attempt to better inform Architects and Owners about our industry. There is no “free lunch”. A low price from an incompetent bidder hurts not only the Owner but our industry as well.

Let us all covenant together to take every opportunity to “tell the story” of how great MCM Projects are built. Use the tools we have; the Premium MCM Fabricators Requirements, “face to face” visits with Architects and Owners, Association Meetings, etc., whatever works. The bottom line is we have a great story to tell but it does no good if we do not tell it.

So, to paraphrase the Chicago mantra on elections, “vote early and often”. Let us tell “the story of quality” early and often.

If you have ideas to add, please post them to the Blog.

Thanks,

Ted S. Miller

One of the largest buzzwords in our industry currently is “Rainscreen”. If you ask 50 people to define the term, get ready for 100 definitions.

Often, the desire to have a “Rainscreen” panel system revolves around one simple idea; some designers do not want to have an exposed sealant system for their panels. This desire can be fulfilled with a high performance wall system but the variety of definitions of the term “Rainscreen” and the lack of clarity of the desired requirements have led to a “rumbling” in the industry over unsubstantiated claims that are counter productive.

I will not attempt to give a definitive definition here but I will direct you to a publication that gives a very thoughtful and descriptive treatment of the issue. The Metal Construction Association has developed a paper “Understanding the Rainscreen Principle” and it can viewed in PDF format HERE.

The Midwestern University in Scottsdale, AZ utilizes a Drain/Back-Ventilated Rainscreen System.

This paper compares “Conventional Wall Design” to “The Rainscreen Principle”. Additionally, it compares the two fundamental ‘Rainscreen Principle’ designs in detail. These include: Drained / Back-Ventilated (D/BV) and Pressure-Equalized / Compartmented (PER). It outlines, what is similar in both? What is different?

The paper concludes with this:

There should be no confusion between the Rainscreen types, yet confusion seems to be wide-spread in the industry. Too often we are faced with specifications that commingle the elements of both Rainscreen types and even introduce elements of other cladding designs. It must be incumbent upon us as professional representatives to educate the design market and to clear-up these misunderstandings.

That conclusion is an appropriate goal for the industry. I am pleased to report that the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) has formed a Study Group to produce a “Voluntary Test and Classification Method for Drained and Back Ventilated Rain Screen Cladding Systems”.

This Study Group is comprised of a broad class of participants with a wide range of systems and product types. They are working to produce a protocol for testing procedures and a classification system that will aid designers in the proper selection of system, material selection and performance in reference to project location and application.

Stay tuned for more on the results of this Study Group.

Well, that is enough on this subject for now, from me. I look forward to hearing your comments and what you can add to this interesting topic.

Thanks,

Ted S. Miller