Problem Solving Forum

| More

April 10 - April 16, 2016

When and how should ambiguities between a coating spec, data sheets and responsibilities be clarified?

Selected Answers

This issue can be ironed out in the pre-job conference.

From Tony Rangus of Bechtel on April 22, 2016:
You must have a clear description of what you mandate as minimum requirements to see in a coatings procedure. It is all well and good to put into a contract that a coatings procedure be submitted for review and approval prior to use. But how is a coatings contractor supposed to know what minimum requirements must be addressed in the specification. For specific welded fabrication and NDE requirements, codes and standards organizations like ASME, AWS, ISO, etc., have clear and concise requirements as to what is required, as a minimum, to be addressed in a welding or NDE procedure and any procedure qualification requirements. Where does the coatings industry stand for such detailed requirements such that it can be referenced in a contract? If all I say is submit a procedure, as the one gentlemen stated, this is"change order heaven."

From Jason Hetherington of Corrpro Companies, Inc. on April 20, 2016:
Ideally, specification ambiguities are discussed at the pre-job conference, though, more often than not, discrepancies aren't identified until work has begun. Regardless of time, the uncertainties should be addressed upon recognition. The owner, contractor and QA need to distill the issue at hand and collectively agree on a path to move forward.

From William Pybus of Me-Myself-I on April 18, 2016:
Call me old fashioned,but If I am asked to bid on providing inspection services for a project, I read the specification/contract and ask for clarifications about those contradicting and responsibilities' issues before deciding on a cost proposal. A "work in process" specification is "change order" heaven for a contractor.

From John Triebe of Corrotek Consultants on April 15, 2016:
A common and controlled way to request approval of a deviation to a specification requirement is through a "TQ" (Technical Query) or "SDR" (Specification Deviation Request or similar document. This must be done prior to the activity commencement (whether it be for salts test, recoat times or whatever), submitted for approval and, if approved, recorded for the next specification review edition. This highlights the importance of a pre-start review of documents with the successful applicator, the principal contractor (project manager), client (asset owner) and the inspector. The "TQ" or "SDR" needs to be reviewed with some urgency; however, it is critical that the client has, or seeks, competent, professional advice on the change request. This is where an experienced consultant becomes invaluable. Not all change requests need to be or should be approved, especially if they broaden the acceptance criteria (e.g., spec for surface salts is 20mg/m2, but PDS accepts up to 50mg/m2). The ITP and painting procedure (WMS) should reflect the specification until the "TQ" is approved, then the TQ reference is recorded in the ITP and WMS to legitimize the change. A change request that is raised after the job has commenced should be treated with great caution as either it may be a sign that the specification was not thoroughly read/considered in the bid (adding cost pressure on the applicator) or a bid to reduce cost to the applicator/contractor (e.g., 3 coats to 2 coats), which may put the item at greater risk of premature failure through corrosion or inability to withstand the operational environment. Also, the pressure this places on the approvals process risks the applicator/contractor becoming the consultant to the client. This becomes a conflict of interest.

From Lim Derric of R.C. Enterprises Pte Ltd on April 15, 2016:
In my opinion, a clear and concise painting procedure shall be the bridging document between coating specs, datasheets and applicator roles and responsibilities. Ideally, the painting procedure must be approved and agreed among the concerned parties before proceeding to work. However, it may not be in many instances. One should allow the first draft to be "fine-tuned" while working on it.

Please sign in to submit your answer this question    

Tagged categories: Asia Pacific; EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa); Latin America; North America; Product data sheet; Quality Control; Specification

Current PSF Question | Submit a PSF Question | Full PSF Archive

KTA-Tator, Inc. - Corporate Office

DeFelsko Corporation

Sauereisen, Inc.

Tarps manufacturing, Inc.


SAFE Systems, Inc.


Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL

The Technology Publishing Network

PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us