Competitor Catastrophe | Ask Mason Knowles - SPF Consultant | Spray Foam Technical Questions and Answers | SprayFoam Magazine Q&A Forums

Q&A Forums

Author	Comments
JohnPeters Posted: Jul 10, 2009 09:50 AM	Competitor Catastrophe Catastrophe might a strong word to use in this situation...but hear me out. I lost a bid to a competitor a few months ago for a large water front custom home. The home owner was GC'ing the project and requested 4" of CC in the walls and 8" in the roof deck...Can you say overkill? Anyway, after trying to talk him out of going with so much foam in the roof deck, I mustered up a proposal submitted it and subsequently lost to someone else who was $2k below my asking price. I stopped by the job site yesterday to check out the attic and see what the installation of my competitors looks like. Pure shock is the only word to describe what I saw. There were countless foam charring marks everywhere (dark brown with 1/8" sized holes). From the foam being applied to thick. The foam delta depth differed about 3.5"; there were spots where the foam protruded beyond the stud witdth (the attic will be finished in a few years); and worst of all, the foam was not covered by an intumescent paint. To my knowledge there is no foam manufacturer that makes a CC formula that can be left exposed. The lack of an ign. barrier and presence of charring are the worst problems here. I feel inclined to share these findings with the home owner and/or local building inspector. I took some pictures and plan on submitting an anonymous email. All it takes is one foam fire in my area and I am screwed. What should I do?
SPFer Posted: Jul 11, 2009 09:10 AM	Let your conscience be your guide. For your info, BioBased and Lapolla both have the ICC reports stating their closed cell foam does not need to be covered in certain attics and crawlspaces. I lost a closed cell project recently. I bid $16,000 the winning bid came in at $9,000. When I called the homeowner to follow up, she seemed mad at me for being so high. Then she called me later because the guys machine broke down and couldn't finish the project. We came in and he had sprayed open cell instead of closed. And, it looked like crap, off ratio and brittle. Also, the project was spraying the roof, he sprayed from the soffit all the way to the ridge, but stopped 6" short on the ridge so the ridge vent would still let air in. It was too comical to get mad at.
mason Posted: Jul 11, 2009 02:20 PM	The contractor should feel fortunate that a fire didn't occur during application. If there are visible char marks on the foam, it was real close to catching on fire.
mason Posted: Jul 11, 2009 02:23 PM	. I believe that poor quality and non-code compliant applications should be addressed by the appropriate authorities. But I can see where a building owner or code official may consider your involvement to be a case of sour grapes for not getting the job. This where the trade association may come in handy. Call Rick Duncan or Kurt Reisenberg and let them know the situation. An industry letter to the building code department from the trade group may help educate the code officials who can then inform the homeowner.
Michael Fusco Posted: Jul 13, 2009 10:03 AM	How about notifying the competitor's manufacturer? Aren't they supposed to be training their applicators?
mason Posted: Jul 13, 2009 11:00 AM	Urethane man I agree that is a good idea to contact their supplier. They may not be aware of their customer's quality of work. I have seen it before.
JohnPeters Posted: Jul 13, 2009 06:11 PM	Contacting the manufacturer is a great idea. First I need to figure out who sprayed this job and who their manufacturer is. I fear one thing: As the popularity of foam increases so does the sales channels. Distributors aren't providing training and could care less about what their contractors are doing on the job site as long as they see purchase orders. I have a funny feeling these guys are an old fiberglass outfit that was talked into buying foam from their distributor. Hopefully in contacting the building inspector some of these concerns will be addressed. However, I do not think there are any code violations for visually charred foam...There should be though. Maybe mason can get on that. I wish I could post pictures up for you guys to see what I saw. Its sad to think there are companies operating to standards like this. Bad apples can spoil the bunch. Hopefully this bad apple can be educated before he spoils my market. Thanks guys,
David Hanson Posted: Jul 15, 2009 03:23 PM	When I contacted the manufacturer regarding the problems I encountered in the SPF application in our home, I found that the interests of the manufacturer were more closely aligned to installer than to doing the right thing. The manufacturer felt that their sales rep's opinion that there were no problems was correct - even though their laboratory found problems with the multiple foam samples provided, and the expert I retained from ORNL to examine the matter and provide recommendations indicated there were problems. I found that rectifying the problems myself that could be addressed, and living with the others, rather than providing for a 5th attempt at a "fix" from the installer was the best solution to move forward. Good Luck with the manufacturer or anyone else. PS I would spray SPF myself in any home I built; there are good installers I am sure, but I could not find them.
Michael Fusco Posted: Jul 15, 2009 05:05 PM	Know what guys....this is a problem. That manufactirer should be named...let them explain here why they are not concerned about nad applications. Maybe they are right...there is no problem...that to shold be stated openly.

Author

Comments

JohnPeters

Posted: Jul 10, 2009 09:50 AM

Competitor Catastrophe

Catastrophe might a strong word to use in this situation...but hear me out.

I lost a bid to a competitor a few months ago for a large water front custom home. The home owner was GC'ing the project and requested 4" of CC in the walls and 8" in the roof deck...Can you say overkill?

Anyway, after trying to talk him out of going with so much foam in the roof deck, I mustered up a proposal submitted it and subsequently lost to someone else who was $2k below my asking price.

I stopped by the job site yesterday to check out the attic and see what the installation of my competitors looks like. Pure shock is the only word to describe what I saw.

There were countless foam charring marks everywhere (dark brown with 1/8" sized holes). From the foam being applied to thick. The foam delta depth differed about 3.5"; there were spots where the foam protruded beyond the stud witdth (the attic will be finished in a few years); and worst of all, the foam was not covered by an intumescent paint. To my knowledge there is no foam manufacturer that makes a CC formula that can be left exposed.

The lack of an ign. barrier and presence of charring are the worst problems here. I feel inclined to share these findings with the home owner and/or local building inspector. I took some pictures and plan on submitting an anonymous email.

All it takes is one foam fire in my area and I am screwed.

What should I do?

SPFer

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 09:10 AM

Let your conscience be your guide.

For your info, BioBased and Lapolla both have the ICC reports stating their closed cell foam does not need to be covered in certain attics and crawlspaces.

I lost a closed cell project recently. I bid $16,000 the winning bid came in at $9,000. When I called the homeowner to follow up, she seemed mad at me for being so high. Then she called me later because the guys machine broke down and couldn't finish the project. We came in and he had sprayed open cell instead of closed. And, it looked like crap, off ratio and brittle. Also, the project was spraying the roof, he sprayed from the soffit all the way to the ridge, but stopped 6" short on the ridge so the ridge vent would still let air in.

It was too comical to get mad at.

mason

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 02:20 PM

The contractor should feel fortunate that a fire didn't occur during application. If there are visible char marks on the foam, it was real close to catching on fire.

mason

Posted: Jul 11, 2009 02:23 PM

.

I believe that poor quality and non-code compliant applications should be addressed by the appropriate authorities. But I can see where a building owner or code official may consider your involvement to be a case of sour grapes for not getting the job.

This where the trade association may come in handy. Call Rick Duncan or Kurt Reisenberg and let them know the situation. An industry letter to the building code department from the trade group may help educate the code officials who can then inform the homeowner.

Michael Fusco

Posted: Jul 13, 2009 10:03 AM

How about notifying the competitor's manufacturer? Aren't they supposed to be training their applicators?

mason

Posted: Jul 13, 2009 11:00 AM

Urethane man I agree that is a good idea to contact their supplier. They may not be aware of their customer's quality of work. I have seen it before.

JohnPeters

Posted: Jul 13, 2009 06:11 PM

Contacting the manufacturer is a great idea. First I need to figure out who sprayed this job and who their manufacturer is.

I fear one thing: As the popularity of foam increases so does the sales channels. Distributors aren't providing training and could care less about what their contractors are doing on the job site as long as they see purchase orders. I have a funny feeling these guys are an old fiberglass outfit that was talked into buying foam from their distributor.

Hopefully in contacting the building inspector some of these concerns will be addressed. However, I do not think there are any code violations for visually charred foam...There should be though. Maybe mason can get on that.

I wish I could post pictures up for you guys to see what I saw. Its sad to think there are companies operating to standards like this. Bad apples can spoil the bunch. Hopefully this bad apple can be educated before he spoils my market.

Thanks guys,

David Hanson

Posted: Jul 15, 2009 03:23 PM

When I contacted the manufacturer regarding the problems I encountered in the SPF application in our home, I found that the interests of the manufacturer were more closely aligned to installer than to doing the right thing. The manufacturer felt that their sales rep's opinion that there were no problems was correct - even though their laboratory found problems with the multiple foam samples provided, and the expert I retained from ORNL to examine the matter and provide recommendations indicated there were problems.

I found that rectifying the problems myself that could be addressed, and living with the others, rather than providing for a 5th attempt at a "fix" from the installer was the best solution to move forward.

Good Luck with the manufacturer or anyone else.
PS I would spray SPF myself in any home I built; there are good installers I am sure, but I could not find them.

Michael Fusco

Posted: Jul 15, 2009 05:05 PM

Know what guys....this is a problem.
That manufactirer should be named...let them explain here why they are not concerned about nad applications. Maybe they are right...there is no problem...that to shold be stated openly.

You need to login to reply to this topic. Please click here to login.