Death of a Salesman

I have always enjoyed the play, “Death of a Salesman”.  Maybe it’s because I remember meeting the playwright Arthur Miller when he spoke at my high school on the subject of McCarthyism back in 1979.  Or maybe I’m just a sucker for the cathartic effects of watching a drama about a life that remained stagnant while the rest of the world changed.  As I reflect upon the gist of the play, however, it is amazing how pertinent the play’s theme is in today’s business climate.

Over the past 20 years, the role of the salesman has changed dramatically in all industries.  In particular, I have noticed a major transformation in the construction industry where it is obvious that the sales role has been forever altered.  In the past, sales personnel were the key communicators of new products, technologies, and processes.  They were a critical factor in the success of any company.  Unfortunately there has been a steady devolution occurring that is leaving the traditional salesman in the unemployment line.

The sales process has been a key element in the construction industry for decades.  As manufacturers developed new products and technologies, they needed a means to communicate these developments to the marketplace.  Sales departments educated architects on changes in the industry through sales calls, architectural presentations, and product binder updates.  The floors of AIA and CSI shows teamed with architects and general contractors, hungry for information on product innovations.  Magazines catering to the industry were in high demand because they featured projects incorporating new technologies.  It was an exciting time to be on the front lines.

So let us take a good look at what has changed over the past ten years.  The industry has consolidated through attrition and mergers and acquisitions.  Sales departments have succumbed to the hatchet of cost control.  Architectural offices have little interest in sales presentations unless they are connected to continued education credits.  Trade show floors have turned into ghost towns.  Magazines and industry publications are struggling to stay in business.  Many people think these conditions are a temporary result of the anemic economy.  I would submit that the changes affecting the sales process is due to something else entirely.

One trend that has contributed to the death of the salesman as we know it is the commoditization of construction products.  Over the past couple decades most manufacturers have figured out how to copy virtually any product or technology in the construction industry to the point where there is little difference between the top competitors.  Take a close look at windows, doors, flooring, lighting, finishes, hardware, and specialties and you will see only minor differences between the players.  For example, the major window manufacturers use the same glass, wood, hardware, and weather stripping to fabricate their windows, resulting in a collection of me-too products.  The result of commoditization has reduced the decision making process down to one of price and availability.  The salesman is no longer needed to explain product differentiation. 

The growth of the internet as a research tool has also had a profound effect upon the sales cycle.  In the past, architects and general contractors relied upon salespeople to keep them informed about new products and developments in the industry.  In our current cyber world they can now access updated product manuals on thousands of websites from all over the world.  There is no sense in wasting time with a sales call when one can access current product data 24/7.  It also doesn’t make sense to attempt to maintain a product library when this same information is available online in an updated form.  Current versions of specifications can be accessed online in seconds from virtually any major manufacturer.  You can even tap into online videos of product demonstrations via YouTube.

The Internet also provides valuable information from users of products by providing them with a vehicle for sharing their experiences.  Social media sites like LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Facebook are good resources for opinions on the merits of different products.  LinkedIn, in particular, provides an outstanding forum for professionals to share valuable information on experiences in the construction industry.  In addition, you can search the Internet for blogs featuring opinions on thousands of topics related to the industry.  Existing litigation against manufacturers is now public information that is readily available to anyone.  Just type “class action lawsuit in the window industry” in a Google search to see what I mean.  It’s obvious that the Internet has replaced the salesman as the primary resource for product information in the construction industry.

So what is a salesman to do in this new environment where what worked in the past is no longer valid?  Should you just crawl into a hole and brush up your resume to prepare yourself for a future as a Wal-Mart greeter?  I don’t think so.  I believe that it is time to redefine the role of sales departments in the construction industry.  You can no longer make a living carrying the product message of the manufacturer and reciting the features and benefits of a particular widget.  You must now understand how your products relate to the entire industry and become more of a consultant than a peddler.  It is essential to have a background in the industry so you can provide solutions instead of product literature.  A firm grasp of the technical aspects of your product and your competitors’ products is essential.  Nobody will give you the time of day unless you can add value by providing relevant applications that solve current challenges for the construction team.

The construction industry is moving forward.  Are you going to act like Willy Loman and wait for the economic fog to clear, hoping that things will change back to the good old days?  Or are you going to embrace the new world where the salesman does much more than just peddle products?  The choice is yours to either adapt or to become fodder for another heartbreaking drama.

None of Their Business

I am typically a very positive person; one who sees the glass as half full. I think you almost have to be overly optimistic to succeed as a business owner these days. That is why I found it strange that I was so discomforted by waiting in the conference room at the regional OSHA office. As I sat there waiting for the director to attend the meeting, thoughts about how our government targets small business filled my head, and my normally sunny outlook turned gray.

Everyone is familiar with how the construction industry has been challenged over the past five years. It is heartbreaking how many architects, contractors, developers, and manufacturers have been forced to call it quits during the recent recession. It strikes me as strange that during this time of economic hardship the government would be applying more pressure to small business. It seems to me that we are seen as a vital source of governmental revenue at the worst possible time. The cost increases of Affordable Healthcare, pension fund guarantees, OSHA, and other programs seem to be preying on the small business survivors.

Let’s take a look at the Affordable Heathcare program first. This has got to be one of the greatest oxymorons of all time. There is very little about the new healthcare program that is affordable for small business. My company has always offered excellent health, dental, and vision insurance for our employees. Just recently, we were informed that our premiums are going to increase by 30 to 40% next year because of the new national healthcare program. This is especially confounding when it was reported in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that healthcare costs increased by only 1% over the past twelve months. So how does a young and healthy group like Re-View have such a dramatic premium increase during a period of minor cost increases? I can only conclude that small business is helping to fund the program.

So what does a struggling business do? Many companies are going to discontinue insurance coverage, while others will decrease the quality of coverage to be able to afford it. Large companies are reclassifying employees to part time and reducing hours to avoid paying insurance. Walgreens, for example, just discontinued its health coverage and is going to offer a stipend to employees who qualify to purchase their own program on the exchange. It doesn’t sound like any of these survival tactics are good for the typical American citizen.

The decrepit pension system is another issue that affects many in the construction industry. A high percentage of the labor unions have underfunded pension plans. This was caused by a dramatic decrease in construction employment that directly reduced the contribution amount. Our country also has an aging workforce so the number of people covered by most pension funds is rapidly increasing. Add to these factors a challenging investment environment and you can easily see why many pension plans are close to broke. How does this affect you?

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 applies the burden of funding a pension to the employer. So if you are signatory to a union and that union has an underfunded pension plan, you might have to contribute additional money to correct the shortage. We frequently receive reports from our union affiliations across the country informing us of the precarious conditions of the local union pension plans. Very few plans are in a healthy standing. One plan was placed in critical status and we were required to pay thousands of dollars in addition to what was originally part of the standard plan. It can be an unsettling experience to be confronted with a major payment after you have dutifully contributed according to the tenets of the original plan.

And finally let me discuss my good friends at OSHA. As I was waiting in the conference room for 30 minutes for the area director to make our scheduled meeting, I noticed a chalkboard in the room. The board boldly outlined the new annual sales goals for OSHA. The total number of inspections was prominently displayed as well as the individual breakdown by compliance officer and his specific percentage of goal achieved. Encouraging words such as “We only have 22 more inspections to meet our goal!” emblazoned the board. The sales consultant, Jeffrey Gitomer, would have been proud of the sales incentive system displayed in this OSHA office.

I didn’t realize that OSHA was a governmental sales organization. I thought its mission was to promote and enforce safe work practices in American business. But it was obvious from this chalkboard that the new mission is to produce increased revenues from fines generated from inspections. I wouldn’t doubt that OSHA pays a commission to inspectors based upon completed inspections and revenues.

Our company happens to have an industry classification that puts us in a high risk for amputees since we engage in woodworking. As a result, OSHA calls on us every two years for a surprise inspection. Over the past six years, we have had three inspections. When an inspector visits, he has to leave with a list of violations. Several inspectors have told me that it is so easy to find violations that they could find a dozen back in their office alone. We spend a lot of time and money on safety and haven’t had a lost work injury for six years. But that didn’t stop OSHA from finding items like frayed insulation on a grinder, a ground missing from an extension cord, a ladder leaning against a paint booth, and other minor offenses. When all the fines are added up, the wages for the inspector and the cost for the swanky OSHA office space was more than covered. Once again, business is called upon to contribute.

So what is small business supposed to do about the prevailing conditions in Washington? One thing we can do is to support business-minded politicians who will recognize the importance of supporting the vitality of the small enterprise. Another thing we can do is to get the message out about the governmental challenges that hamper the health of businesses in the construction industry. Maybe this will motivate changing the system. And finally, we can maintain our optimism that the current circumstances will eventually improve at sometime in the future.

Now where did I put that half-full glass of water?

Windows of Opportunity

I am upset. The American dream has been compromised. I found out this week that Custom Window Company out of Englewood, Colorado was purchased by Wausau Windows. It’s not that I am opposed to mergers and acquisitions; they happen every day. Some M&A activity can even include fascinating drama and intrigue such as the current situation going on with Dell Computers. So why does the fact that a large publicly traded conglomerate purchasing a small company like Custom Window Company hit me in the pit of my stomach?

I think that when a large corporation snatches up a small entrepreneurial company, it squelches the American spirit. This country was built on the premise that you can make your fortune by becoming really good at something unique to the marketplace. Custom Window served as a great example of such a success. The thing that concerns me is that the dog-eat-dog behavior exemplified by this recent purchase is becoming epidemic in the construction industry. Architectural firms, general contractors, and developers are all going through a consolidation that will affect the entire industry.

One aspect of the US economy that I truly appreciate is the role of the renegade who has the courage to take an industry to a new level. It is the pioneer spirit that our country’s forefathers exemplified when they forged the American character. It is how we earned our independence from the British and how we expanded into new territories. In business, people like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Ross Perot wouldn’t succumb to convention and had to scratch and claw their way to the top of a new mountain. They defined entirely new industries. Custom Window followed this same formula.

The company was founded by Dick Gann back in 1981. Dick was an engineer by training and he became excited about how complacent the large aluminum window manufacturers were in their product development. Efco, Kawneer, Traco, and Wausau were all following the path of simplifying manufacturing to gain efficiencies of scale through commoditization. Dick capitalized on the opportunity to manufacture exactly what the customer wanted instead of feeding the marketplace a standard series of products. Features like a self balancing double hung window were designed specifically for a building at MIT. Custom Window was also the first aluminum window company to fabricate a true divided lite muntin. Unfortunately, Dick passed away years ago in a plane accident as he returned from a window testing facility. The man was always looking for a better way to do things and actually took his last breath in the pursuit of that goal.

Now flash forward to the current day. The industry is in a recession and companies like Custom Window are grappling to stay in business. The industry has tanked and the competition is fierce. Other aluminum window manufacturers like Graham, Quaker, and St. Cloud started to develop features that gave the appearance of customization, moving in on Custom’s marketplace and stealing sales. Add to that a couple of jobs that went south and Custom Window is on the ropes. So Wausau moves in and purchases the company so they can benefit from Custom’s flexibility and creativity. Let us hope for everyone’s sake that Wausau doesn’t squelch the essence of this small company from the suburbs of Denver.

So what does this industry news tidbit mean to you and your company? If you haven’t noticed, the languishing economy has had a consolidation impact on the entire construction industry. The Custom Window scenario has been playing out at architectural offices all over the country. I can’t tell you how many architectural firms I know that have either closed their doors or changed their names. General contractors are going out of business or consolidating with other companies in their markets or with national firms looking to expand. Developers who have experienced a decline in demand and increased financing pressures have also been set up for failure or purchase by others.

Unfortunately, consolidation tends to undermine creativity and breed group think behavior. As small firms are gobbled up by the larger companies, they succumb to the tedium of the rules and regulations of the larger enterprise. Systems and procedures are necessary to maintain control, achieve productivity, and satisfy stockholders. Individuality is squashed and conformity is rewarded. So get ready my friends, we can count on slogging through some boring years ahead.

We can also count on the indefatigable spirit of the entrepreneur to once again rise above this din of mediocrity sometime in the future. The Dick Ganns of the future will once again seize an opportunity that is unrecognized by the industry’s complacent giants. Such is the circle of life in our economy.

I feel much better now that I have gotten this off my chest. I guess I needed to remind myself that it will take more than the purchase of a family owned window company to undermine the entrepreneurial spirit. To all you entrepreneurs out there still trying to hold your own in this economy…hang in there! The industry needs you and your creative spirit even more than it needs economies of scale. Without your creative vision and entrepreneurial initiative the industry would just have to settle for mediocrity. Hats off to Custom Window for blazing a trail for the past 32 years! Rest in peace.

Value Engineering isn't so Valuable

The other day someone listed value engineering as a skill that I possess on the Linkedin network and it made me cringe. I really have no desire to be associated with what that term has come to stand for over the years. What was originally drafted as an expression used to define the process of truly adding value to a construction project has morphed into a phrase that instead describes unseemly behavior in our industry.

I find the term value engineering has become abused over the past twenty years to the point where it now has a pejorative context. The term essentially has evolved to the point where it is now a way to put a positive spin on slimy behavior in the industry. Just as prostitutes are now sometimes called escorts, the construction industry now calls manipulating the design intent value engineering.

This term originally defined the process whereby the construction team works in a collaborative way to tackle design and economic challenges for a project. When one combines the efforts of the architect, general contractor, subcontractor, and manufacturer in a coordinated and concentrated effort, good things can happen. The cost of a project can be reduced sensibly through effective communication within the construction team. My company has always found success in connecting the players to address challenging issues where the result truly adds value to the project. Unfortunately, the term value engineering has been predominantly used to cover up negative behavior in the construction industry to the point where the expression functions more like lipstick on a pig.

Several decades ago, I used to relish the opportunity to be considered a participant in value engineering. To be considered an engineer without the degree was an honor. I must really be good to have only an MBA but to also be considered an engineer. It’s a similar feeling to what a janitor must get when he is called a custodial engineer. So what has happened over the past 25 years to denigrate the connotation of value engineering?

The problem is that over the past ten years a majority of the commercial projects have bid prices that are higher than their budgets. It is not uncommon to have double-digit discrepancies between budgets and bid day. I think the design community isn’t doing its due diligence in properly defining the budgetary costs of projects. Over the past decade, I have seen a dramatic increase in projects that come in grossly over budget. I would say that over-budget projects are currently at an epidemic. The project that comes in under budget has become the exception. This makes me wonder how the industry could have lost its ability to project costs.

It is my opinion that the state of the economy is largely guilty of contributing to erroneous budgets. Over the past five years, all sectors of the construction industry except for apartment construction have been hammered by the lackluster economy. Architects, contractors, suppliers and manufacturers have been struggling to survive. As is often the case, the survival instinct inspires undignified behavior. When the construction team latches onto an owner who is considering a project, they don’t want to scare away the promise of business with a high budget. All parties are enticed to serve up a rosy low-cost scenario that isn’t based upon reality. And I would submit that many do this intentionally because they know they can value engineer on the backend. Lure the owner into committing funds and then redefine the scope of work after the fact. This behavior is tantamount to the bait and switch strategies employed by retailers for decades.

I also frequently see suppliers and manufacturers submit voluntary alternate proposals that blatantly fail to comply with the construction documents in an effort to garner a sale. The alternate proposal does not meet the specification and often completely changes the form, function, and lifecycle of the intended product. But the unauthorized alternate is 25% less expensive. There are companies that make a living in maneuvering their products through the backdoor of the bidding process. If the project is 20% over budget, one might consider window replacement rather than restoration, or redesign the skylights out of the roof.

Given the fact that all of this slimy behavior exists under the guise of value engineering, I must ask that my Linkedin community please refrain from listing this as one of my skills. Deception, fraud, and manipulation are not skills I want to put on my resume.

Affirmative Inaction

I was following news reports recently discussing the life of Medgar Evers who was assassinated 50 years ago this week while he served as the field secretary for the NAACP in Mississippi. The airport in Jackson now carries his name to honor this courageous man who gave his life in the pursuit of equal rights. Former President Clinton was quoted last week as saying, “The next time you hear people complaining around Washington about what a rough business democracy is, we might do well to remember what it was like 50 years ago, and the sacrifices that were made.”

This made me think about how far we have come in integrating the construction industry over the past five decades. It also made me reflect upon the affirmative action programs that are still used on many governmental construction projects. These programs were devised many years ago to level the playing field for groups who suffered from our nation’s discrimination of the past. Although I think that affirmative action has served a good purpose in the past to provide a needed boost for diversity, I submit that it is now time to move on. Affirmative action in the construction industry adds little to no value and costs the industry millions of dollars a year.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims that affirmative action is needed now more than ever because avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. I agree with the ACLU that when you have an unemployment rate of 13.5% for African Americans and 9.1% for Hispanic or Latinos compared to a 6.7% rate for whites, there is still a problem. I do not agree that the solution to racial employment challenges resides in the implementation of a quota-based affirmative action plan. In fact, the negative effects of such plans far outweigh the positive implications.

Affirmative action in the construction industry causes the following problems:

1. Affirmative action programs have a tendency to put unqualified personnel and companies into positions of responsibility before they are ready. It isn’t good for anyone, including the recipient of the job, to be thrust into work that is beyond their skill set. I have worked with minority subcontractors in the past who didn’t have the management skills, administrative support, or financing to meet the demands of the project. They ended up losing money and struggling to survive after getting over extended.

2. Quota-based programs drive the selection of the work to meet certain minority or gender-based criteria rather than selecting the best solution for the project. Under typical conditions, the construction team would award a contract to the lowest cost option that can meet the scope of work, schedule, and financial demands. I have seen more expensive proposals selected just to meet Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Women Business Enterprise (WBE) quotas. I have also been forced to award contracts to inferior bidders in order to meet established affirmative action guidelines. I think we are now in an era where the best qualified companies should be selected to participate regardless of race, gender, or religious affiliation.

3. Affirmative Action construction projects carry a higher premium because construction managers are forced to award targeted percentages to minority or women contractors. These contractors are not always the least expensive alternatives. So the system essentially promotes a tax on the project to force participant selection.

4. It is demeaning to qualified minority and women contractors to be associated with a system that awards business based upon quotas and not upon merit. I sympathize with those outstanding companies that have a proven track record in the construction industry, but are caught up in a system based on percentages instead of skill. How would you feel if the industry viewed you as a quota rather than a performer worthy of a seat at the table?

5. Forcing the construction team to meet affirmative action goal percentages puts an undue pressure on the participants and promotes abuse of the system. I have seen owners of businesses change the ownership to their wives in order to gain WBE status, or change it to a joint venture with a minority contractor in order to get around the rules. This only adds cost to the project. I have also seen minority companies act as agents to make it appear they are involved in the project only to secure a percentage of the business for doing nothing other than offering their MBE certification. This gamesmanship is silly and unproductive.

  

Many people reading this post will be tempted to chalk it up to a bunch of gibberish written by a white male business owner - another example of the “privileged” class complaining about reverse discrimination. How could someone of my gender and ethnicity even attempt to write with 20/20 clarity on such a subject? I don’t claim to be an expert on the topic of discrimination, but I do have experience in the flaws of the construction industry. If like-minded people were brave enough to stand up to ineffective programs like affirmative action, we might be able to implement meaningful change. It seems to me that the industry needs to display a fraction of the courage Medgar Evers had back in early 60’s to move forward. Maybe this positive action will force people to look at more relevant factors that contribute to employment inequality such as the education system or social and economic challenges.

MURPHY WAS AN OPTIMIST

I was talking with a friend the other day and I commented that, “Murphy was an optimist” and she wasn’t familiar with this saying. I couldn’t believe she had never heard this phrase before and then it dawned on me. Anyone associated with the construction industry knows that if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. If you have been in this business for long, you know exactly what I am talking about and ole Murphy visits you quite often. This made me think about why things go haywire on construction projects.

First of all, it is understandable that a construction project can boil down to a comedy of errors when you look at what it takes to get the owner, architect, general contractor, and subcontractors on the same page. There are a lot of cooks in the kitchen and it takes a well coordinated effort by all parties to deliver what is expected, meet the schedule, and land within budget. In this article, I want to concentrate on how the construction team creates its own problems. I am a firm believer that understanding the traits that can lead you to the abyss helps one refine the behaviors that define success. So here is a look at the problems that can afflict the players in a construction project.

Owners

 

It is critical that the owner has sufficient financing in place prior to beginning construction. We are seeing a dramatic increase in the number of projects where the actual bid for the work to be performed is much higher than the preliminary budgets. If the owner doesn’t have the pocketbook to finance the project, it puts a great deal of stress on all involved. We see the following problems result from financial strains: 

• Serious delays while funding is revisited, causing a strain on the project schedule and once you are behind in the schedule, other problems emerge
• Changes in scope known as “value engineering” that can affect multiple trades of work
• Acceptance of unqualified subcontractors and products because of a need for lower prices
• Mediocre plans and specifications since the architect doesn’t have the budget to put the time into the project
• Delays in payments to the team for work performed, causing stress on the team’s cash flow

Another problem we see with owners is when the owner fails to get involved in the details of the project. If the owner doesn’t effectively communicate with the architect and contractor on the overall plan as well as the project details, serious delays will result. It is so important that the owner has a representative that has a complete understanding of the project and has the time necessary to dedicate to the process. If this individual has an aptitude in construction practices it really helps. The absence of this involvement will result in delays, higher costs, inferior work, and potential rework.

  

On the other hand, an over-involved owner can be problematic as well. An owner who wants to make all decisions and doesn’t rely on the team to perform their duties, will clog up the enterprise. We see this happen quite often on governmental projects where the owner allows legislators and judges to make decisions regarding the project. The construction process does not favor democratic decision making throughout the schedule, and you will have serious delays if you invite multiple decision makers with large egos into the program.

  

Architects

 

Lack of project specific experience from the architect is a guarantee for a doomed project. It is essential that the architectural team have the expertise and personnel to manage the complexity of the project. Preservation projects in particular are vastly different from conventional construction and require a distinct background. If the architect doesn’t have this knowledge, the project becomes his classroom where decisions are made on the fly rather than upfront in the construction documents. We see plans and specifications with irrelevant boiler plate information, forcing others to work with the architectural team to educate them on proper means, methods, and materials during the submittal/shop drawing stage. An inexperienced architect will cause delays, increase construction costs, and deliver an inferior product to the owner.

 

On the flip side, another difficulty that can undermine the success of a project is architectural arrogance. I know that it’s hard to believe, but there are some architects out there who think they are omniscient and that the rest of the team is a bunch of bungling idiots. Although the construction industry has its fair share of mentally challenged individuals, there are many professionals out there who can effectively work with the architectural team. It can be very frustrating to have to stroke the ego of a prima donna architect and to be denied participation in the decision making process. The construction team needs to work together to be successful and that includes all parties.

  

Another architectural problem that can infect the health of a project is slow decision making. There are thousands and thousands of decisions that need to be made during a construction project, and the answers to these questions are what keep the wheels moving. The architectural team needs to be staffed properly to be able to quickly address challenges as they are presented. It helps a great deal when the subcontractors can have direct access to the architect so they can have a dialogue rather than working strictly through RFI paperwork. Sometimes we get so caught up in our bureaucratic systems that we clog up the entire process.

  

General Contractors

  

The general contractor or construction manager is the one who has to make it all happen. The contractor must have the combined skills of construction expertise, scheduling ability, and unfailing determination. Unfortunately it is difficult to bring all these skills to a single project. Most contractors have a project superintendent who has vast construction experience, or they have a detail-oriented person who monitors the Gantt charts, or they have an individual who can crack the whip. Very few master all three disciplines. If you don’t have all three skills at play, the project will suffer. Since it is extremely rare to have all three skill sets in one person, the contractor needs to make sure his key project players cover all the bases.

  

Subcontractors

  

The quality of the subcontractors determines the outcome of the project. Unfortunately, the bidding process often awards the lowest price and not the best value for the work to be performed. Many of the lowest priced bids achieved that status because of estimating mistakes or misunderstanding of the project requirements. If the winning subcontractors fall into this category, the architect and general contractor often have to crack the whip to make sure the subcontractor delivers as expected. This process can cause serious delays and substandard work and puts an undue burden on the general contractor. Also, the challenging economic climate of the past five years has made many subcontractors financially fragile to the point that it is not uncommon to see a sub go out of business in the middle of a project. As a result, we have seen an increase in project bonding and the submission of financial information as part of a prequalification process for subcontractors.

  

The architect and the general contractor need to review the demands of the project prior to bid date to determine whether a particular scope of work demands a subcontractor with a specific skill set. There are a lot of companies out there that are desperately searching for business and are willing to throw numbers at a bid package that is a stretch for their competencies. We are just beginning to see more detailed prequalification requirements on projects for critical work. It is vital that the architect and general contractor spend the time to determine which subcontractors have the background and the capacity to manage a specific scope of work.

  

When one looks at all the players who have to connect to make a construction project successful, it is easy to see why our friend Murphy plays such a prominent role in the industry. If owners, architects, general contractors and subcontractors can avoid some of the pitfalls outlined above, Murphy will have to go elsewhere to spout his doom and gloom.

The Truth About Deception

Is it just me or do you think it is extremely difficult to get a straight answer these days? Life seemed to be so much simpler thirty years ago when business deals were done with a handshake and character was something one earned rather than purchased. Today I can reduce my age by ten years with a simple Botox treatment, and become a stallion with a little blue pill. I see the same smoke and mirror routine widely practiced in the replacement window industry. The enormous sum of money associated with replacement windows has created an industry that fuels deception and false truths. This is evidenced by the large number of FTC lawsuits against replacement window companies for false advertising last year.

There are two major advantages promulgated by the replacement window industry that fail to pass the reality test. The first is that energy efficiency garnered by replacement windows will have a positive payback over a short period of time. The other is that replacement windows are low maintenance and will have lower overall repair costs. Let us take a close look at both of these factors to see if they hold water.

Operational Costs

The operational cost of a window is defined as the cost of energy to heat and cool the area around the window. A more energy efficient window will have lower operational costs and this reduction is the crux of most window decisions. Since the major window manufacturers test their windows, they have published statistics on key energy efficiency metrics such as air infiltration, U/R values, and solar heat gain. Existing historic windows do not have such published statistics so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.

Bailey Edward Architecture conducted a detailed study comparing two versions of restored windows to a leading manufacturer of aluminum clad wood windows to evaluate the actual operational cost difference. In this study, a replacement window was installed next to a restored single-pane wood double hung with a storm window and a restored wood double hung that was converted with insulated glass. All three window openings were tested by an independent testing laboratory that specializes in fenestration testing. The following were the results of the study:

Window Type               Air Infiltration          U Value                Solar Heat Gain

Existing with Storm                0.03                     0.441                            0.597

Restored with IG                   0.12                     0.362                            0.320

ReplacementWindow            0.01                     0.322                            0.329

Now these statistics may not mean much to the lay person, but they certainly refute the claims you see on the websites of major window manufacturers who claim 83% better energy efficiency. Bailey Edward applied the tested performance data of the three different windows to the actual energy costs of the building in question using historic heating and cooling costs. The results of this extrapolation showed that the existing window with a storm would have a total annual energy cost of $173,541. The restored window with an insulated glass conversion had total annual energy consumption of $170,395 and the replacement window had a figure of $171,880. This study effectively cuts through the misinformation promoted by the replacement window industry. There is no significant operational cost difference between restoring existing windows with a storm window or insulated glass and replacing the windows.

Maintenance Costs

Bailey Edward did an excellent job of analyzing the maintenance costs of the three different window types. Maintenance items like repairing a spring or cord, exterior painting, interior painting, caulking, and cleaning were all incorporated in the cost evaluation. These costs were totaled for a 50 year expected lifespan and then annualized for direct comparison. When these costs were summarized for the building in question, the existing window with a storm had the highest annual maintenance cost of $66,763 because of the increased cost of having to clean four surfaces of glass. There was virtually no difference in the annual maintenance costs of the restored insulated glass window and the replacement version with those units recording $50,642 and $49,071 respectively.

Another critical factor that isn’t widely known is that most replacement windows are designed so that it’s not possible to replace the insulated glass when it fails. They are designed to be replaced not repaired. The life expectancy of insulated glass is difficult to predict because it depends upon the size of the glass, temperature and atmospheric pressure fluctuations, wind loads, working loads, sunlight, and exposure to water and water vapor. The replacement industry warrants the glass for 20 years. On average you can expect a double seal insulated glass with a good desiccant to last 30 years. An old-growth wood window will last ten times that since it can be maintained. So why would someone want to replace a window with a 300 year lifespan with one that has only 30?

When one evaluates the true operational and maintenance costs of replacement windows compared to window restoration it’s clear that the case for replacement is weak. Restoring historic windows still makes economic sense in the long run. Unfortunately, window restoration just doesn’t have the sex appeal, marketing budget, or LEED backing of the replacement window industry. Instead of automatically giving old windows a shot of Botox by replacing them, why not restore them to their original beauty? That way they can age gracefully for another 50 years and maintain the authenticity of the structure.

YOU WOOD NEVER BELIEVE THIS

Last week I gave my 17-year-old daughter the speech about how when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. A teenager’s life is certainly challenging and doesn’t need to be complicated by Internet scams, Lance Armstrong-type role models, and cyber-boyfriends who don’t really exist. This made me think about a building material that has proven to defy this principle.

I have been in the wood window business for 26 years and have been very dismayed at the poor quality of manufactured windows in the United States. As a result, my company is constantly searching for better finishes, exterior cladding methods, preservative treatments, and more durable wood species. It was in this quest that we ran across a wood called Accoya. The website said the wood is guaranteed to last 50 years unfinished above ground and is more durable than teak. Normally I would have just laughed and then placed another order for mahogany, but the fact that the product has been used in Europe for the past 75 years piqued my interest.

Accoya is radiata pine that is subjected to a proprietary non-toxic process that permanently changes the molecular structure of the wood. Accoya is based on acetylated wood technology which is a process that impregnates wood with acetic anhydride, which is similar to a very strong vinegar. This produces a wood that smells like the salad I had last weekend. The process involves placing the lumber into massive pressure vessels and forcing acetic anhydride under immense pressure into the very core of the wood. This process is then reversed and a vacuum removes 99.7% of the liquid from the wood, leaving the radiata pine permanently altered. The resulting product is a wood that absorbs water, but doesn’t swell up in the process so its dimensionally stable, impregnable to fungi, and not attractive to insects. Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

The engineers at Re-View put the product through our own testing regimen to see if we might consider it for window fabrication. We took sample wood blocks of Accoya and tested the internal moisture content and measured the outside dimensions with a micrometer. We then submersed the wood blocks into a bucket of water for 30 days. When we removed the blocks and tested the moisture and dimensions, nothing had changed. That single test convinced our team that this wood had serious potential.

Our next step was to see how the wood reacted to all of the other products that come into contact with the wood. Of primary importance was how different finishes reacted to the acetylated wood. Sherwin Williams conducted a series of tests and determined that the best combination of exterior finishes was an oil-based primer with an acrylic latex intermediate and final finish. The wood was exposed to 1540 hours of testing in a humidity chamber and freeze/thaw cycles from -5F to 120F. The finishes passed with flying colors. One thing we did discover is that the wide grain pattern of the radiata pine is not very suitable for an interior stain application. Accoya has recently made improvements by introducing an acetylated alder option that stains much better than the radiata.

In addition to the testing of the finishes, our staff tested adhesives. We discovered that polyvinyl Acetate (PVA) based glue like the Titebond II and Titebond III, or the Gorilla Wood Glue products are not effective with Accoya. The best adhesive for joinery and glue ups of Accoya is a polyurethane-based glue. Gorilla Glue makes a good polyurethane adhesive so we had the company conduct adhesion tests using Gorilla Glue on a mortise and tenon joint. The polyurethane Gorilla Glue is a very effective bonding agent for the Accoya species.

Finally we tested different fasteners that are exposed to the Accoya. We found that only non-ferrous fasteners can be used with Accoya. The acetic anhydride used in making the wood will accelerate deterioration of typical steel or galvanized nails and screws. Since it is a good practice to only use stainless steel fasteners for exterior applications, this isn’t a problem.

Accoya is very nearly too good to be true. Our research, however, shows that this revolutionary wood provides the following:

1. Outstanding Durability – Accoya has a Class 1 rated durability that surpasses teak and has a 50 year warranty for above ground applications and 25 years below ground.

2. Dimensionally Stable – Since Accoya doesn’t absorb moisture, shrinking, swelling, and warping is dramatically reduced which makes it more compatible for fabrication and better performing in the field.

3. Insect Barrier – Since Accoya is indigestible to a wide range of insects including termites, it doesn’t need additional treatments that have a limited performance life.

4. Sustainable – Accoya comes from managed forests and is certified by FSC, PERC and other regional certification bodies.

5. Excellent Machinability – Accoya is made from either radiata pine or alder, both of which are great woods for machining.

Re-View has used Accoya on many national landmark projects. It is our intent to manufacture windows that will last 50-100 years, and we think Accoya is an excellent material to meet that goal. You can see some of the projects Re-View has done by accessing the following link: Re-View Facebook

The Dutch town of Sneek wanted the town's entry

bridge to be a symbol of its maritime history.  Accoya

was selected because of its incredible durability.

The "Moses Bridge" is crafted with Accoya because

it can withstand constant exposure to water.

Don't Follow the LEED

I have never been the type of person to enthusiastically join organizations. Whether it was a fraternity in college, business association, church, or country club, I always saw my membership as limiting my involvement in other groups. As is often the case, these groups tend to influence their members to adhere to their guiding principles and to compete with, rather than accept similar organizations that share compatible philosophies. This jaded viewpoint of mine has fueled a healthy skepticism that enables me to see through the groupthink dogma that is associated with even very highly revered institutions. One such organization that has received glowing praise over the past 12 years is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) that was established by the USGBC.

I think it is time for the construction industry to wake up and begin to think for ourselves again. Too many design and building professionals have drunk the LEED Kool-Aid and have lost their independence. What was originally drafted as an excellent format to realign our priorities towards energy efficiency and environmental stewardship has morphed into a strict guideline that is limiting creativity and compromising common sense in construction. Developers, architects, and contractors who have been challenged by the economic climate have embraced LEED as a means of differentiation. Others have jumped onto the bandwagon just so they wouldn’t be left behind. Now we have a massive fraternity of lemmings, blindly applying their points and paying their dues so they can add four letters to their business card and promote their projects in the marketplace.

It is difficult to be critical of a program like LEED and an organization like the USGBC. This program has had a profound effect on realigning priorities in the construction industry at a time when the United States needed to take serious action in changing the energy consumption and resource utilization of the built environment. By focusing the design community on five main categories of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality, LEED has had a positive effect on influencing the industry to pay attention to a positive set of guidelines. But over the past couple of years, the LEED program has lost its effectiveness. The industry is tuned into the concept of stewardship and doesn’t need a Martha Stewart recipe for responsible design. And the USGBC leadership has morphed into a capitalistic juggernaut.

Architects, general contractors, manufacturers, forests, distributors, and owners have spent millions of dollars a year to secure and maintain certification in this club. The minimum cost for membership is now $1,500 for a small firm and the cost for manufacturers is staggering. USGBC annual revenues have ballooned to over $107 million dollars and the organization has registered a profit of just under $15 million. Not bad for a non-profit organization. They also have an astounding 36% of revenues allocated to administrative expenses and membership development costs. I tip my hat to the founders for being able to generate such a money making machine in the construction industry during the worst economic times since the great depression. Unfortunately, the immense wealth being amassed by the USGBC is tainting its mission in the same way money has undermined the character of professional sports. For example, the USGBC shelved a much needed revision to the LEED code last year either because of inertia or because of paybacks from contributing groups like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

And the membership costs levied by the venerable USGBC are just part of the equation. In the pursuit of gaining a Platinum status, the entire construction team is burdened by a massive documentation process that audits the intent of the project. The red tape involved in a LEED project makes our government look streamlined. Thousands of hours are spent on a typical project just to track and collect paperwork to justify behavior and intent. Many material costs are also increased because of the perceived value of the LEED certification. For example, we have seen FSC certified wood run 20% higher than the same wood from the same forest without the official certification paperwork. Do we really need to be adding nonsensical administrative costs to the construction process at this moment?

A single program is not capable of satisfying all our challenges in commercial construction. As the USGBC behemoth has grown over the past ten years, its followers have accepted the guidelines without consideration of whether there was a better way. Only recently have we seen opposition to some of the LEED claims and requirements. Henry Gifford has made a compelling argument that the energy saving claims made by USGBC are more a result of manipulating numbers than creating structures that are more energy efficient than the existing stock of buildings. The States of Maine and Georgia have made progress in striking down USGBC requirements of using strictly FSC certified lumber since this eliminates a high percentage of sustainable lumber found in the United States. And in the past year, the Department of Defense abandoned the LEED program for a code based upon ASHRE 189.1. Preservationists are also making compelling arguments to pay attention to the embodied energy of a building rather than replace all elements in the pursuit of superior R Value.

So I ask the design community to regain your independence. Don’t be beholden to a program that is tantamount to a 12-step program for responsible construction. The basis of your design should be predicated upon your inspiration and guided by the owner’s desires, intended use, budget, and presence in the community. Use your common sense rather than a checklist that gives you extra points for bike racks and preferred parking spots for battery powered cars. As was once said by Frank Lloyd Wright, “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense.”