Recent Changes in Tax Legislation Could Save You or Cost You Beginning in 2018

The recently enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) is a sweeping tax package. Everyone in business — including roofers — should have at least a passing knowledge of what to expect beginning in tax year 2018. Most of the changes are effective for tax years beginning in 2018 and lasting through 2025.

Tax rates — personal and corporate. The new law imposes a new tax rate structure with seven tax brackets: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent. The top rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 37 percent and applies to taxable income above $500,000 for single taxpayers and $600,000 for married couples filing jointly.

The corporate income tax rate used to be graduated with a maximum cap at 35 percent. It was reduced to a flat 21 percent. The corporate tax rate reduction puts the United States in line with most of the rest of other developed nations. The reduction is designed to increase spending, increase jobs, increase employee salaries, foster corporate improvements, and continue to incentivize the overall economy.

Standard deduction. The new law increases the standard deduction to $24,000 for joint filers, $18,000 for heads of household, and $12,000 for singles and married taxpayers filing separately. Given these increases, many taxpayers will no longer be itemizing deductions. These figures will be indexed for inflation after 2018.

Exemptions. The new law suspends the deduction for personal exemptions. Thus, starting in 2018, taxpayers can no longer claim personal or dependency exemptions. The rules for withholding income tax on wages will be adjusted to reflect this change, but IRS was given the discretion to leave the withholding unchanged for 2018.

New deduction for “qualified business income.” Starting in 2018, taxpayers are allowed a deduction equal to 20 percent of “qualified business income,” otherwise known as “pass-through” income, i.e., income from partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole proprietorships. The income must be from a trade or business within the United States. Investment income does not qualify, nor do amounts received from an S corporation as reasonable compensation or from a partnership as a guaranteed payment for “services” provided to the trade or business. In other words, lawyers are out of luck! The deduction is not used in computing adjusted gross income, just taxable income. For taxpayers with taxable income above $157,500 ($315,000 for joint filers), (1) a limitation based on W-2 wages paid by the business and depreciable tangible property used in the business is phased in; and (2) income from the following trades or businesses is phased out of qualified business income: health, law, consulting, athletics, financial or brokerage services, or where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more employees or owners.

Child and family tax credit. The new law increases the credit for qualifying children (i.e., children under 17) to $2,000 from $1,000, and increases to $1,400 the refundable portion of the credit. It also introduces a new (nonrefundable) $500 credit for a taxpayer’s dependents who are not qualifying children. The adjusted gross income level at which the credits begin to be phased out has been increased to $200,000 or $400,000 for joint filers.

State and local property taxes. The itemized deduction for state and local income and property taxes is limited to a total of $10,000.00 starting in 2018.

Mortgage interest. Under the new law, mortgage interest on loans used to acquire a principal residence and a second home is only deductible on debt up to $750,000, starting with loans taken out in 2018. This sum is down from $1 million. There is no longer any deduction for interest on home equity loans, regardless of when the debt was incurred.

Miscellaneous itemized deductions. There is no longer a deduction for miscellaneous itemized deductions which were formerly deductible to the extent they exceeded 2 percent of adjusted gross income. This category included items such as tax preparation costs, investment expenses, union dues, and unreimbursed employee expenses.

Medical expenses. Under the new law, for 2017 and 2018, medical expenses are deductible to the extent they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income for all taxpayers. Previously, the adjusted gross income floor was 10 percent for most taxpayers.

Casualty and theft losses. The itemized deduction for casualty and theft losses has been suspended except for losses incurred in a federally declared disaster.

Overall limitation on itemized deductions. The new law suspends the overall limitation on itemized deductions that formerly applied to taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceeded specified thresholds.

Moving expenses. The deduction for job-related moving expenses has been eliminated, except for certain military personnel. The exclusion for moving expense reimbursements has also been suspended.

Health care “individual mandate.” Starting in 2019, there is no longer a penalty for individuals who fail to obtain minimum essential health coverage.

Estate and gift tax exemption. Effective for decedents dying, and gifts made, in 2018, the estate and gift tax exemption has been increased to roughly $11.2 million ($22.4 million for married couples).

A lot of the details of the simple descriptions listed above remain to be completely formalized, and some of it may still change. Stay aware of the tax revisions and consult with an attorney in your locale if you have any questions.

Updated NIBS Study Proves Mitigation Is a Sound Investment

Table 1. Benefit-cost ratio by hazard and mitigation measure. Courtesy of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

More than a decade ago, the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), a nonprofit mandated by Congress to improve building process and facility performance, issued a landmark report which changed the conversation about the value of resilience. The 2005 report, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, was authored by NIBS’ Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC), which promotes collaboration to achieve resilience objectives among a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Working from data provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the report found that every $1 of natural hazard mitigation funded by the FEMA between 1993 and 2003 saved the American people an average of $4 in future losses. That one to four ratio of investment to returns was widely quoted at the time that the report was published, and has been cited repeatedly during the past decade as interest in resilience grown. This report was among the first to demonstrate that investment in mitigation could deliver significant returns.

During the intervening years, as the frequency and severity of natural disasters has intensified, MMC leadership recognized the need to update and expand the 2005 study. Philip Schneider, AIA, Director of the MMC, explains that the “disaster landscape” has changed since 2005, necessitating a new report. “Our hazard maps, particularly, for earthquake and wind, have had several updates based on more research and better data. Our codes and standards are much improved for creating disaster resistance than they were over ten years ago. Our exposure to disasters, especially, building in disaster-prone areas, has increased substantially. We also have better methods for determining vulnerability to disasters than we had then, and more sophisticated economic analysis tools.’’ In fact, as part of the changed “disaster landscape” that Schneider references, 2017 set unwelcome records related to climate and weather events. According to a report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in early January, the U.S. experienced 16 separate billion-dollar disaster events, matching 2011 for the record number of billion-dollar disasters for an entire calendar year. Together, these events cost the country more than $300 billion dollars, a new annual record for the United States. While this data was released after the publication of the MMC report, it underscores the urgent need to lessen the financial impact of these increasingly frequent disasters.

Figure 1. Total costs and benefits of 23 years of federal mitigation grants. Courtesy of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

After a year-long effort, the MMC released its updated report in January of this year. Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report examined two specific mitigation strategies and found that mitigation is of even greater value now than it was when the first report was released. First, based on updated data on the impact of FEMA grants, the report stated that society now saves $6 for every $1 spent on mitigation. Looking at a second mitigation strategy, the report found a corresponding “benefit-cost” ratio of four to one for spending that exceeded select provisions of the 2015 International Code Council building codes. In summarizing its findings for both strategies, the MMC stated that, “Mitigation represents a sound financial investment.” (For the purposes of this study mitigation and resilience have similar meanings. Schneider says, “For both terms there is no one universal definition; they both are broadly defined with considerable overlap. However, resilience tends to be more community-based, taking into account a wider range of infrastructure, economic, environmental and social issues. Mitigation tends to be more building centric, but still can pertain to a subset or even the same set of wider range issues.”)

The report points out that while mitigation strategies deliver financial rewards, they would also provide other significant benefits. Implementing the two sets of mitigation strategies detailed in the report “would prevent 600 deaths, 1 million nonfatal injuries and 4,000 new cases of post-traumatic stress disorder in the long term.” Additionally, the report projects that designing new buildings to exceed the model ICC building codes would help fuel economic growth, “resulting in 87,000 new, long-term jobs, and an approximate 1 percent increase in utilization of domestically produced construction material.”

Natural Disasters

The report specifically looked at four potentially cataclysmic natural forces: hurricane winds, earthquakes, riverine floods and hurricane surges. Then they looked at five stakeholder groups that would bear the costs and enjoy the benefits of mitigation for the four natural hazards under consideration. These stakeholder groups are:

  1. Developers: corporations that invest in and build new buildings, and usually sell those buildings once they are completed, owning them only for months or a few years
  2. Title holders: people or corporations who own existing buildings, generally buying them from developers or prior owners
  3. Lenders: people or corporations that lend a title holder the money to buy a building
  4. Tenants: people or corporations who occupy the building, whether they own it or not
  5. Community: people, corporations, local government, emergency service providers, and everyone else associated with the building or who does business with the tenant

Figure 2. Total costs and benefits of new design to exceed 2015 I-Code requirements. Courtesy of the National Institute of Building Sciences.

The study reports that when the cost each group bears to mitigate a loss is subtracted from the positive benefits it enjoys, the “net benefit” is positive in each category. In other words, the value of investing in mitigation is spread broadly across the construction business and the people it serves.

The authors of the report are careful to point out that the cited benefit-cost ratios, or BCRs, are generated from two very specific mitigation strategies: those used by FEMA, and those incorporating designs that exceed provisions of ICC codes. Noting that the results from the 2005 study represented only a single, very narrow set of strategies but were incorrectly used to justify “all types of mitigation strategies,” the authors of the study specifically say that they did not provide an aggregate number in the updated study, but elected to provide BCRs for the two strategies individually. Moving forward, providing an aggregate number is definitely one of their goals: “Once the project team has identified BCRs for a sufficient number of mitigation strategies, it will provide an aggregated number representing the overall benefit of mitigation.” To help achieve that goal, multiple studies are being conducted by the MCC to examine the value of many kinds of natural hazard mitigation at the national level, and more studies are being planned, pending the acquisition of funding.

Focusing on the Roof

What do the results of this study mean for those who focus on the integrity of a roofing system to help create a resilient structure? Schneider underscores the importance of a resilient roof as a component of an overall mitigation strategy. “If the roofing system is compromised in either a windstorm or wildfire, the building or home is subject to total loss.” He also observes that achieving resilience, either in an entire community or in an individual structure, will be a combined effort. “Resilience will be best implemented when states and communities develop and effect resilience plans. Communities, particularly, need to address zoning. Codes and standards organizations need to constantly be updating their documents to address resilience, and architects, engineers, developers and contractors should be building to resilience standards. Manufacturers have their part in providing more resilient products and systems.”

The NIBS report is being praised as an important tool to help in decision-making about investment in resilience, and influential stakeholders are supporting its approach. Executive Director Paul Kovacs of the Toronto-based Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction says, “Findings of the 2005 report, that resilience offers a societal payback of $4 for every $1 invested in mitigation, made an extremely important contribution to the argument that building resilience towards natural hazards is not costly in the mid- to long-term and, in fact, offers a solid Return on Investment. The 4:1 ratio became the most commonly cited metric to show that resilience works, that such things as building codes work. The updated study released yesterday puts a finer point on the metrics and continues to offer overwhelming evidence that building resilience is key to avoiding death, injuries, property damage and disruption.”

Mike DuCharme, Chairman of the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA), adds support from the manufacturers’ point of view. “We know that our EPDM products can play an essential role in helping to create more resilient roofing systems. With this new report showing the economic advantages of resilience, we can provide the construction industry with materials that can not only enhance the performance of a resilient roofing system, but also provide financial advantages as well.”

The NIBS report concludes by pointing out that, “Not everyone is willing or able to bear the up-front construction costs for more resilient buildings, even if the long-term benefits exceed the up-front costs,” and suggests that some creative incentives might be needed “to align competing interests of different groups.”

FEMA, the source of the statistics for the NIBS report, is addressing this very issue and has just released its Draft National Mitigation Investment Strategy at the request of the Department of Homeland Security. This strategy is meant to address the lack of coordination in mitigation investment and is organized to achieve these six outcomes:

  1. Coordination of risk mitigation and management improves between and among public, private, and non-profit sector entities.
  2. The private and nonprofit sectors increase their investments in and innovations related to mitigation.
  3. State, local, tribal and territorial governments are increasingly empowered to lead risk reduction activities and share responsibility and accountability with the federal government.
  4. Public, private, and nonprofit sector entities develop and share more of the data and tools needed to make risk-informed mitigation investments.
  5. Public, private, and nonprofit sector entities improve risk communication, leading to more risk-informed mitigation investments by individuals and communities.
  6. The built environment — whether grey or nature-based infrastructure, and including lifeline infrastructure, buildings, and homes — becomes more resilient

This Draft report is now available for comment and FEMA will continue to research the issue before releasing its final recommendations.

This increasing focus on the issue of resilience has moved the debate forward, beyond where it was just a year ago at this time. The question is no longer whether resilience is needed; the daunting statistics of 2017 confirm that cataclysmic weather events are on the increase and can cause staggering damage to the built environment. The NIBS report provides hard evidence that resilience is an investment in the future that will pay dividends for years to come. The debate now moves forward to the best ways to finance these mitigation efforts, so that those future dividends can be realized.

How Sales Management Can Hurt Sales

There’s a sales management philosophy in too many companies that is actually working against sales growth. And the salespeople know it. The philosophy goes like this:

  • Walk in 40 doors a day.
  • Make 40 calls a day.
  • Hand your business card to everyone.
  • Gather as many business cards as you can.
  • Sell, sell, sell.

While this is a lot of activity and can look good on a sales report, it isn’t usually productive. And it shifts the goal from getting business to participating in a specific behavior.

This usually happens because the owner or sales manager found great success using these methods. That’s great for them! But it doesn’t mean everyone is going to be successful doing it that way.

sIn addition, today’s business environment doesn’t really offer a welcoming landscape for this kind of behavior. The consumers are very well educated and are really looking for someone they trust. The salesperson is better off working on relationship building rather than tallying the number of doors knocked.

Many companies with this philosophy have a lot of turnover in the sales department. And do you know why? Because people join the company with the best of intentions and in many cases a great method for gaining sales. When they discover that they can’t implement their method, but rather have to engage in behavior that doesn’t work for them, they don’t hit their sales goals. So, they leave — either voluntarily or by request.

Either way, it’s not good for the company. The cost alone of bringing on a new employee is significant. Think about it. You’ve got to run ads, sift through resumes, interview, hire, onboard, train, and then exit. Go ahead and put dollar values on each of those items, then add them up. Now include the lack of sales into the cost. All the business you didn’t do! It’s an expensive proposition.

Building Confidence

Another key concern is the image that develops of the company in the community. Think about things from the prospect or client’s point of view. If, every time they turn around there’s a new salesperson introducing themselves, you’re telegraphing instability within your company. Is that really the message you are trying to send? Customers want confidence that the salesperson they’ve grown to trust will be there for more than a hot minute. If they keep seeing new salespeople, their trust goes down. That’s never good.

So, I ask you, which is more important?

  1. Engaging in a specific activity
  2. Gaining new clients

I’d say No. 2. And if that really is more important, then it doesn’t matter how it is done — as long as it is moral, legal, and ethical.

Sales managers would be better off sharing the vision and the goals of the company with their sales staff while leaving the sales strategy to each salesperson. Empower the sales team to develop their own process and then monitor their results. Give them the resources they need to be successful. Be there for them when they need advice, or training. And communicate with them on a regular basis about their results. As long as the results are there, the process shouldn’t matter.

Think about why you hire someone. Is it because you believe they have the skills and personality necessary to succeed at sales? Probably. And if so, don’t you owe it to them to trust them to do the job? Whenever we tell someone how to do something, we’re really saying that we don’t trust them to do it right. There’s a confidence killer!

It’s like hiring someone for their great attitude and then squashing that attitude. Makes no sense. Respecting the sales staff means talking with them, not at them. It means listening to what they have to say, respecting their ability, and expecting them to deliver. Period. The best way to disrespect the sales staff is to tell them to do things your way. Then you are telling them that you don’t trust them to do it right, or well, or successfully. Believe me when I tell you, you won’t get what you are wanting if you engage in this sort of “management.” Instead, lead your team. Help them be the best they can be.

After all, sales is about relationships, not dialing for dollars. Let your salespeople network and develop relationships with referral partners, prospects, and clients. Their time will be better spent, the results will be there, and everyone will be happier. If one of the salespeople decides to make 40 calls a day, great! That is their preferred method. It should be more important to make sure your salespeople have a strategy that makes sense to them than to have a strategy that only makes sense to the sales manager.

ARMA Honors Top Asphalt Projects With QARC Awards

The QARC Gold award was presented at the International Roofing Expo in New Orleans, where Imbus Roofing received a $2,000. Pictured are Bob Gardiner, CertainTeed; Steve Sutton, Imbus Roofing; Andrew Imbus, Imbus Roofing; Tom Smith, CertainTeed and Ron Gumucio, ARMA.

The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) recognized a historic music hall, a home with a roof built to withstand high-wind events, and a museum dedicated to the United States’ fight for independence as 2017’s top asphalt roofing installations. ARMA’s annual Quality Asphalt Roofing Case-Study (QARC) Awards Program awarded the projects that exemplify the most beautiful, affordable and reliable asphalt roofing systems in North America.

Imbus Roofing Co. Inc. received the Gold QARC Award for its new roof installation on the 225,000 square-foot, 139-year-old Cincinnati Music Hall. The Kentucky-based contractor installed designer asphalt shingles to replicate the Music Hall’s slate tile roof, while also providing crucial durability against Cincinnati’s tough climate.

Reliant Roofing Inc. was honored with the Silver QARC Award for its completion of Topsail Residence, a 10,600-square-foot asphalt shingle roofing system designed to endure high-wind events in Ponte Vedra, Florida. This high-performance roofing system not only provided the homeowners with a durable option, but also a visually stunning roof for years to come.

The Bronze QARC Award was given to Thomas Company Inc. of Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, for its low-

slope installation on Philadelphia’s Museum of the American Revolution. Designed to achieve LEED Gold certification, the project featured a high-quality modified bitumen roof membrane to prevent water penetration and create a more stable surface for the facility’s vegetative roof.

According to ARMA, the 2018 QARC Award program received some of the most impressive and innovative submissions of asphalt roofing installments to date. “This year’s submissions demonstrated asphalt’s ability to provide a durable and reliable roofing system against harsh weather while simultaneously offering an array of beautiful colors, designs and installation options,” said Ralph Vasami, ARMA’s acting executive vice president. “These projects are true examples of what asphalt roofing can offer commercial businesses and private homeowners alike.”

The 2018 QARC Award recipients are:

Gold
Project Name: The Cincinnati Music Hall
Company: Imbus Roofing Co. Inc.
Project Description: This steep-slope roof was installed with CertainTeed’s Grand Manor luxury asphalt shingles in the colors Stonegate Gray and Brownstone, as well as DiamondDeck and WinterGuard underlayments. The size, complexity and steepness of the project presented a great challenge to the contractor, who managed to install a durable asphalt roofing system that was also visually stunning.

Imbus Roofing received top honors for its work on 139-year-old Cincinnati Music Hall. Photo: CertainTeed

Silver
Project Name: Topsail Residence
Company: Reliant Roofing Inc.
Project Description: GAF Grand Canyon Lifetime Designer Shingles in the color Stone Wood was selected not only for its beauty, but its superior high-wind protection. Hand sealed Timbertex Premium Ridge Cap Shingles and GAF self-adhering Leak Barrier were also installed for added leak prevention.

Reliant Roofing received the Silver QARC Award for its completion of Topsail Residence in Ponte Vedra, Florida. Photo: Justin Alley and Kyle Brumbley

Bronze
Project Name: Museum of the American Revolution
Company: The Thomas Company Inc.
Project Description: The historic project required a high-quality roofing membrane that offered an aesthetic appeal to the building. Thomas Company chose SOPREMA’s SBS Modified Base Ply – ELASTOPHENE Flam with the SBS Modified Bitumen Flashing Base Ply – SOPRALENE Flam 180 to keep the roof water-resistant year-round, protect the roof membrane from foot traffic and add a beautiful appearance to the museum.

The Bronze QARC Award was given to Thomas Company Inc. of Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, for its work on Philadelphia’s Museum of the American Revolution. Photo: Soprema

Honorable Mentions:
Big House Castle Rock
Jireh 7 Enterprises
Castle Rock, Colorado
Malarkey Roofing Products

Closson Chase Winery Church Roof
AI Anthony Roofing LTD
Hillier, Ontario
IKO Production Inc.

Tiny House & Top Shop
M & J Construction
Erhard, Minnesota
CertainTeed Corporation

West Loch Village Senior Apartments
M & R Roofing
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
PABCO Roofing Products

For more information about this year’s winners or to submit an asphalt roofing project, visit www.asphaltroofing.org.

Changes to Contractor/Subcontractor Agreement Can Have Profound Effect on Roofers

Whether they like them or not, most subcontractors and contractors have used American Institute of Architects (AIA) standard form contract documents at some point in their careers. Several options exist for those wanting to utilize standard form documents, like ConsensusDocs, Design-Build Institute of America, and the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee forms. However, the AIA, being founded in 1857 and having published standard form construction contracts for more than 100 years, is the most established of these organizations, and its form contracts are still the most prevalent and most commonly used forms for commercial construction projects in the United States.

The AIA updates its forms every 10 years and completed its most recent revision in late April 2017. The updates included revisions to several forms in its A-Series (Owner/Contractor Agreements), including its widely used General Conditions (AIA Form A201) and its standard Contractor/Subcontractor Agreement, AIA A401. While these are only a few of the AIA’s updates, these changes may be particularly pertinent to subcontractors and those working in the roofing construction industry. Some highlights of the 2017 updates to A401 follow here.

Designated Representatives and Notices

Both the Contractor and Subcontractor are now required to designate (in the space provided in Section 14.2) an individual who will serve as each party’s “representative” for the project. This requirement is set forth in Section 3 for the Contractor and Section 4 for the Subcontractor. Parties are permitted to change their designated representative only if they provide 10 days’ notice. This is significant for both parties because the updated form requires that notices — for example, notices of a party’s potential claim arising from the subcontract — must be made in writing and are valid only if served upon the designated representative. The new form allows notices to be made via e-email or other electronic means only if an electronic method is set forth in Section 14.4.3. Parties should remember not only to designate a point person who is prepared to serve as a project representative and an email address for notices, but they should also ensure that the other party has done the same. Failure to do so could result in notices not being made by the proper means and to the proper individual — which in turn could result in parties waiving potential claims.

New Contractor Responsibilities — With Limitations

Although it has long been a standard practice (both on AIA projects and elsewhere) for the Contractor to include the prime contract as an exhibit to the subcontract, the updated form takes this a step further and requires the prime contract to be attached to the subcontract as “Exhibit A.” If Subcontractors hold Contractors to this requirement, Subcontractors will be able to review all of the contract documents with greater ease before signing.

Furthermore, Section 3 requires Contractors to “render decisions in a timely manner and in accordance with the Contractor’s construction schedule” and to “promptly notify the Subcontractor of any fault or defect in the Work under this Subcontract or nonconformity with the Subcontract documents.” However, in Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.5, the phrase “written notice” has been changed simply to “notice” with respect to the Contractor’s requirement to notify the Subcontractor of defective work as a prerequisite of finding the Subcontractor to be in default. Section 14 still clearly states that all “notices” must be made in writing to the designated representative. This change could result in debate over what Contractors must do in order to notify Subcontractors of defective work before they avail themselves of remedies for breach, such as withholding subcontract payments.

Contractors also now have additional duties to provide Subcontractors information they may need in order to preserve their lien rights. Section 3.3.6 previously required Contractors to provide Subcontractors “a correct statement of the record legal title to the property … and the Owner’s interest therein.” The revised A401 now requires the Contractor to request this information from the Owner if the Contractor does not have it and give the Subcontractor the information upon receipt; a corresponding section in AIA A201 requires the Owner to provide it to the Contractor.

New Subcontractor Duties and Concerns

The above requirement to submit lien information is perhaps balanced by revised Section 11.1.10, which provides Contractors additional rights to indemnification from certain lien claims. “If Contractor has paid Subcontractor in accordance with the Agreement, Subcontractor must defend and indemnify the Contractor and Owner from liens and claims from lower tier subcontractors and suppliers, including being required to bond off liens,” the new form states.

Another noteworthy change concerns alternates — alternatives to a base bid that provide for a change in the level of quality, or scope of the work specified in the base bid. Alternates provide the owner with the option to modify the project by accepting or rejecting the alternate. The newly revised A401 contains a new section, 10.2.2, which allows the parties to list alternates that the Contractor can accept after execution of the agreement. Subcontractors should consider carefully whether it is wise to include alternates under this section.

Payment and Retainage

Finally, subcontractors and contractors alike should familiarize themselves with the newly revised Section 11, which concerns progress payments. Sections 11.1.7.1 and 11.1.7.2 break down the calculation of progress payments into separate subsections for additions, deletions, and retainage. This includes additions for construction change directives and deletions to allow for defective work remaining uncorrected (assuming that Contractor has duly notified the Subcontractor of the issue). Other portions of A401 allow for additions and deletions in these scenarios, but they are often conditioned on the owner’s approval and other factors. It remains to be seen whether this section could change normal progress billing procedures.

Section 11.7.2 opens the door to retainage options other than the typical arrangement (where the Contractor simply withholds the amount the Owner is withholding). Newly added subsections allow the parties to designate items that are not subject to retainage, as well as set forth an arrangement for reduced or limited retainage. This new section (11.1.8.2) could be a helpful avenue for early finishing trades to propose release of retainage upon 50 percent completion of the project as opposed to substantial completion — or even a way for parties to negotiate the retainage percentage down.

The above are just a few highlights of changes to AIA Form A401. For additional information or questions, visit www.aiacontracts.org or email Caroline Trautman at ctrautman@andersonandjones.com.

 

This article is not intended to give, and should not be relied upon for, legal advice. No action should be taken in reliance upon the information contained in this article without obtaining the advice of an attorney.

Single-Ply Roofing Best Practices: Doing Everything Right the First Time.

Figure 1: Designing resilient roof systems is the best of practices. When developing details, we find it very helpful to draft out the roof system (for each different system), noting materials and installation methods. Photos: Hutchinson Design Group

Single-ply membranes have risen from being the “new guy” in the market in the early ’80s to become the roof cover of choice for most architects, consultants and contractors. Material issues have for the most part been resolved, and like no other time in recent history, the industry is realizing a period of relative calm in that regard. Whether EPDM, TPO or PVC, the ease of installation, the cleanliness of the installation (versus the use of hot or cold bitumen), the speed at which they can be installed, and the material costs all blend to make these materials a viable option for watertight roofing covers. But with this market share comes issues and concerns, some of which are hurting owners, giving forensic consultants such as myself too much business, enriching attorneys, and costing contractors and, at times, designers dearly.

Following are some of my thoughts on various issues that, in my opinion, are adversely affecting single-ply membrane roof systems. Paying attention to these issues will bring about best practices in single-ply applications.

Specifying the Roof by Warranty

OMG, can architects do any less? Don’t get me started. The proliferation of “canned” Master Specs which call for a generic 10-year or 20-year warranty and then state to install the product per manufacturer’s guidelines is disheartening. Do

Figure 2: Coordinating with the mechanical engineer in the detailing of the pipe penetrations is critical. Here you can see all the components of the curb, penetrations, roofing and waterproofing are noted. We recommend that the same detail be on the mechanical sheets so that at least an 18-inch curb is known to all. Photos: Hutchinson Design Group

designers realize that manufacturers’ specifications are a market-driven minimum? When architects leave out key details, they are simply relying on the roofing contractor to do what is right. This deserves another OMG. The minimum requirements for a warranty can be very low, and the exclusions on a warranty quite extensive. Additionally, a design that calls for products to be installed based on achieving a warranty may result in a roof system that does not meet the code. Owners are often oblivious to the warranty requirements, and all too often fail to ensure the standard of care until the service life is shortened or there is storm damage — sometimes damage the roof should have withstood if it were properly designed and detailed.

If one is not knowledgeable about roof system design, detailing and specification, then a qualified roof consultant with proven experience in single-ply membranes should be retained. Roof systems and their integration into the impinging building elements need to be designed, detailed and specified appropriately for the building’s intended use and roof function. By way of example, we at Hutchinson Design Group typically design roof systems for a 40- to 50-year service life (see Figure 1); the warranty at that point is nice, but almost immaterial. Typical specifications, which are project specific, cover all the system components and their installation. They are typically 30 pages long and call out robust and enhanced material installations.

More Than the Code

I recently had a conversation with a senior member of a very large and prominent architectural firm in the Chicago area and inquired about how they go about designing the roof systems. The first thing he said was, “We do what is required by code.”

Photo 1: The roof drain sump pans shown here were provided and installed by the plumbing contractor, not the steel deck installer. Having the roof drain level with the top of the roof deck allows for a proper integration of the roof drain and roof system.

What I heard was, “We give our clients the absolute poorest roof the code allows.” An OMG is allowed here again. Does it really need to be said again that the code is a minimum standard — as some would say, the worst you are allowed to design a building by law? Maybe you didn’t realize it, but you are allowed to design above the code. I know this will shock a few of you, but yes, it’s true. Add that extra anchor to prevent wood blocking from cupping. Add extra insulation screw fasteners to improve wind uplift resistance; if too few are used, you may meet the code, but your insulation will be susceptible to cupping. Add that extra bead of polyurethane adhesive. (If I specify 4 inches on center, then perhaps by mid-day, on a hot and humid day, I might get 6 inches on center — as opposed to specifying 6 inches or 8 inches on center, and getting 12 inches on center in spots.) Plan for construction tolerances such as an uneven decks and poorly constructed walls. Allow for foot traffic by other trades. These types of enhancements come from empirical experiences — otherwise known as getting your butt in the ringer. Architects need more time on the roof to observe what goes on.

It’s About Doing What is Right

Doing it right the first time isn’t all that difficult, and it’s certainly less stressful than dealing with the aftermath of doing so little. The cost of replacing the roof in the future could easily be more than double the original cost. Twenty years ago, I

Figure 3: Coordinating with the plumbing engineer, like coordinating with the mechanical engineer, is a requirement of best practices. In this drain detail, we can see the sump pan is called out correctly, and the roof drain, integration of the vapor barrier, extension ring, etc., are clearly defined. Photos: Hutchinson Design Group

chaired an international committee on sustainable low-slope roofing. At that time, the understanding of sustainability was nil, and I believe the committee’s Tenets of Sustainability, translated into 12 languages, helped set the stage for getting designers to understand that the essence of sustainability is long-term service life. That mantra seems to have been lost as a new generation of architects is at the helm. This is unfortunate, as it comes at a time when clients no longer ask for sustainable buildings. Why? Because they are now expected. The recent rash of violent and destructive storms — hurricanes, hail, intense rain, high winds and even wildfires — have resulted in calls for improvement. That improvement is called resiliency. If you have not heard of it, you are already behind. Where sustainability calls for a building to minimize the impact of the building (roof) on the environment, resiliency requires a building (roof) to minimize the impact of the environment on the building. This concept of resiliency requires designing a roof system to weather intense storms and to be easily repaired when damaged. (Think of Puerto Rico and consider how you would repair a roof with no power, limited access to materials, and manpower that might not be able to get to your site.)

Achieving resiliency requires the roof system designer to:

  1. Actually understand that roofs are systems and only as good as their weakest link. Think metal stud parapet and horizontal base anchor attachment; only forensic consultants and attorneys like to see screws into modified gypsum boards.
  2. Eliminate your old, out-of-date, incorrect details. Lead vent flashing and roof cement cannot be used with single-ply membrane.
  3. Design the roof system integration into associated barrier systems, such as where the roofing membrane (air/vapor retarder) meets the wall air barrier. You should be able to take a pencil and draw a line over the wall air barrier, up the wall and onto the roof without lifting it off the sheet. If you cannot, you need to redesign. Once you can, you need to consider constructability and who may get there first — the roofer or air barrier contractor. Then think material compatibility. Water-based air barrier systems don’t react well when hit with a solvent-based primer or adhesive.

    Photo 2: This roof drain is properly installed along with 6 inches of insulation and a cover board. The drain extension ring is 1/2 inch below the top of the cover board so that the water falls into the drain and is not held back by the clamping ring, resulting in ponding around the roof drain.

    Perhaps the roofing needs to be in place first, and then the air barrier brought over the top of the roofing material. This might require a stainless-steel transition piece for incompatible materials. Maybe this requires a self-adhering membrane over the top of the roof edge prior to the roofing work, as some membranes are rather rigid and do not bend well over 90-degree angles. You as the designer need to design this connectivity and detail it large and bold for all to see.

  4. Design the roof system’s integration into the impinging building elements, including:
  • Roof curbs for exhaust fans: Make sure they are insulated, of great enough height, and are not installed on wood blocking.
  • Rooftop unit (RTU) curbs: The height must allow for future re-roofing. Coordinate with the mechanical engineer regarding constructability – determine when the curb should be set and when the HVAC unit will be installed. Roof details should be on both the architectural and mechanical drawings and show the same curb, drawn to scale. Be sure the curb is insulated to the roof’s required R-value. Avoid using curb rails to support mechanical equipment. The flashing on the interior side of the rails may be inaccessible once the equipment is placed. Use a large curb where all four sides will remain accessible.
  • Piping penetrations: Detail mechanical piping penetrations through the roof and support of same, where insulation and waterproofed pipe curbs are needed (see Figure 2). If you are thinking pourable sealer pocket, stop reading and go sign up for RCI’s Basics of Roof Consulting course.
  • Roof curbs, RTU, pipe curbs and rails: Coordinate their location and show them on the roof plan to be assured that they are not inhibiting drainage.
  • Roof drains: Coordination with the plumbing engineer is essential. Sump pans should be installed by the plumbing contractor, not the steel deck installer (see Photo 1), and the location should be confirmed with the structural engineer. Be sure drains are located in the low point if the roof deck is structurally sloped — and if not, know how to design tapered insulation systems to move water up that slope. Do not hold drains off the deck to meet insulation thickness; use threaded extensions. Be sure any air/vapor barrier is integrated into the curb and that the insulation is sealed to the curb. I like to hold the drain flange a half-inch down below the insulation surface so that the clamping ring does not restrain water on the surface. Owners do not like to see a 3-foot black ring at the drain, where ponding water accumulates debris (see Figure 3 and Photo 2).
  1. Understand the roof’s intended use once the building is completed. Will the roof’s surface be used for anything besides weather protection? What about snow removal? Will there be excessive foot traffic? What about mechanical

    Photo 3: Gaps between the roof insulation and roof edges, curbs and penetrations are prevalent on most roofing projects and should be sealed with spray foam insulation as seen here. It will be trimmed flush once cured.

    equipment? Photovoltaic panels? Yes, we have designed roofs in which a forklift had to go between penthouses across the roof. Understanding how the roof will be used will help you immensely.

  2. Understand the construction process and how the roof might be used during construction. It is amazing how few architects know how a building is built and understand construction sequencing and the impact it can have on a roof. I firmly believe that architects think that after a lower roof is completed, that the masons, carpenters, glazers, sheet metal workers, welders, pipe fitters, and mechanical crews take time to fully protect the newly installed systems (often of minimal thickness and, here we go again, without a cover board — OMG) before working on them. I think not. Had the architect realized that temporary/vapor retarders could be installed as work surfaces, getting the building into the dry and allowing other trades to trash that rather than the finished roof, the roof system could be installed after those trades are off the roof.
  3. Coordinate with other disciplines. Roof systems cannot be designed in a vacuum. The architect needs to talk to and involve the structural, mechanical and plumbing engineers to ensure they realize the importance of essential details. For example, we cannot have steel angle around the drain whose flange rests on the bar joist, thus raising the roof deck surface at the roof drain. Ever wonder why you had ponding at the drain? Now you know. I attempt to always have a comprehensive, specific roofing detail on the structural, mechanical and plumbing sheets. I give the other disciplines my details and ask that they include them on their drawings, changing notes as required. That way, my 20-inch roof curb on the roof detail is a 20-inch curb on the mechanical sheets — not a standard 12-inch curb, which would more often than not be buried in insulation.
  4. Detail, detail, detail, and in case you glossed over this section, detail again. Make sure to include job-specific, clearly drawn details. Every condition of the roof should be detailed by the architect. Isn’t that what the client is paying for? Do not, as I once saw, indicate “RFO” on the drawings. Yes, that acronym stands for “Roofer Figure Out.” Apparently, the roofer did not figure it out. I enjoyed a nice Hawaiian vacation as a result of my work on that project, courtesy of the architect’s insurance company. How do you know that a condition works unless you design it and then draw it to scale?

    Figure 4: Insulation to curbs, roof edge and penetrations will not be tight, and to prevent a thermal short, the gaps created in construction need to filled with spray foam, as noted and shown here in this vent detail. Photos: Hutchinson Design Group

    I’ve seen roof insulation several inches above the roof edge because, OMG, the architect wanted gravel stop and forgot about camber. Not too big a deal (unless of course it’s a large building) to add several more layers of wood blocking and tapered edge strips at the now high wood blocking in the areas that were flush, but now the face of the roof edge sheet metal needs to increase. But what if the increase is above the allowable ANSI-SPRI ES1 standard and now a fascia and clip are required? You can see how the cost spirals, and the discussion ensues about who pays for what when there is a design error.

  5. Develop comprehensive specifications that indicate how the roof system components are to be installed. This requires empirical knowledge, the result of time on the roof observing construction. It is a very important educational tool that can prevent you, the designer, from looking like a fool.

Components

Best practices for single-ply membranes, in addition to the design elements above, also involve the system components. Below is a listing of items I feel embodies best practices for single-ply roof system components:

  1. Thicker membranes: The 45-mil membrane is insufficient for best practices, especially when one considers the thickness of the waterproofing over scrim on reinforced sheets. A 60-mil membrane is in my opinion the best practices minimum. Hear that? It’s the minimum. You are allowed to go to 75, 80 or 90 mils.
  2. Cover boards: A cover board should be specified in fully adhered and mechanically attached systems. (Ballasted systems should not incorporate a cover board.) Cover boards have enhanced adhesion of the membrane to the substrate over insulation facers and hold up better under wind load and hail. Cover boards also protect the insulation

    Photo 4: The greatest concern with the use of polyurethane adhesives is that the insulation board might not be not fully embedded into the adhesive. Weighting the boards at the corners and center with a minimum of 35 pounds for 10 minutes has proven to work well in achieving a solid bond.

    from physical damage and remain robust under foot traffic, while insulation tends to become crushed. Cover boards are dominated by the use of mat-faced modified gypsum products. Hydroscopic cover boards such as fiberboards are not recommended.

  3. Insulation: Now here is a product that designers seldom realize has many parts to be considered. First, let’s look at compression strength. If you are looking to best practices, 25 psi minimum is the way to go. The 18-psi insulation products with a fiber reinforced paper facer can be ruled out entirely, while 20 psi products are OK for ballasted systems. Now let’s look at facers. If you think about it for a second, when I say “paper-faced insulation,” you should first think “moisture absorbing” and secondly “mold growth.” Thus paper-faced products are not recommended to be incorporated if you are using best practices. You should be specifying the coated glass-faced products, which are resistant to moisture and mold resistant. A note to the manufacturers: get your acts together and be able to provide this product in a timely manner.

Additional considerations regarding insulation:

  • Insulation joints and gaps: You just can’t leave joints and gaps open. Show filling the open joints at the perimeter and curbs and around penetrations with spray foam in your details and specify this as well (see Photo 3 and Figure 4).
  • Mechanical attachment: Define the method of attachment and keep it simple. On typical projects, I commonly specify one mechanical fastener every 2 square feet over the entire roof (unless more fasteners are needed in the corners). Reducing the number of fasteners in the field compared to the perimeter can be confusing for contractors and the quality assurance observer, especially when the architect doesn’t define where that line is. The cost of the additional screws is nominal compared with the overall cost of the roof.
  • Polyurethane foam adhesive: Full cover spray foam or bead foam adhesive is taking over for asphalt, at least here in the Midwest, and I suspect in other local markets as well. The foam adhesive is great. It sticks to everything: cars, skylights, clerestories, your sunglasses. So, it is amazing how many insulation boards go down and don’t touch the foam. You must specify that the boards need to be set into place, walked on and then weighted in place until set. We specify five 35-pound weights (a 5-gallon pail filled with water works nicely), one at each corner and one in the middle for 10 minutes (see Photo 4). Yes, you need to be that specific.
  1. Photo 5: The design of exterior walls with metal studs that project above the roof deck is a multi-faceted, high-risk detail that is often poorly executed. Here you can see a gap between the deck and wall through which warm moist air will move and result in the premature failure of this roof. The sheathing on the wall cannot hold the horizontal base anchor screw, and the joints in the board allow air to pass to the base flashing, where is will condense. This is the type of architectural design that keeps on giving — giving me future work.

    Vapor/air barrier: A vapor air barrier can certainly serve more than a function as required for, say, over wet room conditions: pools, locker rooms, kitchens, gymnasiums. We incorporate them in both new construction and re-roofing as a means of addressing construction trade phasing and, for re-roofing, allowing time for the proper modification of existing elements such as roof edges, curbs, vents, drains, skylights and pipe curbs. Be sure to detail the penetrations and tie-ins with wall components.

  2. Deck type: Robust roof decks are best. Specify 80 ksi steel roof decks. Try staying away from joint spacing over 5 feet. Decks should be fully supported and extend completely to roof edges and curbs.
  3. Roof edge design: A key aesthetic concern, the termination point for the roof system, the first line of defense in regard to wind safety — the roof edge is all of these. The construction of the roof edge on typical commercial construction has changed drastically in the last 20 years, from brick and block to metal stud. Poorly designed metal stud parapets will be funding my grandkids’ college education. The challenge for the metal stud design is multifaceted: It must close off the chimney effect, prevent warm moist air from rising and condensing on the steel and wall substrate, create an acceptable substrate on the stud face in which to accept base anchor attachment, and — oh, yes — let’s not forget fire issues. Tread lightly here and create a “big stick” design (see Photo 5).
  4. Roof drains and curbs: As discussed above, there is a great need for coordination and specific detailing here. The rewards will be substantial in regard to quality and efficiency, minimizing time spent dealing with “what do we do now” scenarios.
  5. Slope: Design new structures with structural roof deck slope, then fine tune with tapered insulation.

Final Thoughts

Best practices will always be a balancing act between cost and quality. I believe in the mantra of “doing it right the first time.”

The industry has the material and contractors possess the skill. It’s the design and graphic communication arm that needs to improve to keep everyone working at the top of their game.

Designers, get out in the field and see the results of your details. See firsthand how a gypsum-based substrate board on a stud wall does not hold screws well; how a lap joint may not seal over the leading edge of tapered insulation; how the roof either ponds water at the roof drain or doesn’t meet code by drastically sumping; or how the hole cut in the roof membrane for the drain might be smaller than the drain bowl flange, thus restricting drainage. Seeing issues that the contractors deal with will help you as the designer in developing better details.

Contractors, when you see a detail that doesn’t work during the bidding, send in an RFI and not only ask a question, but take the time to inform the architect why you don’t think it will work. On a recent project here in Chicago, the architect omitted the vapor retarder over a pool. The contractor wrote an explicit explanation letter and RFI to the architect during bidding, and the architect replied, “install as designed.” In these situations, just walk away. For me, this is future work. A local contractor once told me, “I don’t get paid to RFI, I get paid to change order.” He also said, “If I ever received a response to an RFI, I would frame it!”

Manufacturers, too, can raise the bar. How about prohibiting loose base flashings at all times, and not allowing it when the salesman says the competition is allowing it. Have contractors on the cusp of quality? Decertify them. You don’t need the hassles. Owners don’t need the risk.

Seek out and welcome collaboration among contractors, roof systems designers, knowledgeable roof consultants, and engineers. Learning is a lifelong process, and the bar is changing every year. Too often we can be closed off and choose not to listen. At HDG, I am proud to say we have the building owners’ best interests at heart.

By all working together, the future of single-ply membranes can be enhanced and the systems will be retained when the next generation of roof cover arrives — and you know it will.

Community Service Initiative Celebrates America’s Heroes

Habitat for Humanity identifies veterans who are in need of a new roof, and Owens Corning donates the materials. Platinum Preferred Contractors donate their team members’ labor to install the roofing systems. Photos: Owens Corning Roofing

Combine the expertise of a global humanitarian organization with roofing system materials donated by a manufacturer. Add the generosity and community-minded spirit of roofing contractors across the nation. Apply the parties’ collective efforts to honor and protect unsung heroes. What is the outcome? For veterans served by the Owens Corning Roof Deployment Project, the results are safer, more comfortable homes. This article shares the story of how one manufacturer connected its relationship with Habitat for Humanity with the expertise of roofing contractors already active in community service to create an integrated program serving American heroes.

An Idea Is Born and Contractors Collaborate

As the grandson of a veteran who proudly served under General Patton in World War II, Brad Beldon, CEO of Beldon Roofing in San Antonio, Texas, has long respected the service and sacrifice of America’s veterans. In fact, his grandfather’s selfless service inspired Beldon Roofing Company to develop a strong legacy of community outreach. When Brad broached the concept of a community service initiative honoring veterans during a Platinum Contractors Advisory Board meeting in San Antonio, his idea was met with broad enthusiasm. Beldon Roofing completed the first “trial project” which served as a model for the national Roof Deployment Project.

Leveraging the humanitarian spirit of Platinum Preferred Contractors across the nation, the Owens Corning Roof Deployment Project is a multi-stakeholder initiative bringing together Habitat for Humanity, members of the Owens Corning Platinum Preferred Contractor Network and the Owens Corning Foundation to support American veterans. The program fuses Habitat for Humanity’s experience building and restoring homes with the expertise of the network’s members to provide veterans with new roof systems. Each partner in the program plays a distinct role. Habitat identifies veterans who are in need of a new roof but are unable to replace the roofs themselves. Owens Corning donates the roofing system materials including underlayment, shingles and other materials needed to replace roofs in disrepair. Platinum Preferred Contractors donate their team members’ labor to specify materials and install the roofing systems.

Since its inception in Spring 2016, the National Roof Deployment Project has installed nearly 60 roofs, and the program’s momentum continues to grow. The practice of giving back is a time-honored tradition for Platinum Preferred Contractors. Owens Corning Contractor Network Leader Jason Lewinski says the program builds upon Platinum Contractors’ rich history of giving back to their communities. “When we rolled the program out at our Platinum national conference in San Antonio, we saw lots of hands go up and heard contractors say loud and clear, ‘I’m ready and willing to participate,’” said Lewinski. “Not one contractor has ever said, ‘this is new to us’ – as many of our contractors are already so community-minded. And many of them don’t stop at the roof. They often want to provide gutters, soffit, fascia, siding or whatever it takes to make the needed repairs.”

Platinum Contractor Tripp Atkinson, owner of ContractingPRO in Memphis, Tennessee, is a good example of a roofer who is also a community servant. He and his team have donated roofing and siding labor for Brinkley Heights Urban Academy, a Christian missionary organization serving at-risk youth. In addition to ministering to the kids, feeding them or just listening to the kids, ContractingPRO finds opportunities to apply its remodeling expertise to the distressed homes of these under-served youth. Remarking on his involvement in the Roof Deployment Project, Atkinson says, “We’re not just putting on roofs, but giving back in a way that is changing lives and helping these veterans enjoy their homes more.” He adds that community service provides an opportunity for his team to make a difference that extends beyond the business. “It’s very important for us to be part of something that is bigger than ourselves and our company,” he said.

Contractors Give Back to America’s Heroes and Communities

The National Roof Deployment Project’s focus on supporting veterans has been especially appealing to contractors, notes Matt Schroder, communications leader at Owens Corning. “Many contractors have shared that they either served in the military or have close members of their family who are active service members,” Schroder said. He added that the Roof Deployment Project has also opened up opportunities for Owens Corning to partner with veteran-focused organizations such as Purple Heart Homes.

The Owens Corning Roof Deployment Project brings together Habitat for Humanity, members of the Owens Corning Platinum Preferred Contractor Network, and the Owens Corning Foundation to support American veterans. Photos: Owens Corning Roofing

Jon Sabo, owner of RoofRoof in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a good example of a Platinum Preferred Contractor who can relate to the program as a veteran. “As a former Marine myself, I’m personally honored that we’re able to partner with Owens Corning and Habitat to relieve a big stress,” said Sabo, following the donation of a new roof to a veteran. “One of our core values has always been to give back to the communities we serve, and we jumped at the opportunity to be able to give back to someone right in our own back yard.”

Military members’ time away from home can mean maintenance on the home front is neglected. Nick Yadron, owner of M&M Remodeling Services in Crete, Illinois, says that the Roof Deployment Project is an opportunity to say thank you to veterans and help their families. “We all see so much value in this program as a way to say thank you to our veterans. All the Platinum Contractors were really excited when the program was announced a few years ago,” Yadron says.

While he is active in the Chicagoland area, Yadron’s commitment to service goes much further. In 2013 and 2016, he traveled to India on a mission trip where he helped a team establish water wells and build schools. Closer to home, M&M supports Habitat for Humanity. Over the years, his company has also “adopted” a family experiencing hard times and provided new windows, siding and gutters.

Employee and Community Engagement

Even those not directly impacted by the Roof Deployment Project are engaged by the program. According to Don Rettig, Director of Community Relations and President of the Owens Corning Foundation, the Roof Deployment Project has resonated with both Owens Corning employees and the communities served by Platinum Contractors. Rettig says one welcome outcome of the project is the amount of conversation on Owens Corning internal communication channels and social media. “We’re always excited to see our people take pride in our community engagement,” Rettig says. “This partnership with our contractors to help our nation’s veterans has certainly been well received.”

“We know from surveys that some 93 percent of our people appreciate working for a company that provides opportunities to be involved in supporting the local community,” Rettig notes.

Communities have also taken notice of the contractors and veterans involved in the program. In multiple local markets, media outlets ranging from broadcast television stations to daily newspapers and online news sites have shone the spotlight on this program. In several markets, media have come out more than once to report live from veterans’ homes as contractors replaced a roof. “We’ve seen TV stations return to neighborhoods to produce stories about additional projects — even in the same market,” Schroder says.

Making an Impact

A November 6, 2017 article in The New York Times noted an emerging trend in corporate philanthropy is the desire by companies to show both customers and employees that their interests extend beyond making profits, and that companies today are determined to show an impact. As the National Roof Deployment Project illustrates, when roofing contractors, communities, and corporations align with non-profits to engage in service, the results can literally make an impact, one shingle at a time.

Research Centers Provide Valuable Information About Roof Performance

The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety Research Center evaluates construction materials and systems in its state-of-the-art testing laboratories. Photos: Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

Until early October of this past year, Chester County, South Carolina, was home to a small, single-story house, similar to thousands of houses across the United States, but unique in almost every way.

What made this small structure one of a kind? The house sat inside the large test chamber at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) Research Center, dwarfed by the six-story chamber’s cavernous interior. The house was built, in fact, to be destroyed.

On Oct. 5, the staff of the IBHS Research Center focused the test chamber’s intense destructive wind power, generated by 105 super-sized fans, on the small structure. Prior to the test, the center had digitized the wind record of an actual storm, and the wind speeds produced by the fans were varied accordingly. In the case of the simulated storm in early October, wind speeds were increased in three phases, up to 120 miles an hour. The house experienced significant damage to its walls and interior, and the garage door was ripped off. But the roof, built to IBHS’ recommended standards, held firm.

The IBHS research facility, which opened in 2010 and is funded by property insurers, evaluates various residential and commercial construction materials and systems. The lab is the only lab in the world that can unleash the power of highly realistic windstorms, wind-driven rain, hailstorms and wildfire ember storms on full-scale one- and two-story residential and commercial buildings in a controlled, repeatable fashion.

The mission of IBHS is to reduce the social and economic effects of natural disasters. And much of its research, like its attack on this small house last October, has focused, at least in part, on the resilience of roofs. As IBHS President and CEO Julie Rochman has noted, “The roof is your first line of defense against anything Mother Nature inflicts … and during a bad storm your roof endures fierce pressure from wind, rain, and flying debris.”

Educating the Industry

In May of 2017, the EPDM Roofing Association (ERA) launched a microsite to help educate the construction industry about the increasing need for resilience in the built environment, and the contributions that EPDM roofing membrane can make to a

IBHS conducts hail research in the Laboratory Building for Small Tests, where hailstones of various sizes are recreated and propelled against roof samples. Photos: Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

resilient system. That effort came in response to the increasing number of extreme weather events. Since last May when ERA first launched its resilience microsite, the pattern of extreme weather has continued unabated, in the form of wildfires throughout the west which were exacerbated by extreme heat, and Hurricanes Harvey and Irma which left devastating floods and wind damage in their wake.

For more than a decade, ERA leadership has supported research about factors that contribute to the resilience of EPDM as a membrane, and how it best functions in various roofing systems. More recently, ERA has invested in site-visits to leading research organizations that generate science-based data about resiliency in building systems, first to Oak Ridge National Laboratories, near Knoxville, Tennessee, and then to the National Research Energy Laboratories (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. Given the complementary goals of ERA and IBHS to help support the creation of truly resilient buildings, ERA leadership welcomed the opportunity to visit the South Carolina research facility.

Analyzing Hail Damage

The hail research at IBHS was of special interest to ERA, given ERA’s research that has consistently shown that EPDM membrane offers exceptionally strong resistance against hail damage. Based on field and test data sponsored by ERA, EPDM roof membranes outperform other roof systems in terms of hail protection. In 2007, ERA conducted tests which showed that EPDM roofing membranes did not suffer membrane damage and avoided leaking problems endemic to other roofing surfaces in similar circumstances. Of the 81 targets installed for that research over different surfaces, 76 did not fail when impacted with hail ice balls up to three inches in diameter. Perhaps most importantly, the impact resistance of both field-aged and heat-aged membranes in this test also clearly demonstrated that EPDM retains the bulk of its impact resistance as it ages.

The IBHS Research Center’s super-sized fans can recreate winds to measure their effects on full-scale one- and two-story residential and commercial buildings. Photos: Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety.

Using this ERA-generated research as a starting point, ERA leadership travelled to IBHS with specific questions in mind, including: What has IBHS research revealed about the impact of hail on various types of roofing membranes and systems? Does the IBHS research reinforce or contradict ERA’s findings? What are the next questions to be asked about the damage that hail can do, and are resilient systems cost-effective?

Hail research at IBHS is conducted in the Laboratory Building for Small Tests, a compact structure with equipment appropriate to replicate large hailstones and hurl them at roof samples. As part of its research, IBHS has worked with the National Weather Service to assess the geographic locations threatened by hail. Individual storms have long been recognized as creating widespread and expensive destruction, but is hail a threat that is confined to just a few specific geographic areas of the country?

In fact, more than 75 percent of the cities in the United States experience at least one hailstorm a year, and the risk extends across the country to all areas east of the Rockies. Annually, hail losses reach more than 1 billion dollars. The IBHS has identified the factors that contribute to the extent of hailstorm damage, with the impact resistance of roofing materials being one of the most critical factors, along with hailstone size, density and hardness. Likewise, the roof is one of the components most vulnerable to hail. Analysis of property damage resulting from a hailstorm in Dallas-Fort Worth in 2011 found that roof losses accounted for 75 percent of property damage in the area, and more than 90 percent of damage payouts.

In their efforts to replicate the true nature of hail, the staff at IBHS has conducted extensive fieldwork, and travelled widely around the United States to gather actual hailstones immediately after a storm. Over the last five years, the IBHS hail team has collected more than 3,500 hailstones, focusing on their dimensions, mass and compressive stress. The stones range from .04 inches in diameter to well over four inches. In addition, IBHS has conducted three-D scans of more than one hundred stones to further educate themselves about the true nature of hailstones, and how they contribute to the overall damage inflicted by hailstorms.

The research findings of IBHS reinforce or complement those of ERA. IBHS has found that unsupported roofing materials perform poorly and ballasted low-slope roofs perform especially well in hailstorms because they disperse energy. IBHS recommends that builders use systems that have impact resistance approval, including their own fortified standard. While IBHS found that newer roofing membranes perform better than older membranes, ERA studies found that new, heat-aged and field-aged EPDM membranes all offered a high degree of hail resistance, demonstrating that EPDM retains the bulk of its impact resistance as it ages.

Both organizations stress that resilient roofing systems in new and retrofitted construction can make good financial sense. According to Julie Rochman of IBHS, “We are really going to continue focusing on moving our culture from one that is focused on post-disaster response and recovery to pre-disaster investment and loss-mitigation … we’re going to be very focused on getting the roofs right in this country.”

For the members of ERA, “getting the roof right” has long been a dominant focus of their businesses. Now, in the face of increasingly frequent and extreme weather events, getting the roof right means gathering up-to-the-minute research about resilient systems, and putting that research to work to create resilient roofs.

SPRI Updates and Improves Roof Edge Standards

Low-slope metal perimeter edge details, including fascia, coping and gutters, are critical systems that can strongly impact the long-term performance of single-ply roofs. Photo: Johns Manville

The effect of high winds on roofs is a complex phenomenon, and inadequate wind uplift design is a common factor in roofing failures. Damage from wind events has historically been dramatic, and wind-induced roof failure is one of the major contributors to insurance claims.

Roofing professionals have long recognized the importance of proper low-slope roof edge and gutter designs, particularly in high-wind conditions. For this reason, SPRI, the association representing sheet membrane and component suppliers to the commercial roofing industry, has spent more than a decade enhancing testing and design standards for these roofing details.

SPRI introduced the first version of its landmark standard, ANSI/SPRI/ES-1 “Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems Used with Low Slope Roofing Systems” in 1998. Since then, the association has continually revised, re-designated and re-approved the document as an ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standard.

Testing of edge securement per ANSI/SPRI ES-1 is required per the International Building Code (IBC), which has been adopted by every state in the country.

This standard provides the basic requirements for wind-load resistance design and testing for roof-edge securement, perimeter edge systems, and nailers. It also provides minimum edge system material thicknesses that lead to satisfactory flatness, and designs to minimize corrosion.

Construction professionals have been successfully using the standard, along with the specifications and requirements of roofing membrane and edge system manufacturers to strengthen their wind designs.

Until recently, the biggest news on the wind design front was the approval of ANSI/SPRI/FM 4435/ES-1, “Wind Design Standard for Edge Systems Used with Low-slope Roofing Systems.” Let’s call it “4435/ES-1” for short. SPRI knew recent post-hurricane investigations by the Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues (RICOWI) and investigations of losses by FM Global consistently showed that, in many cases, damage to a low-slope roof system during high-wind events begins when the edge of the assembly becomes disengaged from the building. Once this occurs, the components of the roof system (membrane, insulation, etc.) are exposed. Damage then propagates across the entire roof system by peeling of the roof membrane, insulation, or a combination of the two.

Recognizing that edge metal is a leading cause of roof failures, SPRI has redoubled its efforts to create a series of new and revised documents for ANSI approval. As has always been the case, ANSI endorsement is a critical step toward the ultimate goal of getting these design criteria included in the IBC.

A Systems Approach to Enhancing Roof Edge Design

Roofing professionals understand that successful roof design requires the proper integration of a wide variety of roofing materials and components. For years, leading roofing manufacturers have taken a “systems” approach to their product lines. Recently, SPRI has zeroed in on the roof edge. Low-slope, metal perimeter edge details include fascia, coping and gutters, are critical systems that can strongly impact the long-term performance of single-ply roofs.

As part of the ES-1 testing protocol, RE-3 tests upward and outward simultaneous pull of a horizontal and vertical flanges of a parapet coping cap. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

SPRI first addressed roof gutters in 2010 with the development of ANSI/SPRI GD-1. The testing component of this document was recently separated out to create a test standard and a design standard. The test standard, GT-1, “Test Standard for Gutter Systems,” which was approved as an American National Standard on May 25, 2016.

Similarly, SPRI has revised 4435/ES-1 to only be a test standard.

Making both edge standards (4435/ES-1 and GT-1) into standalone testing documents makes it easier for designers, contractors and building code officials to reference the testing requirements needed for metal roof edge systems.

IBC requires that perimeter edge metal fascia and coping (excluding gutters), be tested per the three test methods, referred to as RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3 in the ES-1 standard. The design elements of ES-1 were never referenced in code, which caused some confusion as to how ES-1 was to be applied. The latest version of 4435/ES-1 (2017) only includes the tests referenced in code to eliminate that confusion.

Test methods in 4435/ES-1 2017 have the same names (RE-1, RE-2, and RE-3), and use the same test method as 4435/ES-1 2011. Because there are no changes to the test methods, any edge system tested to the 2011 version would not need to be retested using the 2017 version.

FM Global’s input was instrumental in the changes in 2011 when ANSI/SPRI ES-1 incorporated components of FM 4435 to become 4435/ES-1. However, there are no additional FM related changes in the latest 4435/ES-1 standard.

This gravel stop is being tested according to the ANSI/SPRI ES-1 standard using the RE-2 test for fascia systems. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

Per ANSI requirements, 4435/ES-1 2011 needed to be re-balloted, which is required by ANSI every five years. SPRI took this opportunity to have it approved as a test standard only to eliminate the confusion referenced above. FM Global was consulted and indicated it wanted to keep “FM” in the title. (FM was on the canvas list for the test standard and actually uses it as its own test standard.)

With 4435/ES-1 becoming a test standard for coping and fascia only, and GT-1 being a test standard for gutters, SPRI determined that a separate edge design standard was needed. Meet ED-1, a design standard for metal perimeter edge systems.

The design portions of the ES-1 edge and the GD-1 gutter standards have been combined and are now referenced by SPRI as ED-1. It has been developed and is currently being canvassed as an ANSI standard that will provide guidance for designing all perimeter edge metal including fascia, coping, and gutters.

ED-1 will be canvassed per the ANSI process later this year. However, SPRI is not planning to submit ED-1 for code approval.

SPRI ED-1 will include:

Material Design

  • Nailer attachment
  • Proper coverage
  • Recommended material thicknesses
  • Galvanic compatibility
  • Thermal movement
  • Testing requirements
  • “Appliance” attachment to edge systems

Limited Wind Design

  • Load to be required by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
  • Tables similar to those included in 4435/ES-1 will be included for reference.

If this sounds a tad complex, imagine the design work required by the dedicated members of SPRI’s various subcommittees.

The Test Methods in Detail

The GT-1 standard is the newest, so let’s tackle this one first. As noted above, the ANSI/SPRI GT-1 test standard was developed by SPRI and received ANSI Approval in May of 2016. Testing of roof gutters is not currently required by IBC; however, field observations of numerous gutter failures in moderate to high winds, along with investigations by RICOWI following hurricanes have shown that improperly designed or installed gutters frequently fail in high wind events. GT-1 provides a test method that can be used by manufacturers of gutters, including contractors that brake or roll-form gutters, to determine if the gutter will resist wind design loads. Installing gutters tested to resist anticipated wind forces can give contractors peace of mind, and may provide a competitive advantage when presented to the building owner.

This gutter is being tested using the test method specified in ANSI/SPRI GD-1, “Design Standard for Gutter Systems Used with Low-Slope Roofs.” Photo: OMG Edge Systems

GT-1 tests full size and length samples (maximum 12 feet 0 inches) of gutter with brackets, straps, and fasteners installed per the gutter design. It is critical that the gutter be installed with the same brackets, straps, and fasteners, at the same spacing and locations as per the tested design to assure the gutter will perform in the field as tested. The fabricator should also label the gutter and/or provide documentation that the gutter system has been tested per GT-1 to resist the design loads required.

GT-1 consists primarily of three test methods (G-1, G-2, and G-3). Test method G-1 tests the resistance to wind loads acting outwardly on the face of the gutter, and G-2 tests the resistance to wind loads acting upwardly on the bottom of the gutter. G-3 tests resistance to the loads of ice and water acting downwardly on the bottom of the gutter.

Tests G-1 and G-2 are cycled (load, relax, increase load) tests to failure in both the original GD-1 standard and the new GT-1. The only change being that in GD-1 the loads are increased in increments of 10 lbf/ft2 (pound force per square foot) from 0 to failure, and in GT-1 they are increased in increments of 15 lbs/lf (pounds per linear foot) from 0 to 60 lbs/lf, then in 5 lbs/lf increments from above 60 lbs/lf to failure.

Note also that the units changed from lbf/ft2 (pound force per square foot) to lbs/lf (pounds per linear foot), which was done so that the tests could be run using the test apparatus loads without having to convert to pressures.

The GT-1 standard specifies a laboratory method for static testing external gutters. However, testing of gutters with a circular cross-section is not addressed in the standard, nor does the standard address water removal or the water-carrying capability of the gutter. In addition, downspouts and leaders are not included in the scope of the standard.

SPRI intends to submit ANSI/SPRI GT-1 for adoption in the next IBC code cycle.

As referenced above, IBC requires that perimeter edge metal (fascia and coping), excluding gutters, be tested per three test methods, referred to as RE-1, RE-2 and RE-3 in the ES-1 standard.

RE-1 tests the ability of the edge to secure a billowing membrane, and is only required for mechanically attached or ballasted membrane roof systems when there is no peel stop (seam plate or fasteners within 12 inches of the roof edge). RE-2 tests the outward pull for the horizontal face of an edge device. RE-3 tests upward and outward simultaneous pull on the horizontal and vertical sides of a parapet coping cap.

Calculating Roof Edge Design Pressures

All versions of ANSI/SPRI ES-1 and ANSI/SPRI GD-1, the 2011 version of ANSI/SPRI 4435/ES-1, and the new ED-1 standard all provide design information for calculating roof edge design pressures. These design calculations are based on ASCE7 (2005 and earlier), and consider the wind speed, building height, building exposure (terrain), and building use.

A gravel stop failure observed during roof inspections after Hurricane Ike in Sept. 2008. Photo: OMG Edge Systems

However, as stated above, IBC requires that the load calculation be per Chapter 16 of code, so the SPRI design standards are intended only as a reference for designers, fabricators, and installers of metal roof edge systems.

ES-1-tested edge metal is currently available from pre-manufactured suppliers, membrane manufacturers and metal fabricators that have tested their products at an approved laboratory.

The roofing contractor can also shop-fabricate edge metal, as long as the final product is tested by an approved testing service. The National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) has performed lab testing and maintains a certification listing for specific edge metal flashings using Intertek Testing Services, N.A. Visit www. nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/its details.pdf for further details.

A list of shop fabricators that have obtained a sub-listing from NRCA to fabricate the tested edge metal products are also available at www. nrca.net/rp/technical/details/files/its details/authfab.aspx.

SPRI Continues to Take Lead Role in Wind Testing

As far back as 1998, SPRI broke ground with its ANSI/SPRI/ES-1 document addressing design and testing of low-slope perimeter edge metal. Today, the trade association has a variety of design documents at the roofing professional’s disposal, and is working to get ED-1 approved as an Edge Design Standard to be used for low-slope metal perimeter edge components that include fascia, coping and gutters.

All current and previously approved ANSI/SPRI standards can be accessed directly by visiting https://www.spri.org/publications/policy.htm.

For more information about SPRI and its activities, visit www.spri.org or contact the association at info@spri.org.

Bonding 101: What Do Roofing Contractors Need to Know About Bonds?

In a number of states, roofing contractors need to get licensed in order to perform roofing work. Obtaining a roofer license bond is a common licensing requirement. Not all states require a roofing contractor license and bonding, but contractors may have to get a bond to meet county criteria, too.

Even if you’re not new to bonding, the concept of how surety bonds work may be a bit difficult to grasp. However, it’s important to understand the basics if you need to get bonded as a part of your contractor licensing.

Besides a legal requirement to fulfill, bonds are also a strong sign for your customers that you are safe to do business with. Being licensed and bonded is one of your advantages on the market.

Here’s an overview of the states which require roofing contractors to obtain a bond, as well as the most significant facts about bonding that matter for your roofing business.

Where You Need to Post a Roofing License Bond

There is no nationwide requirement for roofing license and bonding. Each state defines its rules regulating roofing specialists. Usually state contractor license boards are in charge of the licensing process. They include roofing as one of the specialty contractor licenses that can be obtained. Additionally, towns and counties may impose their own licensing requirements for contractors operating on their territory.

If you want to operate in California, Texas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Illinois, or Arizona, you will have to obtain a roofing contractor license and bond. The bond amount in Oklahoma is $5,000. In Illinois it is $10,000. California and Minnesota roofers have to obtain a $15,000 bond. Roofers in Texas have to post the biggest bond amount—$100,000.

Town and county licensing varies across the country, so it’s best to check with your local authorities about their exact requirements and bond amounts. In some cases, you will need to obtain a general contractor license and bonding, while other licensing bodies will require a special roofing license and bond.

How Surety Bonds Work

Roofer license bonds are a type of contractor license bonds, which are required from a number of construction specialists. As such, they are a contract between your roofing business, the licensing authority, and a surety. The bond provider backs your contractorship and guarantees financially for you in front of the local or state body issuing your license.

In order to get bonded, you need to pay a bond premium. It is a small percentage of the bond amount that you have to obtain. The premium is determined on the basis of your financial situation. Your surety provider examines your personal credit score, as well as business finances and any assets and liquidity. That’s how it can assess how risky your profile is.

If your finances are in good shape, your bond premium is likely to be in the range of 1 percent to 5 percent. For a $15,000 bond, this can mean a bond price of $150-$750. To reduce your bond premium, you can work on improving your credit score and financials before you apply for the bond.

As you need to stay bonded throughout your licensing period, you can decrease your bond cost with every bond renewal.

Responsibilities Under the Bond

Licensing authorities require a surety bond from roofing specialists in order to exercise a higher level of control over their operations. The purpose of the bond is to protect your customers.

However, it does not protect your business like insurance does, for example. It ensures your compliance with relevant laws by providing an extra layer of guarantee for the general public. In practical terms, this means an extra assurance that you will perform the contractual roofing work you have committed to.

In case you transgress from your contractual and legal obligations, the bond can provide a financial compensation for an affected party via a claim. Such situations include not completing the work you have agreed to in a contract, delaying the completion, delivering low-quality work, or similar issues with performing your contractual agreements.

If a claim against you is proven, you are liable to reimburse the claimant up to the penal sum of your bond. If your bond is, say, $15,000, that’s the maximum compensation that can be claimed.

At first, your surety may cover the claim costs. This is the immediate protection for consumers who have been negatively affected by your actions. However, your responsibility under the bond indemnity agreement is that you have to repay the surety fully. This means that the surety bond functions similarly to an extra line of credit, which is extended to your business temporarily.

Bond claims can be quite costly for your business, not only in terms of finances, but also by harming your reputation as a professional in the field. The wisest course of action is to avoid them.

Roofing contractors in a number of states have to obtain a surety bond as a part of their licensing. If you’re launching your business as a roofer, make sure to check with your state authorities about the requirements you have to meet. This will ensure your legal compliance, as well as a smooth start in your trade.

About the Author: Todd Bryant is the president and founder of Bryant Surety Bonds.