March 2003
Search    

An attorney's view of proprietary specs | Letters

Letters 5 stars5 stars5 stars5 stars5 stars

An attorney's view of proprietary specs

1 person has posted a comment


In the October 2002 issue, various authors championed the pros and cons of proprietary specifications in "In their opinions," page 18. The writers listed numerous advantages for using proprietary specifications, which ultimately yield far greater returns to building owners and the tax-paying public.

However, one author strongly advocated against the use of proprietary specifications, citing several disadvantages. Unfortunately, this author's arguments are based on the mistaken assumption that "proprietary" means proprietary "product" specifications. Public bid proposals written around a manufacturer's proprietary "product" specification may, in fact, limit competition.

But as the other writers seem to understand, the industry frequently uses the phrase "proprietary specification" when referring to another category of specification that might more objectively be called "performance-based." Reputable roofing manufacturers that differentiate their products based on objective, laboratory-proven, performance-based specifications provide a great service to the roofing industry.

As an attorney specializing in construction litigation, I think it is important to differentiate specifications that cite a proprietary product name from those that define specific criteria for material or...



To read the article in its entirety, please log in or register (registration is free).

Log in or register for FREE access to this article and other Professional Roofing online content.

Not a professionalroofing.net user?

Register now for free access
  • Full access to every article
  • Online Web exclusive information
  • Photo gallery
  • Breaking news
  • Online classified ads

Already a professionalroofing.net user?

Log in now

User name:

Password:

 


Login help
Click here to have your user name and password emailed to you.




Comments (1) Login to post a comment or rating

Posted by doug wicks on 4/2/2014, User rating 
not ratednot ratednot ratednot ratednot rated
Report Abuse
this is the same attorney who threatened me when I found that a public college was using a non licensed designer that violates NJSA 45:8-41 for a roof job using Garland on this and 5 other NJ jobs and took the matter to the NJ Board of Architects who fined an architect who stupidly plan stamped the specification and lost his license for 5 years When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas

NRCA NRCA