I need to set my sights on learning the MPI standards. I work for a small/medium size firm and do not know if we can belly up for buying the standard from the MPI web site.
Do we really need a copy of the full standard? We have a full MasterSpec subscription and it seems like there is a real good information in the 099100 Painting Evaluation.
Any advice on getting started? Resources? Trials and tribulations?
Thanks!
The standard, or I should say standards if you do any repainting, have detailed descriptions of the systems you are specifying.
If you are willing to trust Masterspec, you can get by without looking at the manuals and produce a valid spec.
A much bigger problem in using the MPI standards is the limited number of products approved for any given coating number and the difficulty of finding even one manufacturer that can meet the spec for all of the coating systems required for the project. For example, specifying the high-performance achitectural latex instead of the “regular” latex coatings will severely limit your options.
The situation is a little less of a problem if you are on the west coast, since more of the local manufacturers there have submitted products to MPI. In other parts of the country, especially those with evironmental restrictions, the available products list may be reduced to zero.
I went ahead and bought the manual so I could better understand the systems being used in MasterSpec. It has been hugely helpful to me. I use it to describe systems in better detail and understand them better. The caveat is that not all the products listed under any given type of coating are apples-to-apples. I do not list manufacturers, only describe the system. With submittals of product data this seems to be working so far.
I use the MPI manual and sometimes specify MPI paints. The problem I see (and have heard from paint reps) is that MPI causes “a race to the bottom”. That is manufacturers are trying to just squeak by the quality requirements to be classified. You won’t find premium products in MPI.
Also it costs manufacturers to have MPI list their products so manufacturers do not list all their products.
The problem I run into with MPI is that it excludes some high quality products and reliable manufacturers. Our office has had really great results with a particular manufacturer, but their company and products are currently excluded from MPI and, consequently, have been removed from Masterspec. It is a time-consuming problem for me when the architects want that specific manufacturer but Masterspec requires me to specify everything according to MPI standards. They could very well be above the MPI standard of quality. At my request, one reliable manufacturer sent me the following regarding MPI:
Pros of MPI:
Easy selection of complete coating systems organized by substrate, third party evaluation of major paint companies, quickly becoming the industry standard, allows someone with little paint knowledge to write a decent spec, allows for more competitive bidding, saves a ton of time doing research.
Cons of MPI:
MPI is a business too – Independent testing is very expensive for paint manufacturers, therefore the product selection is sometimes biased towards larger companies that can afford to have one or more products tested for each category. Coatings systems called out in the manual (MPI # Primer, MPI # Intermediate Coat, MPI # Finish Coat) don’t always have tested products from a single manufacturer that are compatible with each other. Manufacturers tend to send in products that are “commercial grade” as opposed to “premium grade” in order to be competitive. The products listed aren’t always the best blend of high-performance and reasonable cost. For this reason MPI can never be a substitute for product reps rather than a reference.
I believe you will find that all the products listed under a given MPI number do meet the same performance standards. The test protocol is intended to provide a “real world” measure of durability. However, there are many products that easily exceed the criteria, often provided by the manufacturer to at least get something in there to be competitive. They may have never tested their products with the MPI test protocol and frankly don’t know know what will pass.
There is more resistance to adoption of MPI by some of the bigger manufacturers because they may have hundreds of products; in both consumer and professional lines, for each coating type and gloss level, and in several grades of quality for each. They may also have coating types for which there is no appropriate MPI number to fit into.
That said, until MPI provided uniform testing, each manufacturer was free to design and conduct their own tests. At least using MPI is a more objective standard than accepting each manufacturer’s word that this is his “best quality” product and therefore equal to his competitor’s best.
I am currently writing specs for a very large project where the owner’s spec masters, which we must use “as is,” are based on “Manufacturer’s Best Quality”, not MPI. When the submittals come in, we will have to accept whatever we get.
Just because MasterSpec requires you to use MPI doesn’t mean you have to do what MasterSpec says.
It is possible to identify quality painting systems using a “3 or equal” rule, I realize it’s a bit more trouble and you need to know what you are looking at, but at least you will get (hopefully) the quality you want on your project.
and keep in mind also (part of this was my response to some of our local reps who were complaining that they had higher quality than some of their listed counterparts) that for many projects, you really don’t need high performance anything. I would say that 90% of the paint on my projects goes on interior wallboard and the Owner is on a 3 to 5 year repaint schedule no matter how durable the finish is. we’re not looking for a wall that will hold up for daily washing for the next 8 years, like we used to need for health care work.
for high performance coatings, I do specify them by name and system number.
Regardless of opinions to the contrary, my opinion of MPIs rating system (and Arcoms adoption of that standard) is less than enthusiastic. I specify, and expect to receive, high quality paint materials. I do that by listing three specific manufacturers and their specific products for each substrate and gloss level appropriate to each project. Were I to blindly require compliance with a certain MPI standard, #53 for example, I could, and most assuredly would, get a manufacturers Third quality since they have three separate and distinct paints listed under the same MPI System.
Further, theres no way I could even reject a submittal of that Third quality since it does comply with the specified MPI Standard.
As long as MPI Standards continue to list 100% Acrylic Latex paints and Vinyl-Acrylic Latex paints as apparent Equals, their standards wont appear in my specs.
I’m pretty hard-headed, but feel free to try to convince me that I’m wrong.
Doug:
That is a very real concern which I’ve tried to address in my masters by adding the following:
“If a manufacturer provides more than one product within a MPI category, provide the highest quality product within that category.”
Although I haven’t used the new MPI sections (yet), I can’t verify whether or not this will actually work…I’d like to think it would.
I’m still stuck in the ol’ “specify exactly what you want” mode, because one of my favorite manufacturers has not submitted to MPI…but they’re starting to consider it now. So, I might be making the MPI switch here shortly.
In response to Richard Baxter’s observation: He notes that MPI “excludes” many manufacturers. Actually (as Richard is no doubt aware) the manufacturers are excluding themselves! Either they refuse to belly-up to the bar and test, or their product cannot meet the minimum MPI standards for the coating type they are trying to get approved. If the manufacturers are sufficiently pressured to use an objective standard such as MPI, they will test. One excellent place to start to apply the pressure is the specifiers. We need to repeat to their reps over and over: get tested or get lost.
I make frequent list of MPI’s approved product list http://www.paintinfo.com/mpi/approved/index.htm and list only products from manufactures that I want to include. There is no charge for access to this list. This takes a bit of extra time, but MPI’s list is frequently updated so I know it is current. I share some of your other frustrations about manufacturer’s attitudes toward this system, but it does level the playing field somewhat.
Unless you are specifying for a government agency or a large organization with facilities here and/or abroad, I don’t know why anyone would want to introduce the complexity inherant with the MPI rating system. Many of the major issues have already been brought to light.
However, one that hasn’t been elaborated upon is review of submittals. Paint is among the last submittals received. At this point there are few budgeted hours remaining to perform lengthy evaluations. The project team mostly is making sure they get the specified colors and sheens. Additionally, While MPI is known and understood to varying degrees by specifiers, I don’t believe this to be the case with many project architects and interior designers. Furthermore, I would guess that the standard is not in most firms’ libraries.
Since most of our work falls in the one region, I specify the three or four manufacturers whose representatives we have built strong relationships nd the specific products which our firm has come to rely upon.
I think reviewing a properly prepared MPI submittal takes the least time of all. If it’s the MPI coating number you spec’d, and it’s on the MPI approved list, (as evidenced by the copy of the list included in the submittal), you’re done! No trying to figure out if the alternate brand and model is actually equal to what you listed. Plus, compare this with how many hours go into preparing an office master with “equal-ed” lists of paint brands and models. Mucho, I can tell you.
OK, Im going to try this one more time to see if anyone can help me understand this MPI system. Using specific examples from MPI System #53, and using Pittsburgh Paints as an example, there are three separate and distinct Pittsburgh paints listed under #53. Im going to focus on two of them. They are (with manufacturers tech data):
Manor Hall; 100% acrylic latex; coverage 400-450 sq ft per gal; 1.3-1.5 dft; vol solids 36%
Speedhide 6-70; vinyl acrylic latex; coverage 400-500 sq ft per gal; 1.1 1.3 dft; vol solids 32%
A quick comparison of the numbers clearly shows that these products are Not Equal. Yet they are both listed as Meeting MPI #53.
Now lets say that I really do want a high quality acrylic latex paint. I cant just say MPI #53 cause I might get Speedhide 6-70, right? If I say 100% Acrylic Latex meeting MPI #53, I wont really know if thats what Im getting unless I, or someone else in my CA group, spend time doing a detailed review of the submittal, right? But, if I know that I want Manor Hall, and say that I want Manor Hall, I should get what I want and submittal review is a slam dunk.
I think the time spent doing product research (thats my job after all) to determine the proper Equals for paint is time well spent when I can be assured that the paint on my projects is exactly the kind of paint that I believe is appropriate. Frankly I dont see how this is any different from roofing, sealants, waterproofing, or curtainwall. I sure wouldnt rely on some industry standard to determine for me if various products of various manufacturers for those important building elements are Equal!
And Ronald, I don’t think that asking for the Manufacturer’s highest quality will necessarily get you what you want. Using my example, Speedhide is PPG’s Highest Quality “Professional” grade paint while Manor Hall is their high quality “Consumer” grade paint (I think).
Doug’s example illustrates my point. I did my initial research several years ago. Other than a yearly review of my “equals” there is little maintenance required on my Section 09 90 00.
About once a year a print my “equals” list and hand it to four manufacturers representatives. Among my requests is for each to verify current production and OTC/VOC compliance. Sometimes they will note a new product. Many times these are “niche” products that don’t have equivalents among the other manufacturers. They don’t get into my master.
As I mentioned in my earlier post we have strong relationships with these representatives. They are all active CSI members and all come into the office regularly to update their information. I can’t remember ever having an issue with our specified products.
In my mind it is more clear and more concise to specify “Manor Hall; 100% acrylic latex” if that is what the owner (or architect) wants, rather than “MPI System #53” (with or without exceptions).
It should literally take minutes to compare a data sheet and a draw-down to the specified requirements. What could be easier?
The MPI system has to be viewed like any other standard–it’s a minimum performance threshold.
Are all resilient wall base products that comply with ASTM F 1861 equal? No.
Are all ceiling panels that comply with ASTM E 1264 equal? No.
All you can expect is that the products meeting these standards have achieved a certain level of minimal performance. It is still up to the specifier to further define the salient characteristics that narrows the list to those products that meet the specific requirements of the project.
If you’re fortunate enough to be able to specify a particular product, then ignore the MPI system and specify that product outright.
I am not going to defend the limitations of MPI that exist, mostly because of manufacturers who won’t participate. But…
Maybe one knows that a one PPG coating is better than another PPG coating because the PPG rep advises you of that. However, there is NO objective way to compare two different brands, no matter what the reps tell you. Solids content does not do it. There are ASTM standards for testing durability, hiding and scrubability of paint, but outside of high-performance coatings, you will not find a manufacturer who will share this data.
MPI does this testing for you, using their own test methods which you can get from them.
If you want a higher-performing system than INT 9.2A Latex (which includes coating #53) then you can select 9.2B High Performance Architectural Latex. (Yes, I know there are fewer products there. This is why manufacturers need to be shoved towards MPI.)
“Test methods which you can get from them”
John,
I was not aware this information was available; we have their binders, etc. Where can I obtain MPI test methods? Can I also get product test results?
MPI sells copies of their test methods. Unfortunately, they are a bit pricey if you want the entire collection. I’m pretty sure they do not share test results for specific brands, but if they list a product, by definition it has met the test criteria. I should note that not every coating type is actually physically tested. When looking at the approved product listings, you will see a bar near the upper right that says “MPI Intended Use” or “MPI Evaluated Performance.” Only the Evaluated Performance products are tested. The Intended Use products are evaluated on the basis of product data and certifications submitted by the paint manufacturer to MPI.
I have been told by MPI that occasionally they have had products from known, reputable manufacturers that have not passed the test for the category the manufacturer was testing in. Thus emphasizing my point that objective testing is sorely needed.