Scope of Field Painting

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions
1

I recently had a discussion with a client about the scope of painting (field painting). The contractor is claiming that a certain element of the Work does not get painted because it is not specifically identified to be painted. The specs are specific about what is not to be painted but a bit vague about defining each element to be painted.

I will now add a catch-all phrase to the painting spec that essentially says, “paint everything except what is specifically stated not to be painted.”

I am seeking comments about how to best state the scope of field painting work, interior and exterior. Also, I would like comments concerning distinguishing between field painting with architectural paints, field-applied industrial coatings (like multi-component urethane coatings on exterior steel) and shop-applied coatings on aluminum (such as Kynar 500 / Hylar 5000 fluoropolymer coatings).

/John Regener

2

John: On a recent project I finally resorted to a finish table because we had shop applied Kynar type coatings, and then four different types of field applied higher performance coatings, (and of course,just “regular” paint as well.) We labeled all the coatings with “Type” numbers, specified them in the painting section under “high performance field applied coatings” and then used a table at the end of the section to list everything that was to receive each coating type. It was tedious but so far (the job is out to bid) we have not heard questions that can’t be answered with “see the table on page…”.
Anne Whitacre

3

John/Anne

The AIA Masterspec has a few general paragraphs in Part 1 of the section that covers, what I think is a good description of surfaces to be covered and what surfaces are not to be covered.

In addition, individual sections such as metal siding or alluminum storefronts where the paint finish is specified in that section would be excluded from section 09900. Also adding a note in some sections such as 08210 about field finishing of doors in section 09900.

Keith Lowell
Lowell Specifications, Inc.
Freeport, ME 04032
ktlowell@aol.com

4

I’ve been using John’s method of “painting everything except…” for many years without incident. I just include a list of items not to be painted, and include carpet, glass, etc., just in case the contractor is a wise guy. I do not make an exception for shop primed items, such as electrical panels, etc. I require them to be reprimed per the paint section.

5

We also use the “cover your behind approach” to painting and have for years (approximately 25 now). To my knowledge we’ve never had a problem. The trick is to exclude (much easier to substract than to add) what is not to be painted.

Does anyone, other than this firm, feel that 05080 in MasterFormat is where shop applied high performance coating should be specified? We don’t believe that shop applied coating belong in Div 9.

6

I agree that 05080 is where “high performance” coatings on metal … a shop or factory applied coating system, that is … should be specified. It would be appropriate to use 05080 when there are several products to be coated and the coating should match for color, especially if there is a custom color.

In practice in “greater” Los Angeles, it means writing 05080 to specify application of a Kynar 500/Hylar 5000 resin-based finish to be applied by a firm such as Certified Enameling.

When Los Angeles and Orange County chapters of CSI did a plant tour through Certified Enameling during this past year, it was interesting to see the variety of products being coated. There were aluminum storefront framing members, entrance doors, skylight frames and guardrailings going through the line. There could also have been expansion joint covers, windows and curtainwall framing going through.

It is conceivable that a project could have all these elements. Writing a single section … 05080 … to specify the finish coating conforms with the spec writing concept of “say it once and only once, and in the most appropriate location.”

7

Has anyone had success field finishing (with either Paint or high performance coating) existing prefinished (Kynar) metal siding panels?

The existing exterior panels are faded by 5 years facing East and receiving ocean breezes. We want to have a new finish over new and old to even out the potentially patchwork potential.
Thanks

8

Megaflon (PVDF) by Keeler & Long/PPG was used for field applied finish over existing Kynar-finished panels and aluminum curtain wall framing on one of our projects and we are quite satisfied.

BP/Amoco changed the color scheme on hundreds of gas stations using this finish system.

9

Bonnie,

There are a number of quality paints that will finish over a kynar based product.

One of the better high performance coatings is a Tnemec product, 1075/1076 Series that lets you put on a semi-gloss sheen. Many others are a higher gloss.

Don’t fall for a recommendation to use a kynar based ADS (air dry system). None of these has the blessing of the original coating, none has any warranty of any kind.

However, the best recommendation I could give is the use of the PPG product, Coraflon. Coraflon is the field coating version of Megaflon. Megaflon is the next generation of resinous coatings after kynar (kynar is the resin in PPG’s Duranar, lumaflon is the resin in Megaflon). Every color available in Duranar is available in Megaflon, and many other colors that are not available in Duranar or any other kynar based color are only available in Megaflon - reason being that the resin is clear while the kynar resin in a milky color.

Coraflon can produce any color and any sheen that Megaflon can produce. You can control the sheen in these coatings within 5% over a range from 10% gloss (very flat) to 80% gloss (very high gloss). You can also do all the metalic colors in Coraflon. So you have quite a range of colors and sheens available to you.

Nicest thing about Coraflon, it comes with a 10 year warranty. Now that is something to consider given your situation.

And the fact that you can coat virtually any substrate and still get the warranty.

What kind of experience have I personally had with this coating? A couple small projects recoating entrances. A variety of projects where I wanted architecturally exposed structural steel entrance canopies to have the same metallic coating that is on my entrances and curtain wall components (new construction). But the largest single application was 3 existing 10+ story buildings part of an existing office complex that were built in the late 1960s (I think) and which were anodized aluminmum curtain wall and porcelain coated metal panels with the top of the building being architectural louvers. This was done with Coraflon, each building was done separately. They were completed about 3 years ago now I think. Color is a light grey in a 30% sheen (the original color was a dark brown). There is also a building down the street from my office in downtown DC that was done with Coraflon, a different architectural firm did that one. Its been completed about 4 yeras now. I mention this because it was coated in a high density urban environment, lots of other buildings adjacent to it in the same block, cars, traffic, etc. Everything that I have seen coated this was still looks as great as it did when it was finished.

Also, Coraflon is a low VOC product.

Let me know if you are interested - you really do need to talk to the right group in PPG, and you will end up with a local contact who will work with you and with the Owner for the selection of the best applicator. The applicators all have to be certified applicators from the manufacturer. I can give you the name of the Coraflon contact to get you on the right track.

Even if you don’t choose this product, you ought to investigate it. Its absolutely fantastic going over existing kynar based coatings and you have so much control over color and sheen.

William

10

Richard,

A couple years ago, PPG split off the ‘field’ application version of Megaflon and renamed it Coraflon. Its basically the same product, but they wanted to give it a distinctive name separating its identity from the shop coated system.

William

11

I have also been asked recently to include a provision requiring the painting of everything except items stated not to be painted. I’m not really opposed to it, but Im not yet sure Im convinced that it is really in the best interest of the owner. It seems that it would be very easy to overlook something, especially when last minute changes in materials are made sometimes without even informing the spec writer. It is true that failing to mention a surface that needed painting will require a change order; and thats bad for the architect and the owner. But failing to mention a surface that should not be painted, could either lead to unwanted painting or a reduction in the painters work, for which the owner will never be fully compensated. It seems to me that the reason there are no problems with specifying painting in this exclusionary manner is that the subcontractor can safely put every unmentioned surface in their bid and then when the item turns out not to require paint, they offer little or no credit back to the owner. Of course a painter isnt going to complain about being paid for work they ended up not having to do. Is this really looking out for the Owners interests?

Also, in reference to Keiths comment above, it should be noted that the latest update to Masterspec has removed, without explanation, the paragraphs in the painting sections describing surfaces not to be painted. Id like to know their reasoning.

12

Everything to be painted should be indicated to be painted. Paint schedules, notations, combined with exclusions in the paint specification. How does one design a project with intentionally unpainted concrete, concrete masonry, or galvanized metal and other surfaces with such language as, “paint everything except. . .”?

13

Everything to be painted should be indicated to be painted. Paint schedules, notations, combined with exclusions in the paint specification. How does one design a project with intentionally unpainted concrete, concrete masonry, or galvanized metal and other surfaces with such language as, “paint everything except. . .”?

14

the “surfaces not to be painted” was deleted because it can get ridiculously long – and can never be a “complete” list. the committee felt that it would be more productive to list those things that should be painted (or are to be painted) and not get involved with trying to list the “negative” of that. I think as a committee we are trying to stress more that the general contractor is actually required to coordinate the job, and there is some interest in trying to do two mutually exclusive goals:
1)make the contractor responsible for actually reading the documents and coordinating them
2) solve every problem that occured on the last five jobs.

15

As a painting estimator ‘lurking’ on your forum I find this to be a significant issue. In real world architectural practice I find the architect’s finish schedule to be the most important source of information as to the owner’s intent. Issues that come up related to finish schedules are usually: exposed structure ceilings, sealed concrete floors (do they require a sealer in addition to whatever curing compound is used), wood doors factory or field finished, etc
Specifcation related issues are usually rooftop and interior mechanical equipment, CMU which may be integrally colored and therefore no field finish, aluminum clad windows (sometimes painted wood on the interior side, sometimes clad both sides). For most projects simply listing substrates to be painted such as drywall, plaster, etc serves well enough.
For industrial projects, for example waste water, there is a much greater need for close coordination between specifier and engineering because there is no indusrty standard practice for coating submerged concrete, it seems to depend on the engineer’s preference and the owner’s past experience. Coating systems are also much more expensive on these type projects. I have seen significant cost increases and inconsistent bidding on these type projects as a result of the lack of coordination between specifiers and owners/engineers