Here is a hypothetical situation Id like you all to consider:
Our hypothetical specifier, lets call him George, recently removed Acme, one of the major manufacturers of a certain product, from his specs. For many, many years, the A/Es in Georges town based their designs on Acme; the manufacturers rep was very responsive and helpful during the design phase, and excellent with follow up. About 3 years ago, the old product rep was let go, and a younger (and presumably lower-salaried) rep took over, not only in Georges market region, but in four others, whose product reps were also fired or retired at about the same time.
George still hasnt met the Acme product rep, even after three years. The project architects and designers in Georges office complain that the rep doesnt return their phone calls and emails on a timely basis, if at all. Now most people in the office base their designs on one of Acmes major competitors (with, not all that coincidentally, a very responsive product representative) and Acme is out of the list of manufacturers in the spec.
A large project, lets assume hypothetically, is out to bid. The spec is a closed basis of design based on one of Acmes competitors and listing four other competitors as other approved manufacturers; of course Acme was excluded from the list. Assume also that Acme and all the listed competitors are very comparable in quality; there are no issues with the product itself. During the bidding process, the Acme rep submits a request for substitution.
Our hypothetical specifier George is inclined to reject the substitution based on his firms recent history with the reps lack of responsiveness. What do you think professional ethics demand in this situation? Can your opinion of the representatives responsiveness be the sole reason for rejecting a substitution, or must you base your rejection only on the salient qualities of the product itself?
Any similarity in this hypothetical situation and any real project or real specifier is completely coincidental, of course.
An architect can reject a substitution for ANY reason what so ever. We do not have to explain ourselves. We commonly reject substitutions due to lack of review time. Our motto is, “When in doubt, throw it out!”
I believe the ethical question comes in to whether you should include that product in your specs for future projects.
If your scenario indicates your sole reason for rejecting the product because you don’t like the representative, I don’t agree. If you are presenting the possibility that this rep may or will not service the product (or your client) after installation, I agree that may be a valid reason for rejection. As a professional, you need to ask yourself “does rejecting this product serve the best interest of my client”? If the answer is yes, don’t hesitate your rejection.
There is no compulsion to put ACME back into the specifications, but if there is a value to the project (ie: Cost Savings), you are doing your client a diservice in rejecting the substitution request if ACME is"…very comparable in quality" and “…there are no issues with the product itself”, and potentially performing an illegal action if it is a public bid situation.
If a product is specified as “basis-of-design” and 3 or 4 other comparable manufacturers/products are also included in the spec - it is my understanding that, even in public work, there is nothing that says you have to accept the substitution.
That being said, if the product is indeed comparable to the specified products and there is a “value to the project”, then maybe you can accept it. However, it’s been my experience that in cases like this, the Client also has a say in the acceptance of substitutions, and should be advised that the architect has experienced a lack of responsiveness from the rep., knowing this, the Client may decide to reject the request, or if there is “value to the project”, decide to accept it, but at least he has the knowledge he may have to deal with non-responsiveness in the future.
I have removed a couple of manufacturers/products from my masters as a result of the manufacturer or his representative being non-responsive, or exhibiting a lack of support for their products in my area.
If there is a particularly good product that I want to continue to use, but there is an issue with the local rep., I either go directly to the manufactuer and make my concerns known, or find another way to deal with the rep.
I think it makes a difference if the rep. really adds value to the product itself by providing some type of on-site service/support. Some types of products really need this, and a rep who is not responsive may hinder the project schedule by his/her lack of action. Rejection of the substitution should definitely be considered.
On the other hand, if the nature of the rep’s support and service is directed at making the architect’s job easier and her/his lack of attention to the design community does not affect the installation or performance of the product, I think you are shakier ground, especially in public sector work. It may be annoying to not have all the information you need, but the product may actually be the best one that could be selected.
I do object to a marketing strategy that seems to emphasize substitutions rather than service to the design community. It can be more than a little annoying.
I was ready to come down directly with the “you don’t need to accept it” folks, but after reading Richard’s comment, I’m more inclined to agree that there is a difference between types of products – if I need or expect on site observation or attentiveness, the newer unresponsive rep’s product won’t get on my job. On the other hand, if the product is something like carpet – where the carpet rep is not actually an installer – then it might not matter so much.
I did have an issue like that some years ago when a very competent Seattle area rep was replaced with the distributor’s girlfriend. the products were so ubiquitous that they never left the specs, but that catalog hasn’t been updated in at least a decade. (good thing the information is available on line)
The difference in type of products is an interesting angle; some things do require much more hands on product representation than others. And of course ethics demand that we put the interests of the Owner first. So I am in agreement that if the lack of responsiveness from the product rep will hinder the project, we are on firm ground rejecting the substitution.
The Owner’s input on substitutions is essential after the contract is signed; at that time, the substitution will lead to a change in the contract. During bid, however, I don’t think the Owner needs to review. It is up to the A/E to determine if the proposed substitution is in fact comparable to the BOD, just like presumably he or she did with the four approved manufacturers.
When asked by a manutacturer “How do I get inclued in your specifications”.
My resonse has been:
I need three things from your company.
Adequate technical data to assure me your porduct is quality I want in my specs and is available in a timely manner.
Your company keeps me informed of new porducts; and equally important of existing products that are being discontinute or modified.
Should we ever have a problem in the field with you product you, or if project is out of town, your conterpart in that city will be on job site within 24 hours of notification to you. I want immediate response from your company because I do not want the problem camaouflaged in the field before a manufacturers represenative arrive on site.
If the company is not responding to items 1 and 2, I have do not think I will response to item 3. Thefore I do not spec that company.
With out resonse to providing current tech data a spec writer is subject to problems.
To quote my wife
There is a old Chinese saying “No ticke no washe”
There is a old spec writer saying “No teche data no specie”
I will stay anon because of the content of this post. Large manufacturer, rep stabbed arch in back by badmouthing competitors directly to owner. 5 meetings later design team got what they originally designed and it worked fine. Result…Large manufacturer removed from spec. Fast forward 4 or 5 years. Rep left big manufacturer and went to another. Result…original large manufacturer put back into spec, new manufacturer removed. To me, the rep is huge. If non responsive and lacking integrity how can I trust him/her to properly protect us and the owner. Even though the products are equivalent, I would have no problem rejecting the substitution from the rep that I did not trust.
The integrity of product reps is unquestionably important; we rely on them for correct product information, for industry standard updates, and for honest appraisal of competition. If, however, a product rep fails to be honest and reliable, I contact the company they represent. If THEY are unresponsive to this, showing lack of respect for what I’m trying to do, and if the parent company displays lack of integrity by allowing bad behavior on the part of its representatives, then they are out of my spec. If, however, the parent company responds by reprimanding the representative, why would I remove them? We all make mistakes.
I don’t need to be anonymous on this -
I have had similar issue happen to me, where a rep went behind my back to the owner and “bad mouthed” both me (or my firm) and the other manufacturers saying “we were costing the owner money” because we wouldn’t accept their product.
I’ve told various reps up front on more than 1 occassion that if they ever go directly to the owner behind my back, that it’s the fastest way to get deleted from my spec and that they are history, period.
I also have to agree with Ken on responsiveness.
There is a large manufacturer located in the southeast (to remain nameless) who became non-responsive about 4 years ago here on the West Coast, basically by becoming unavailable.
We first had difficulty finding a local rep. and when we finally did, he never followed through. Then he disappeared because the company decided to eliminate the local reps.
I have taken the company out of my specifications because in order to get to them you have call a sales rep in the midwest and their technical support is on the East Coast.
I am able to contact a local rep for the same material here in southern California and he is able to meet at my office to review the project or go out to the job site if necessary within a reasonable period of time. Their service to my firm has been invaluable.
I’m sure that if I needed the same kind of service from the other manufacturer, they would not fly someone across the country for a 2 hour meeting.
Hence, they are not able to give me the support I need.
In the “hypothetical” case I posed, the problem is more with the manufacturer than with the representative. After all, it was the manufacturer who fired several old reps and hired one new guy to take over a much larger territory. It’s not really an integrity issue with either rep or manufacturer (although I agree that unethical behavior on the part of a rep is sure grounds for being cut from the spec). This question deals solely with responsiveness, not at all with honesty.
I like Ken’s three points. The best product representatives are around when you need the information, even if you don’t KNOW you need it. They help you fix problems when they occur, and they do it in a timely manner so that small problems don’t become huge.
An A/E firm has a project out for bids by Invitation Only.
A Contractor submits a request to be added to bidders list.
Said Contractor is know to construction buildings according to CD and provided a Quality Building. But by past history is know for being 3 to 6 months late in delivery of completed project.
Should A/E recommend to Owner said Contractor be added to approved bidders list. Knowing that completion of Owners building will be at lease 3 to 6 months later than other Contractors.
Remember Owner will not have use of Facility for an additonal 3 to 6 months which means additonal cost of construction loan and loss of reveniue.
Also A/E will have an additional 3 to 6 months of CA manhours.
Summary: Responsivness has to be one of the items considered when selecting a Product by a manufacturer, a Contractor or an Architect for a Project.