The NFRC and the "Specifying Authority"

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #2
1

I am curious to what the consensus is on the NFRC among the folks on this board. The NFRC is in process of putting in commercial program that will add significant costs and responsibilities on jobs. With NFRC working close with ASHRAE and the IECC, their goal is to have this type of police action in all 50 states. Plus the NFRC is sponsored by the DOE, so they have the power that an AAMA does not. What are your thoughts? Do you know all the details and how this will affect you?

By the way the “Specifying Authority” that I listed in the title is the current terminology for “Responsible Party” in this program.

Thanks to all for your input and Happy Holidays!
Max Perilstein

2

Is the NFRC “sponsored by the DOE” or supported by the DOE?

3

“What are your thoughts?” Answer: I don’t know for the reason stated below to your next question.

“Do you know all the details and how this will affect you?” Answer: Apparently not, since you didn’t provide any specifics.

I’m assuming you’re referring to NFRC 100 for site-built fenestration. From what I could gather, I would say “big deal.” As it stands right now, this is only a voluntary standard for the NFRC certification program. Although it is a referenced standard in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), it is not a required standard since the code allows the use of default factors for non-labeled fenestration products. So, the owner doesn’t have to pay for the testing if he/she can live with the default factors.

The “responsible party” you’re referring to has no connection with the risk in specifying fenestration products. The term applies to anybody who submits a fenestration product to the certification program for the purpose of certification, which could be the contractor, supplier, manufacturer, owner, or the architect. The specifier “could be” a responsible party, but I highly doubt you’ll ever find one who will; I sure wouldn’t. I could specify that a product comply with this standard, but that wouldn’t make me the “responsible party”; that title would be placed on the contractor to ensure the product submitted and installed complies with my specification.

I couldn’t find any connection between this standard and the latest code development cycle for the IECC. During this last cycle, no proposals were made requiring NFRC certification, exclusively. As a matter of fact, a proposal was made for inserting additional AAMA/WDMA/CSA standards in addition to currently referenced AAMA/WDMA and NFRC standards for residential and commercial construction (which was approved, by the way).

Now, a new code cycle is starting, and there my be something in the works for commercial, but I haven’t heard anything.

If I’ve totally missed the mark, why don’t you enlighten us on the details…

4

Mr. Geren- I appreciate your comments and I did not go into specifics in the above post because quite honestly I was not sure in how much detail the architectural community was aware of the latest maneuvers by the NFRC.
Before I break it down, to answer your question Mr Heineman, the NFRC receives funding from the DOE but more importantly, they are the only organization recognized by the DOE to provide fenestration ratings. AAMA/WDMA etc are not. (AAMA and the like are trade groups, NFRC is a 501c3 charity)

The program is question is not NFRC 100 but a new program specifically created to take the place of 100. Currently it is called NFRC Non Residential Product Certification. The NFRC has stated that the DOE has demanded that they put in place a program that would mirror the residential rating program they already have in place.
The residential program as you may or may not know, falls under energy star and the DOE is quite enamored with it. They want the same process with commercial or “non res” as the NFRC calls it. However you know that the residential and commercial work are night and day- however the NFRC, made up of mostly residential related concerns did not.
So they have gone upon creating a program that the goal will be to become like the residential one in its effectiveness.
The overall idea is actually GOOD. A program like this will allow us to give a WHOLE SYSTEM calculation- and that is a great design tool. Where we take issue with it is the extra steps incorporated in it. (and the costs that will come with it)
In simple terms this is how the program would work. (and I will cover the responsible party issue as well)
When the job is ready to be ordered, the responsible party will hire a NFRC accredited lab to get the whole system calculation. Then after receiving those numbers, the NFRC wants the responsible party to get those numbers “validated” by a different NFRC accredited agency. After the job is installed, the responsible party will then hire a NFRC inspection agency to ensure that the correct product was installed.
Yes that would be:

  1. Initial Whole System calcs by an NFRC agency (OK- makes sense)
  2. Validation of those numbers (Why? You already have an NFRC accredited agency testing in the first place)
  3. Inspection

Yes I realize that not only do you not want the tag of responsible party, neither does anyone else. But at the end of the day someone is paying for all of this as none of this is free. So the thinking that they had was: if the specifying authority is responsible, those costs would come to them without mark up. If the Glazier/installer is the responsible party, then in their bid it will be marked up, as it will be marked up again to their general contractor and then obviously marked up again before it reaches the person paying the bills. One way another its going to be extra costs- no matter whos responsible.

So how does it affect you? It will be another bureaucratic adventure to deal with. It will be additional costs and paperwork. When it could be a simple design tool, it will be so much more.

Here’s why- the NFRC is led by inspection agencies, test labs and consultants. In fact the chairperson owns her own inspection agency and as she states on the NFRC website she gets 73% of her income from NFRC related activities. So obviously her goal, and the goal of many others there is to make money, anyway they can.
See and that what gets me, the NFRC is a 501 c3 charged with serving the public, but their goal is actually to create programs to further their own businesses.

As for code cycles, yes they heavily involved in the upcoming one- they have 3 board members who sit on the IECC code development committee. (Including that committees vice-chair) They also have a staff member and board members on ASHRAE Code Interaction committee as well. They have a regulatory affairs committee that is charged with doing nothing other than getting NFRC related activities in every state and lastly they have a program is place to work with code officials, educating them on what they are doing and going after those not in compliance.

Yes I am obviously against this and them but amazingly as a product manufacturer this really does not affect me or my company- but the reason I take it seriously is that it will affect our industry. It will affect the glass and aluminum because of the costly and unnecessary steps. At the end of the day you can blow it all off, but take some time to look into it and judge for yourself. I am far from the smartest person on this board, I just smell a rat and want to do all I can to allow people to look into and be comfortable with what they may be dealing with in the future.
Thank you taking the time to read this.

5

Max:

I checked their website and the only nonresidential program currently in development is the “NFRC Component Based Fenestration PCP” (PCP stands for Product Certification Program), which appears to apply to site-built fenestration constructed of certified components.

From what I can gather from the available documents, they seem to use the term “specifying authority” on their program flowchart, but they use the term “responsible party” in the actual draft document, which, I could see, may lead to some confusion.

Again, the same will apply in this case as I mentioned in my earlier post, and as you pointed out above: the architect/specifier will specify the requirements and the contractor will end up being the responsible party and pass those marked-up costs onto building owners or developers. As a voluntary standard, it won’t be mandatory unless it’s specifically referenced by an adopted code or ordinance, or specified in the project manual. Your post here will help us specifiers understand the drawbacks of specifying such a standard.

However, the presence of NFRC members on the IECC code development committee doesn’t necessarily mean that this new program will make it into the codes. And, if they do, there’ll probably be alternatives to the certification program similar to that currently in the IECC for other NFRC labelling provisions.

Where I see this having the most affect may be in the LEED Certification Program where quantifiable information would be necessary.

I seriously doubt that a program of this magnitude will be the sole standard required by codes. Part of the process in submitting a code proposal is a statement as to whether or not the proposal will have a cost impact. I’d be surprised if a proposal that had a cost impact, with little value in return, was approved.

If you have a strong feeling about this and it is proposed for a future code development cycle, then get involved in the process. Non-ICC members are encouraged to participate in the process.

6

Sorry for the length of this message, but it is an issue that I have some concern about.

I have done a fair amount of digging around on this question. I have some concerns, but they are not the big brother type of concerns expressed above. Since my firm specifies huge numbers of residential window products, I have grown quite accustomed to the use of NFRC to specify thermal performance, and favor its use. Yes, NFRC was funded by the DOE - big deal. (Jus cause it the guv-mint, dun mean it bad.) The program has made purchasing energy efficient windows better for millions of Americans. The market for residential windows in the US is about 65 million units per year, (dwarfing the commercial window market) so you can see its benefit.

For those who are not familiar with how it works, the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and the U-factor can be simulated using software developed by the Lawrence Berkeley Labs in California. Boiled down to its essence, the software has a library of components, glass, frames, spacers etc. that are entered into the simulation software to determine the SHGC and U-factor. Software allows a frame shape to be simulated for heat flow. The results are validated by a physical test, but the process is set up so that every possible configuration of components does not have to be physically tested by a manufacturer. This saves money, obviously, because the simulation is quick and simple to run. The software is free, and anyone can download and use it.

The second piece is probably more controversial, and that is certification. The program is set up for manufacturers to put temporary and permanent labels on products which certify their performance. This permits code authorities to easily verify that the product meets the energy code for the jurisdiction. In fact, some codes do specifically require NFRC certification (California among them). Others only call for certification, but as a practical matter, only NFRC is set up to do this. The certifications are done by third party laboratories licensed by NFRC to do the tests and simulations.

Now we go on the commercial side. NFRC is proposing that a version this standard be adopted for the commercial side. I support this entirely, at least in some form. My concern is the truly bizarre (from a designers perspective, at least) part of this: a proposal, not yet adopted, that would make the designer of record responsible for certifying the product! How a designer could do this not knowing exactly which manufacturer will be used, what spacer the manufacturer will use, etc., etc. is goofy at best. There is no way that the designer can be in the position of making these determinations or decisions. The designer doesnt get paid for this either.

Some of the possibly legitimate concerns of manufacturers, I think, is that there are far more variables in the commercial world than residential, and having to pre-certify many products could be expensive. (Remembering, however, that running the simulation on a variation of a product, say, changing the spacer, would NOT be very expensive.) I am not convinced this is such a big expense for a manufacturer, but that is a topic for legitimate disagreement.

I think that the designers obligation, as it currently exists, should be to determine the required thermal performance of the windows and confirm with manufacturers under consideration that they can meet it. These manufacturers can run the simulation software in-house to test various assumptions. Many will do this for you already. I do not think labeling is much of on issue in the commercial world of controlled construction. My view is that a certification as part of the submittal process should be sufficient. After all, the code officials rely on the designer for much more during construction of commercial products, and this could be one (Remembering that nothing equivalent exists in the world of residential construction.)

I had a few conversations with NFRC staff about this issue, and shockingly I was told there were no architects involved in the development of this now standard. Bipin Shah of the NFRC came to a meeting of the Boston Society of Architects Building Enclosure Council (which I missed) to explain these efforts. Apparently, he never finished his presentation because of the controversy around making designers responsible for certifying the performance of products. The good result is that the NFRC will be getting someone from the DC BEC to attend their meetings. I have not heard of any follow up.

If you care about this, call the NFRC at 301-589-1776 and ask for more information. Jim Benney (ext 202) is the executive director, and Bipin Shah (ext. 205) is program manager developing this new standard.

7

Thank you Mr. Bunzick for your insights but I think theres a few things to clarify. First I appreciate that you do get the urgency here.

As a manufacturer I can tell you we have no problems whatsoever with the design tool aspect of this program. Being able to provide you and the architectural community with performance info would be tremendous.

As I noted, our issue is the amount of certification, validation and inspections that the NFRC wants. Yes theres tons of products to simulate and test but I think that we are working towards solutions on every front when it comes to that. Labeling every frame makes no sense when you can have an internet data base with your NFRC certification on it for that specific job. Again, having to apply a label is costly, it may not sound like it is, but it is. Being in the age of computers, there is no reason why the specific job, once certified by the third party, can not be posted on-line.

As for responsible party, just like was noted by Mr Geren so eloquently in his posts, you should not bear that responsibility given the process and where you are at in the chain. But as it goes right now, the Specifying Authority is the group on the hook. But heres the rub.. a quote from Gary Curtis, Board Member of the NFRC in October at the NFRC task group meeting in Atlanta.

If the architects dont buy into this program, we can all shut off the lights and go home.

The Architectural community has the power.

So use your power for change- but calling Jim Benney and Bipin Shah will not help- going to the meetings and speaking out will. Jim and Bipin want programs that are costly- as Jim stated in Boston at a debate, 2/3s of the NFRCs income comes from their programs. They want to develop expensive programs to keep their budget afloat- why else would they want 3 certifications when one is easily sufficient?

If someone can explain to me, how those extra validations and inspections serve any purpose, Id love to hear it.

So instead of NFRC staff, going to the meetings is a must. That way your voice is heard. Joining or spending time with the subcommittee members will.
There is so much to this- if the architectural community, which has not been represented at all, would step in and say:

  • We dont want and should not be the responsible party

  • We want a simple, inexpensive, one step certification of a whole system calculation.

If we can wipe out the fat that is there unnecessarily then we are getting somewhere.

At the end of the day we need to bring this into the light- theres positives in here, my goals and hopes are to take the negatives that will impact our customers financially away.

8

Having a label on an installed product can be important. While Mr. Perilstein seems to think that having a certified entry in a database should be the end of it, as many of us know, there are many twists and turns before a building is occupied. Never underestimate the pressures and temptations under which a Contractor must operate to get the building completed on time and on budget. The inspector (the code enforcement authority) out on the jobsite wants to check the installed product to see that it complies, Let us assume that for a given project, the Contractor (and his subs and suppliers) provides the certified product, that there are no short cuts taken because of ordering errors, design changes, supply chain problems, etc. 18 months later a storm blows through and a few units must be replaced within a few days. How does the database handle this? Does the database even know? What about more extensive damage or remodeling / retrofit?

If you look at labeled doors for an analogy, all fire-rated doors and frames must be labeled. The label is not conspicuous, but it is there and documents performance of the installed unit reqardless of when it was installed or who installed it. Labeled doors and frames cannot be modified without their being taken to a shop where the modifications are undertaken by qualified craftsmen. Replacement units must carry equivalent labels. It seems to me that this is what is being sought.

Testing of “labeled openings” does not require testing of every size or every possible configuration of door, frame, and hardware; the program is not inexpensive, but it does seem to be effective. Why can’t a similar methodology be considered here?

9

I think Mr. Perilstein and I are in substantial agreement. When I stated that I didn’t think “labeling was much of an issue”, what I meant was that I am not convinced that commercial windows need to be labeled at all, provide other steps were taken to assure their performance. Peter Jordan makes a good point, however. Still, there are so many products that need to meet particular performance minimums that have no label or equivalent. Even for windows–what about an AAMA label for air/water/structure? It’s available, but not often used in commercial work. This is a topic worthy of additional conversation among all interested partise, as Mr. Perilstein correctly suggests.