NFCA’s Maskell teaches flooring pros responsibility
THE MOOD SEPTEMBER 19 at the Cambridge (Ont.) Hotel and Convention Centre was certainly not somber. No-nonsense would be the better term, as the National Floor Covering Association’s c.e.o., Chris Maskell, took the podium at three minutes to 11:00 to announce the commencement of the Moisture Testing, Floor Flatness & National Standards seminar.
“The program will start promptly at 11:00,” Maskell said. “Unlike some other floorcovering events.”
An uncommon show of respect for the time and attention of all, the announcement also got quick reaction as attendees took their seats and prepared their notepads and water.
Maskell was quick to move into the ideas of purpose and direction, both for the NFCA and its attendees, and for the session topic, as well, by acknowledging the importance of reporting levels and responsibility. For starters, Maskell noted that flooring professionals are most often dependent for their specs on interior designers, rather than the usually noted architects.
The entire area of responsibility, Maskell said, has undergone a mind shift in the last few decades. Where once professionals sought to hold their cards close and keep industry “secrets” for their company, the advent of the internet and social media has forced a move to transparency, as anybody can go online and find out pretty much how things are supposed to go and who does them.
Which brings up an interesting point, since flooring inspections have the potential to cause a great deal of cost and rework, and since nobody wants to be accountable for consequences. According to Maskell, this has led to a movement toward having flooring professionals inspect and certify their own work, making them and their suppliers accountable for any failings.
However, Maskell says, it is not as simple as that.
First of all, as also noted in Christopher Capobianco’s column in this issue of Coverings magazine, the floor should usually be the final installation job on a project. However, a general contractor may have a time slot open earlier in the process, and will want the flooring contractor to do his job and help keep the project moving ahead.
The problem is, time savings do not always equate to job savings where flooring is concerned. For example, Maskell said, cured concrete is not the same as dry concrete, and, while a general contractor may view cured concrete as dry, a proper ASTM test may show the concrete is still wet even months later. According to Maskell, no new subfloor is dry until it is proven dry.
Maskell also emphasizes that no contractor should be forced to do the testing. The reasons for this are many, but one is that the contractor will go broke trying to do a proper ASTM test. The testing kits are expensive, and, without authority to control the site, the contractor can see dozens of test kits smashed by zealous forklift drivers carrying out orders from other trades.
To Maskell, the only floor inspections should be carried out by independent and impartial inspectors, paid for by the general contractor. “It’s not what’s right,” to the courts, Maskell says, “but who’s right,” and if you have a third-party, independent inspector, any legal questions that get raised become an issue between the contractor and the inspector.
It’s this kind of lines of accountability that the NFCA is trying to establish and enact for the protection of practitioners in the industry, and it’s seminars such as that in Cambridge that he NFCA is using to educate and implement some of these ideas.
At the moment, the NFCA is focusing on government and medical jobs, for their receptiveness to safety and quality, and for commercial installers interested in mitigating legal threats and in adopting and implementing best practices in their own areas, these seminars should prove a no-brainer to attend.