1) Fair.

 

2) The product I want approval for (QuattroPost) was not included in the June 2009 readings due to a great deal of application red tape and system requirements, and a missed deadline on my part. The web based application forms are a good idea, but they are difficult to complete. The address portions are not easily completed for applicants from Canada. I also find it excessive to require an Evaluation Entity, a Quality Assurance Entity, and a Validation entity for the product approval. Synergy has a valid ICC-ES report (ESR-2844) and QuattroPosts have been produced under the QA verification of the CertiWood Technical Centre since production began on theese posts. CertiWood is IAS accredited. Synergy Pacific has invested a great deal of time and money in ensuring QuattroPosts are professionally and consistently produced to a high and measurable standard.

 

I've successfully dealt with certifying QuattroPost in Canada with the CCMC (#13314-R) and in the U.S. with ICC-ES (ESR-2844) over the past three years. These have been major undertakings that required extensive product testing, engineering reports, the submission of quality system documentation, installation instructions, and verification of inspection documentation from our third party Quality Assusrance agency - CertiWood. I was hopeful that obtaining Florida State approval for QuattroPost would be a relatively straightforward process. Now I have to wait until August for approval, and Synergy Pacific is missing out on potential sales. Is there any chance the approval process can be streamlined or sped up to avoid such lengthy delays? This would be extremely beneficial to Synergy. The market we are dealing with is very difficult at this time, and we cannot afford to lose any opportunities for sales.

 

1) Choose a Rating: EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR

 

2) Comments:  Ted Berman & Associates does an excellent job within the realm of their job as defined by the FBC.  However, I feel that there needs to be more stringent reviews of approval submittals, that the FBC does not allow Berman & Assoc. to perform.  There is adequate enforcement regulations on the books for the validators who violate their responsibility.  However, there does not appear to be enough depth in review procedures, such as verifying QA relationships, verifying test reports, verifying evaluation reports & installation drawings as to their validity to test data, verifying evaluations and testing standards, etc.  These checks could be said to be the responsibility of the Engineer of Record, yet, is it the responsibility of the PA POC or the engineering community?

 

1) Select a rating of either: Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor.  Fair-

2) Add any comments you can think of regarding how TB&A performed, and/or how they may improve performance in the future. two comments 1.) Verda Larue is awesome, she has the answers or can get answer within a very short period of time.

2.) However, the decisions on whether a product ( which has not changed from FBC 2004 to FBC 2007) is approved, needs some attention. How can a product that has meet all the previous criteria and not changed in manufacturing or processing be denied approval, while others having the same or similar criteria are approved, as a manufacturer that places us at a disadvantage, while trying to keep compliance with the code and yet competitors get approved

 

1) Choose a Rating: Excellent

 

2) Add Your Comments: My interaction with TBA and associates has been very efficient and helpful.

(Please add any comments you like here.) Thank you very much for your time. Florida Department of Community Affairs Building Codes and Standards http://www.floridabuilding.org

 

I don’t attend meetings as I’m in PA but I do know that as far as IBC Chapter 26 they’ve done an absolutely lousy job seeing as they regularly allow frp doors with foam cores in the state Florida which is expressly forbidden.  Several manufacturers operate carte-blanche in the state of Florida and you people choose to ignore them and refuse to enforce the codes.  But I’m done trying to point this out – it’s your citizens and your safety.  My grade would be F on that end.

 

The code offices enforcement of the Hurricane Codes is great – but based on the fact that it’s a direct revenue stream (Dade County particularly) I’m not really surprised.  I would have to give you an A on that end.

 

Excellent – My thanks to Verda LaRue who is always more than helpful answering our questions.

 

Good.

 

The service and performance was excellent. 

 

My suggestion for improvements is to allow the products that have expired to remain on the original application.  If we remove them, it changes all of our FL numbers so if we published them previously they would all be wrong.  Since we have to include an expiration date on our FL listing, this should indicate that the product is no longer certified under that particular listing, so why can’t we just leave them and not be required to submit an editorial change?  This is a very costly requirement that seems unnecessary.

 

1) Choose a Rating: EXCELLENT

 

TB&A's overall performance for June 2009 meetings was EXCELLENT.

 

Comment: Verda quickly steered me to the appropriate method for on-line validation of our product to the 2007 code.

 

1) Choose a Rating:  GOOD  

 2) Add Your Comments: (Please add any comments you like here.) Thank you very much for your time. Florida Department of Community Affairs Building Codes and Standards http://www.floridabuilding.org  

Verda LaRue was quite helpful to me during this process, as it was my first time through the FBC Product Approval process.

 

1) Choose a Rating: EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR          I would select Excellent

2) Add Your Comments: (Please add any comments you like here.)

          Here again I found that the meetings were orderly and professional. 

In addition, comments or concerns were handled equitably, professionally, and in a timely fashion.

 

1.Rating: Good

2. Don't know of any improvements at this time

 

Our rating would be “GOOD”.