FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

PRODUCT APPROVAL VALIDATION WORKGROUP — MEETING II

October 12, 2005

Orlando, Florida

Rosen Centre Hotel; 9840 International Drive; 1.800.800.9840

Meeting Objectives

• To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and Report)
• To Propose Additional Options for Evaluation
• To Identify Any Additional Related Issues
• To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Proposed Options
• To Consider Public Comment
• To Identify Needed Next Steps and Agenda Items For Next Meeting

Meeting Agenda

8:00 Welcome and Introductions

8:10 Agenda Review and Work (J. Blair)

8:15 Approval of August 22, 2005 Facilitator's Summary Report (J. Blair)

8:20 Identification of Additional Options and Related Issues (J. Blair)

8:30 Ranking and Refinement of Options (J. Blair)

10:00 Break

10:15 Ranking and Refinement of Options Continues (J. Blair)

11:45 General Public Comment (J. Blair)

11:50 Next Steps and Agenda Items for Next Meeting (J. Blair)

Next meeting agenda items, needed information, location, and date

12:00 Adjourn

Contact Information: Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@mailer.fsu.edu ; http://consenus.fsu.edu

PAVWG MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chair of the Florida Building Commission, has made appointments to the Product Approval Validation Work Group, and they are found below. Members are charged with representing their stakeholder group's interests, and working with other interest groups to develop a consensus package of recommendations for submittal to the Florida Building Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez announced he was appointing a workgroup, per legislative assignment, to review the issue of third party validation and report back to the Commission. The Chair assigned Jeff Blair to work with DCA staff to conduct the meetings.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that the purpose and charge for the Product Approval Validation

Workgroup is to review the role of the third party validators in the product approval process, and

to make recommendations back to the Commission regarding to what extent the validators should

review the technical documentation substantiating compliance with the Florida Building Code.

The Chair instructed, that the review the Workgroup is charged to conduct is not related to the

Commission's contracted administrator's role, and that the administrator's role is and remains

under the purview of the Product Approval POC and the Commission.

The Florida Building Commission shall convene a workgroup composed of at least 10 stakeholders in the state system of product approval, which may include a maximum of three members of the commission to ensure diverse input. The workgroup shall study the recommendation that the state be served by a single validation entity for state approval, which study shall include, but not be limited to, the recommendation's feasibility, qualifications of the single entity and its staff, costs charged for validation, time standards for validation, means to challenge the validator's determination, and duration of the contract with the validator. The workgroup shall conduct its proceedings in an open forum subject to comment from the public at each meeting.

Members and Representation:

Architects Evaluators

Larry Schneider John Hill

Sig Valentine

Building Officials Product Manufacturers

Bill Dumbaugh Tim Collum

Herminio Gonzalez Craig Parrino

Contractors Insurance

Ed Carson Do Kim

Engineers

Jimmie Buckner

PRODUCT APPROVAL VALIDATION WORKGROUP

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

MEMBER'S ROLE

• The Workgroup's meeting process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
• Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don't agree.
• Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
• Look to the Facilitator to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
• Speak one person at a time. Please don't interrupt each other.
• Focus on issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
• To the extent possible, offer options to address other's concerns, as well as your own.
• Represent and communicate with member's constituent group.

FACILITATOR'S ROLE

• Design and facilitate a participatory meeting process.
• Provide consensus-building and conflict resolution guidance.
• Assure that participants follow ground rules—Assist participants to stay focused and on task.
• Facilitate public participation and input.
• Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.

GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING

• Speak when recognized by the Facilitator.
• Offer one idea per person without explanation.
• No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
• Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
• Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the process.

THE NAME STACKING PROCESS

• Determines the speaking order.
• Members raises hand to speak. Facilitator will call on participants in turn.
• Facilitator may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on a issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.

ACCEPTABILITY RANKING SCALE

During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following

discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options as refined. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:

OPTIONS RANKING WORKSHEET

1. Commission adopted Rule 9B-72 provisions:

72.080 Product Validation by Approved Validation Entity for State Approval. Validation of compliance with the Code shall be performed by approved validation entities through the following steps: (1) Verification that the testing, evaluation and quality assurance requirements established by Rule 9B-72.070, F.A.C., are met and that all documentation is in order. (2) Validation of the method of compliance using the validation checklist in subsection 9B-72.130(3), F.A.C. (3) Certification to the Commission that the documentation submitted for the product indicates the product complies with the Code. (4) Products listed by approved certification agencies as complying with standards established by the Code shall be approved by the Commission absent compliance with this section.

Member's Reservations:

• This process does not work as demonstrated by the existing state of the system.
• The reviewers are not qualified to perform the validation.
• The engineers are not providing adequate oversight of the validation process.
• No Definition of Technical review is provided.
• Scope of validation is not clearly defined.
• Testing labs are allowed to self validate, and this needs re-evaluation.
• The concept of peer review has changed from an administrative review to a technical review.
• Electronic seal is needed for this process to work.
• Need to level the playing field for validation.
• There is a need to better define the validation function.

Public Comment:

• Need to clarify the type of documentation required for submittal.
• Current review by A&A looks at the Sign & Sealing of the documents.
• Certification Agencies without PE on staff are validating products, and this is not appropriate.
• Rational analysis requires a PE/RA sign an seal to be valid.
• Validators are validating their own work.
• Need a checklist for the validation entity to use.
• How do you validate a product without a technical review, this is not appropriate.
• Certification agencies should have a PE on staff to ensure proper validation.

2. Product Approval Workgroup recommendation:

Validation Entity. Seek statutory authority to eliminate the third party validation entity in the validation process, and require the Product Approval System Administrator to conduct this function. The Commission will develop a set of criteria for reviewing each of the four compliance options.

Member's Reservations:

• Can a single administrator perform this function adequately?
• Can the administrator sub contract this job, or do they have to perform in-house?
• Need to clarify and revise the qualifications of the administrator to ensure they are qualified to perform this function.

3. Validation is a Technical Review.

Once validation and the validation process is defined, require validation to be a technical review in addition to the administrative aspects of the process.

Note: This is not a stand alone option, and it should be added to the final validation version.

Reservations:

• Validation is not purely technical, it also includes administrative aspects.

Public Comment:

• The Definition of validation needs more detail. i.e. - Validation is a Technical Review. Additional details should be provided.

4. Products listed by approved certification agencies as complying with standards established by the Code shall be approved by the Commission absent compliance with this section.

Note: This is not a stand alone option, and it should be added to the final validation version.

Member's Reservations:

• If validation is a technical review than a PE/RA must perform. I am opposed to providing an exemption of CA's.
• Need validation for certification agencies as well.
• Certification agencies can be exempt as long as they are reviewed by a third party.
• Verify document for approval
• Certification Agencies must have a Florida PE on board to validate.

ADDITIONAL OPTIONS:

5. Option 5.

Member's Reservations:

Public Comment: