EIFSFACTS.ORG

The Real Facts About EIFS  

EIFS and Compliance Reports

By Hank Sullivan

As EIFS and The Building Code appropriately detailed, it is a fact that the use of EIFS in residential construction is not underwritten by our building code. (Here, again. I am referring to the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code.) I use the concept of "underwriting" to describe the function that the building code actually serves in our society. The building code underwrites and legally legitimizes the use of materials and methods "specifically prescribed" within its pages. Therefore, if a failure results from the approved use of a material or method specifically prescribed by the building code, then the code would be to blame for such a failure. When this happens, the code is generally changed to reflect some previously unknown information. The building code allows for the final accountability for all materials and methods used in residential construction. The building code is where the "buck stops." Also, the words, principles and concepts present in the building code are LAW! Therefore, any violation of the building code or its purposes, are also violations of the LAW.

Since the building code is the law and EIFS is not specifically covered by the written words or principles of the law, then what mechanisms could possibly legitimize the use of EIFS in the eyes of the building code and the building officials charged with its enforcement? As was detailed in EIFS and the Building Code, "alternate materials and systems" are approved by the code as long as they perform in an equivalent manner as "approved" materials specifically prescribed by the code. This provision of the code allows the use of these "alternates" as long as they are "in compliance" with existing approved materials and systems. To be judged as "in compliance" is to be recognized as to perform in an equivalent manner as specifically prescribed materials, methods and systems. So how do we, in practice, judge "compliance" with respect to the existing approved standards in our building code? The "judging of compliance" is the subject of this article. There are several methods that are used as a practical matter to judge the compliance of proposed "alternates."

The first common method of judging compliance is by the "tacit approval" of the building official. In other words, in the real world, many times, alternates are judged "on the spot" by the building official. If an item not specifically prescribed by the code is simply not noticed by the building official, or if the building official determines from his experience that such an alternate is "in compliance," as defined above, the item passes inspection, for all practical purposes, by being "run up the flagpole."

The second method by which "alternates" may be accepted as compliant is for the building official to require that a third party "underwrite" the specific installation in question. There are two methods available for third parties to underwrite "alternate materials and methods." First, building officials may require builders to furnish an "engineer’s letter" in order to justify the use of an "alternate." In this method, a registered professional engineer officially recognized by the state, would (generally for a fee) provide a "learned opinion" that asserts the compliance of the "alternate." The building official is then free to accept or deny this engineer’s letter as evidence of compliance of the "alternate." If the building official accepts the letter of compliance offered by the engineer, the responsibility for the actual compliance shifts from the building official to the engineer, who, theoretically, is trained to make such determinations.

Another method available for the third party underwriting of an "alternate" is through the use of "compliance reports." These reports, generally, submit evidence by testing as "proof" of the assertion of the compliance of an "alternate." Compliance reports spawn from any number of sources but are always sponsored by manufacturers that are desirous of marketing materials for use in residential construction. As with engineer’s letters, the building official is free to accept or deny the findings of a compliance report.

Engineer’s letters and compliance reports do not "prove" compliance. They merely "assert" compliance based upon a "learned opinion" or "evidence by testing." The building official’s acceptance of an "alternate" based upon a compliance report or engineer’s letter is solely founded upon the assumption of compliance, together with the willingness of a third party to underwrite and warrant the "alternate." The actual compliance with the code standards may only be ascertained empirically, that is, by gathering data based upon the actual experience of the "alternate" once installed in place.

Please know that our building code mentions nothing about "compliance reports." The building code only deals with actual, theoretical compliance. Alternates either comply in fact, or they do not based upon their actual performance. Compliance reports are more akin to warranties of merchantability. These reports attempt to prove the "merchantability" of alternates by asserting their compliance to the standards of the building code. Manufacturers, legally, must warrant that the goods they offer for sale are "fit" for the use as portrayed in the selling of the goods. Therefore, if a manufacturer sells an item which is not fit for the use portrayed, then that manufacturer is legally liable for the damages suffered by the buyer, subsequent buyers or end-users.

From this point on, I will limit my comments to the concept of "compliance reports." Engineer’s letters are not at question concerning the use of EIFS. The lesson to understand is to beware attempts by those who might use "compliance reports" to justify as LAW the use of EIFS in residential construction. The actual words and principles written in the building code are LAW- nothing else!

As was asserted in EIFS-Ground Zero and proven in EIFS and the Building Code, typical "barrier" EIFS that has been sold and installed on residential structures for years, does not pass code. This is due to the fact that this technology traps moisture that may find its way behind the exterior cladding and does not allow for this moisture to dissipate into the atmosphere. All approved materials specifically prescribed by the building code do allow for this moisture to dissipate directly into the atmosphere. EIFS, therefore, does not perform as an "equivalent" and, thereby, helps to define the concept of "non-code compliance."

Well then how did we allow these materials to be installed for so long, on so many homes, in so many places and cause so much destruction? Are all of these compliance reports wrong? If so, how could we not notice their non-compliance until now? The answer lies in determining the completeness of the testing referred to in the compliance reports and the time it takes for the inherent flaws of the "alternate" to be apparent. A compliance report that concludes that EIFS complies with the standards of the building code can only truly test those aspects that do, indeed, comply. Therefore, any EIFS compliance reports that do not include testing for moisture retention are inherently flawed. Likewise, any reports that do not include testing for moisture intrusion around windows and doors are inherently flawed. Reports that do not include testing for moisture intrusion around windows and doors that are commonly used in residential construction are inherently flawed. Reports that do not include testing for moisture intrusion around the specific windows and doors that may only used in construction of one, single, solitary EIFS house are inherently flawed. Reports that do not include testing for moisture intrusion on structures that have the same degree of complexity as those that the materials will encounter in actual use are inherently flawed. Reports that do not include testing in all of the environments that eventually present themselves to the structure clad with EIFS are inherently flawed. And on, and on, and on…

So you see, if it is the goal of the report to indicate compliance with the building code, the report will indicate compliance with the building code. After all, they call it a "compliance report," not a "non-compliance report." If it was a "non-compliance report," you would have never heard of it.

Compliance reports remind me of a ‘60’s game show from my childhood. The MC of the show would always start the show by saying:

"It’s not what you say that counts, its what you don’t say!"

And that guy said a mounthful…