Stainless Steel Piping - Multiple Manufacturers products on the same project 1

[hondashadow1100vt]

I am a PE working on a construction project that involves several thousands of feet of stainless steel piping in a variety of sizes from 1/2" through 6". Our contract stipulates that only one manufacturer will be approved for each item, unless the requirement is specifically waived by the engineer. We have a contractor that is requesting that the requirement be waived. The contractor would like to furnish piping from any one of three manufacturers depending on availability of the material (and presumably based on the negotiated cost to the Contractor). I would like to gather input on what some of the technical and quality assurance pros and cons of allowing multiple manufacturers to furnish the piping may be.

 

[bimr]

Piping is generic. Piping is specified by the ASTM specification for the type of stainless.

Nobody specifies pipe manufacturers. Review the ASTM A312 / A312M - 14 standard.

 

[rconner]

Is this request being made before, or instead after the bid?

 

[GHartmann]

I am in agreement with bimr; pipe is pipe as long as it is certified according to ASTM. In fact from the same supply house you probably would get pipe from a number of mills. A more important issue might be if you requested any mill test certificates and/or manufacturing tracibility. This was an issue with pipe from China a few years back (bad CS piping due to high porosity in material).

I can't imagine this was the intent of your specification. Do you know it's source or author?

GHartmann
BS ChE NC State University

 

[hondashadow1100vt]

rconner: The request is being made after the bid.

 

[hondashadow1100vt]

bimr:

You are correct that the specifications for this project did not specify a manufacturer by name. Thank you for noting the applicable ASTM reference. That reference was included in the spec (along with many others). Based on quick review, the ASTM 312 reference appears to generally govern the elemental makeup and mechanical properties of the piping. I gather that as long as the pipe gets stamped/etched with that ASTM reference that would certify that the specific piece of piping comes from a lot that has been tested and has met the ASTM standard. Based on the lack of quality differentiation between different potential manufacturers it would appear that stainless steel piping, when compliant with the ASTM standard is a commodity product.

I guess the only question that would remain in my mind is whether or not there are instances where ASTM 312 certified piping ever contains deficiencies. If so it seems worthwhile having each stick of a manufacturer's pipe able to be traced back to the source manufacturer. I suppose much of this issue turns ends up falling into a construction quality assurance issue which would fall in the construction manager's domain.

Thank you.

 

[hondashadow1100vt]

GHartman:

Our client was the original spec author. The following is an excerpt from their spec that addresses the stated concern that resulted from deficient overseas products. This requirement was enforced on this project and it resulted in domestic supplier being contracted by the general contractor. That domestic supplier is the party that wishes to purchase from a variety of US based domestic 316 stainless steel pipe manufacturers.

"D. Pipe and fittings manufactured outside of the continental United States must meet all the requirements of the latest ASTM standards referred to hereinbefore and, unless waived in writing by the City, shall undergo physical tests and chemical analyses to prove compliance therewith. Such tests and analyses shall be performed by an independent testing laboratory approved by the City. If the testing laboratory is located outside the United States, then the Contractor shall pay all costs for two City personnel to witness such tests. The test samples shall be selected and tested in conformance with ASTM requirements. The City may at its discretion visit the test facility and witness the tests. The cost of all physical tests and chemical analyses shall be borne by the Contractor"

The ability to trace piping back to the source is would seem to be the primary concern. I have worked on one past project (using a different pipe material) where an entire project's worth of piping had to be torn out after startup due to a defect in the manufacturing process that led to pin hole leaks. In the event that something of that nature were to happen again, I'd like to be able to have the issue resolved in an expedient and surgical manner. It seems like having all the paperwork that traces the ASTM testing of the lot and the respective manufacturer advisable.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[GHartmann]

Hondashadow1100vt:

You had the same experience with the "bad" pipe that our client had. It was specific to Chinese manufacturers. I can't recall the exact wording, but materials from China were somehow excluded or required extra tests in their specifications.

As far as the construction manager QA/QC procedures these would have to be something imposed upon the contractor as part of his works contract. Thus the need for mill test reports and material traceability reports. I have seen bar code systems similar to what you see in the grocery store that can keep tract of these materials. But the Owner / Operator cannot leave this up to the contractor (or NO QA/QC would be done) and some form of standards imposed or negotiated into the contractual arrangement.

Here are some guidelines you want to acquire:

Pipe Fabrication Standards

You were right to question the waiver. However, it is very important to ask for the traceability MTR's from the beginning.

THANKS for your acknowledgement.

G.Hartmann

 

[BigInch]

Pipelines require material certification and tracability and the records must be kept on file tracable back to each stick of pipe, made available for inspection by regulating authorities, for the entire lifetime of the pipeline system.

How many sets of records would you like to keep?


you must get smarter than the software you're using.

 

[BigInch]

It's all the same in theory only.

you must get smarter than the software you're using.

 

[bimr]

Your specification should cover all of this. Requirements, Standards, Submittals, QA, and you can also specify the manufacturer. See below:

1.01 SUMMARY
A. Section Includes:
1. Detailed requirements for various Stainless Steel Products. Some products specified in
this section may not be required for this Project. Refer to piping system Specification section(s)
and Drawings to determine stainless steel piping products to be provided under this
Contract.
1.02 REFERENCES
A. ASTM: American Society of Testing and Materials.
B. ANSI: American National Standards Institute.
1.03 SUBMITTALS
A. General:
1. Submit Product Data in sufficient detail to confirm compliance with requirements of this
Section. Submit Product Data and Shop Drawings in one complete submittal package. Partial
submittals are unacceptable.
B. Product Data:
1. Catalog cuts and product specifications for piping system specified.
2. Submit for pipe, fittings, flanges, face rings, and bolting.
3. Submit proposed gasket material for each service. Submit documentation confirming gasket
material selection is appropriate for fluid carried in system.
4. Coating system for carbon steel surfaces. Include coating system submittal information
specified in Section XXXX.
C. Shop Drawings:
1. Shop Drawings showing layout for stainless steel piping shall be submitted in
accordance with and transmitted under appropriate piping system specification sections.
D. Test Results:
1. Certified reports of manufacturers' factory production and final tests indicating compliance of
piping systems with referenced standards.
2. Certified reports of field tests and observations.

1.04 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Manufacturer Qualifications: Firms experienced in manufacturing equipment of types and
capacities indicated that have record of successful in-service performance.
B. Items provided under this section shall be listed or labeled by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL)
or other Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
1. Term "NRTL" shall be as defined in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Regulation 1910.7.
2. Terms "listed" and "labeled" shall be as defined in National Electrical Code (NEC), Article 100.
C. Single-Source Responsibility: Obtain piping system components from single manufacturer with
responsibility for entire system. Unit shall be representative product built from components that
have proven compatibility and reliability and are coordinated to operate as unit as evidenced by
records of prototype testing.

PART 2 – PRODUCTS
2.01 MANUFACTURERS
A. XXXXXX

 

[rconner]

I guess I felt just a little bit of angst when I read in the OP

​<<<​The contractor would like to furnish...based on the negotiated cost to the Contractor).>>>

suspecting that all this may be going on after the competitive? bids for the project (as it turns out is in fact the case).

While I am probably some naive, one would think the contractor and any other contractors who may have bid on the work may quite possibly have been quoted a price for the pipe (in good faith) by the supplier(s)/manufacturer(s) before the bid. If prices for the pipe are now going to be "negotiated" (meaning perhaps lower?), who should now get the benefit of that savings? If the Owner ends up with the very cheapest pipe out there in every part of the system, is that best for the facility? Maybe looking at this another way, at least if somehow the Contractor is the one to profit from this special after-bid allowance (or know that it would be allowed after the bid), would that be fair to the unsuccessful bidders (who were not planning on such "negotiating" after the bid?)

While it is indeed unusual (as I think others have mentioned) to see specific sole pipe suppliers called out in specifications/with no equal allowed, at least up to recent years many Owners have however asked Contractors on bid forms to specify whose pipe (they have gotten prices for, chosen from available vendors and based their bid on?) they are going to install when/if awarded the job.

While I guess it may be increasingly so, it also takes a little getting use to to think of something as important as pipes for pipelines as a "commodity". While many standards do provide for Owners/Engineers to specify and thereafter receive from successful bidders e.g. certificates of compliance etc., unless an Owner or independent third-part inspector watches (the actual manufacture and testing etc.) these documents in actuality are really just pieces of paper that can be "manufactured", wholly dependent on the integrity/truthfullness/reputation of the vendor and those who work for same. Nevertheless, asking for the papers at least makes the manufacturer aware you really want same, as well as the quality level they reflect.

It is possible for pieces of any type of piping, including SS or anything else to occasionally or eventually have issues, and it may indeed be helpful then for an Owner to know from whence it came (if for nothing other than potential advice from the manufacture on how to deal with same). While not stainless steel pipe, I noticed that in the linked "complaint" document pointed to at the end of the page e.g. at

http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnv.../2013/J-M_Fifth_AmendedComplaint_Redacted.pdf

, that "false claims" or "a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim approved" (I guess a pipe supplier involved allegedly not doing exactly what they were supposed to do, or said/wrote they did) were apparently instrumental in what eventually prevailed in the first phase of this quite lengthy trial. It appears the industry or pipe manufacturer's latest/current spin on all this may incidentally now be at

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article...ry-issues-in-jm-eagle-whistle-blower-lawsuit.

All this being said, it is probably unrealistic in today's global manufacturing environment and marketplace to assume in specifications or otherwise that every single piece of piping in any system (and perhaps particularly for complex plant piping with a wide range of sizes of pipe?) will be available from one "domestic" manufacturer, and some mechanism or process should probably be as clearly defined as possible to make reasonable allowance in such cases.

 

[hondashadow1100vt]

Good news. Our contractor dropped their proposal/argument for multiple manufacturers and has agreed to provide all the piping, including certified manufacturer's test reports, from one single manufacturer.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to this post/thread. This is my first experience with eng-tips.com and it has been a very positive one thanks to each of you who demonstrated a genuine interest and care in doing the right thing. I will be back...although it looks as though I should probably change my username to something a little more suitable. Thank you again!

 

[GHartmann]

We appreciate that you acknowledged the help provided. Too many OPs disappear after a few questions or responses, never to return.

Keep up the good efforts in human relations

 

[StainlessStrategist]

"While I am probably some naive, one would think the contractor and any other contractors who may have bid on the work may quite possibly have been quoted a price for the pipe (in good faith) by the supplier(s)/manufacturer(s) before the bid. If prices for the pipe are now going to be "negotiated" (meaning perhaps lower?), who should now get the benefit of that savings? If the Owner ends up with the very cheapest pipe out there in every part of the system, is that best for the facility? Maybe looking at this another way, at least if somehow the Contractor is the one to profit from this special after-bid allowance (or know that it would be allowed after the bid), would that be fair to the unsuccessful bidders (who were not planning on such "negotiating" after the bid?)

As I am heavily involved in the supply of stainless steel piping systems, I find great humor in this statement. Anyone who thinks that the contractors do not attempt to negotiate a lower price for stainless steel after awarded a bid is severely mislead. You are very correct in your statement that the "after-bid" games that are played are unfair to unsuccessful bidders that follow the rules. Remember though that this is also unfair to suppliers who try to give good pricing pre-bid but knowing that they are going to "beat down". Contractors find out on bid day whether they are successful or not. They are also given all of the numbers. Suppliers bidding to contractors who play games are kept in the dark and NEVER told anything but "you were high and you need to improve your price". Consider this along with the fact that some suppliers do not bid per the project specifications, it makes it very difficult to compete.