Does your business have insurance? Do you know what is and isn’t covered? Have you had any claims on your various insurance policies? How did that process go? These are all uncomfortable questions that we put toward the back of our mind in order to complete the immediate tasks in front of us, like getting that next order of trusses delivered or that submittal package finished before the deadline. Insurance seems like a no-brainer, you have to have it, common sense business practice. I would call it a “best practice,” but it is THE practice of doing business in any industry today. As much money as component manufacturers (CMs) invest annually in their insurance premiums, I am surprised at how many don’t participate in our industry Best Practices.
No, this isn’t another article on the value of SCORE and an attempt to sell you a SBCA program. This covers a much more serious issue involving connector plates and how plates from various manufacturers are finding their way into CM plants. The SBCA Board and Executive Committee has been talking about this issue for months and trying to craft sample best practice language in order to ensure that CMs understand the gravity of the risks present here so they take action to protect themselves. If you’re not familiar with the issue of “plate substitution,” let me explain.
Plate substitution is not replacing a 3x6 plate with a 3x8 because inventory is low on the 3x6. It is, however, the use of a connector plate made by a different manufacturer than the plate specified on the truss design drawing. For example, let’s say you use software from Brand X. You’ve probably been with Brand X for many years, maybe all the years you’ve been in business. One day you receive a letter from Brand Y describing the benefits of their software, service and plates. They also include a price per pound in that letter that is eye-catching and causes you to question your relationship with Brand X. A few weeks later, a salesman from Brand Y stops in to demo their software. You and your team may or may not like the software, but you certainly like the plate price you’ve been quoted.
At this point, a couple of paths develop that can lead to issues down the road. Obviously, the most direct approach is to make a formal switch from Brand X to Brand Y, informing all parties involved and beginning the task of redesigning your existing truss design drawings (TDD). This is painstaking and labor intensive, but hey, the savings are worth it in the long run.
Another option would be to start buying plates from Brand Y for use on your existing Brand X TDDs. Brand Y will probably give you a conversion letter and a chart for using their plates with the drawings you created with Brand X’s software for a period of time. How long does that period last? Does Brand Y stand behind their allowed substitution and the plates on Brand X TDDs? Do they include indemnification in that letter if a project takes a bad direction in the future and you are asked to explain your use of two different plate types on the same truss? A lot of questions arise in that scenario that only you and the plate manufacturers can address.
A third option, and this is where things get complicated, is when you continue using Brand X software, but use Brand Y plates outside of a conversion period, or use these plates with no intention of making a conversion at all, but rather with the intent of lowering your average plate costs. This may be the idea of the individual CM, or subtly suggested by the Brand Y salesperson. However it happens, it creates problems for all parties involved, and leads to a tremendous amount of risk for the CM.
Let’s look at it this way, would you substitute a 2x6 No. 2 & Btr Hem-Fir for a 2x6 2400MSR DFL in the bottom chord of a 36’ girder? Both look the same and measure the same, but are they close enough to trade out and save a little money? I doubt any CM would knowingly do that in good conscience. So why are we seeing so many instances of trusses using plates from multiple plate manufacturers and reports of plates from multiple companies in stock at CM locations throughout the country? Obviously, there is a perception in the market that all connector plates are created equal. Sure, each measure the same and have the same pointy teeth that will cut an untrained hand, but what many in the industry don’t realize is the proprietary research that goes into each plate design and the way in which it is manufactured.
The plate manufacturers have each spent a very significant amount of money testing and researching how their respective plates work in the variety of joints and conditions in which they are expected to perform. From this research, they have calibrated each of their respective software platforms for CMs to use in designing trusses using their plates. What plate substitution ultimately amounts to is intellectual property theft through not compensating a plate manufacturer for the use of its software via averaging the cost of plates used in manufacturing trusses.
With that savings comes a large amount of risk. However it happens, CMs often find themselves as defendants in lawsuits. We produce a product that can be hazardous to install and must resist all Mother Nature throws its way in a variety of areas. If a truss in question is found to have an engineered TDD with plates specifying Brand X, but the plaintiff’s attorney finds Brand Y plates in photos submitted as evidence, the CM is going to have a lot of difficult explaining to do. If it was manufactured outside of the conversion letter mentioned before, Brand X is likely to say “hey, it’s not our fault, our plates weren’t used.” Brand Y is just as likely to say “it’s not our problem, our software wasn’t used in the design and we can’t be held responsible.” This leaves the CM explaining everything in court alone. Hopefully, he knows exactly what his insurance will cover or he will risk losing his entire business over a practice he thought could save him some money. Are the pennies, nickels and dimes per pound worth risking your entire business and livelihood over? Why not just cut to the chase and forget about paying the insurance premiums, too? After all, if you’re sacrificing one business “common practice,” you might as well sacrifice them all.
These practices are difficult to understand and even more difficult to talk about. The plate manufacturer representatives in the field may or may not see this happening, and may or may not say anything about it. They are not the police, and as an industry we shouldn’t ask them to do plant inspections for plate boxes with competitor’s names. If that salesperson does see a different box in your plant he is likely going to do whatever he can to regain you as a customer and won’t do anything that would upset you, like shutting off your software, even though he rightfully should. After all, his priority is to act in the best interest of his company, not yours. That said, if your only interaction with the “outside truss world” is through your plate manufacturer’s representative, you should become engaged in your association, attend your next chapter meeting and become active in this conversation and a wide variety of other important topics facing our industry today.
If you don’t like the conversation, change it and bring your issues to the table so we can address them together as an industry. THAT is a best practice every CM should be engaged in!