A11102 4L1430

^i»M«T.^»ARD8*TECH R.I.C.

w^IV/'E461430

OC100 UM N0 85-32T9°r9e

8

n

6dc

e<,

, PSCpue. J279

Recommended Practices for

U.S. Postal Service Roofing

Program

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

Walter J. Rossiter, Jr.* William C. Cullen**

Robert G. Mathey*

Reference

*U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

**William C. Cullen Associates

Potomac, MD 20854

January 1986

Prepared for: U.S. Postal Service

Design Management Division

QC al Estate and Buildings Department

2 Q 0 shington, DC 20260-6415

• U56

85-3279

1986

N3S RESEARCH UJFOPi,lotion CENTER

NBSIR 85-3279

t / C(„ RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR

U S. POSTAL SERVICE ROOFING

PROGRAM

Walter J. Rossiter, Jr.* William C. Cullen**

Robert G. Mathey*

*U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

**William C. Cullen Associates

Potomac, MD 20854

January 1986

Prepared for: U.S. Postal Service

Design Management Division

Real Estate and Buildings Department

Washington, DC 20260-6415

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director

Table of Contents

Page

ABSTRACT iv

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objective 3

1 . 3 Scope 3

2. USPS ROOFING PRACTICES 5

2.1 Roof Performance 5

2.2 Program Flexibility 6

2.3 Design 6

2.4 Construction and Workmanship 8

2.5 Responsibility 11

2.6 Guide Specifications and Other Documents . 11

2.7 Maintenance Inspections 12

2.8 Maintenance and Repair 15

2.9 Maintenance Guidelines, Bulletins, and

Related Documents 17

2.10 Training 18

3. RECOMMENDATIONS 19

3.1 Option 1 — Total Roof Management Program. 21

3.2 Option 2 — Pertinent Practices

Incorporated in Roof Management Programs.. 27

3.3 Option 3 — Incorporation of Individual

Steps to Improve USPS Practices 36

4. SUMMARY 45

5. REFERENCES 46

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 47

APPENDIX 48

i i i
ABSTRACT

This study was conducted for the United States Postal Service

(USPS) to provide technical recommendations to improve the

quality of its low-sloped roofing. Two major tasks were carried

out: 1) a review of current USPS roofing practices, and 2) a review of roof management programs used by other organizations in the public and private sectors. A comparison of USPS

practices with the elements of effective roof management programs

provided the basis for recommendations to USPS.

This report presents the final results of the study including

the trends in current USPS roofing practices and the recommendations

to the USPS. Three options which USPS may take as steps to

improve its roofing are suggested. The first option is to

develop a total roof management program. The second option

is to adopt some pertinent practices which are included in

effective roof management programs. The third option is to take

some smaller steps from a list of items for reducing the limitations identified in current USPS practices. A benefit to NBS

in obtaining the information gathered in the study was the

identification of measurement research needs related to improved

roofing performance, particularly for organizations having large

inventories of buildings.

Key words: construction; design; low-sloped roofs; maintenance;

management; performance; recommendations; repair; roofing

IV
1 . INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 Background

The United States Postal Service (USPS), like many organizations

with a large stock of buildings, has serious concerns about

the performance of low-sloped roofing systems. The waterproofing

of these systems is provided by the use of a continuous membrane

which must retain its integrity over the intended service life.

For most systems, it is anticipated that with proper maintenance

they will remain serviceable for 15 to 20 years or more.

However, in many cases, the anticipated service life is not

achieved. Experience has shown that many low-sloped roofing

systems do not reach their expected service life to the extent

that poor performance of roofs is considered a major problem for

industrial and commercial buildings [1]. For example, in a

survey of owners of such buildings, roof leaks were reported as

one of the more common problems [2]. Another indicator of poor

performance is that, although roofing system cost does not

generally exceed 5 percent of the total cost of a new building,

about 50 percent of the lawsuits regarding building constructions

involve roofs [3].

The USPS is aware of the impact of poor roofing performance

on the costs of constructing and maintaining buildings with lowsloped roofs. It has within its system over 34,000 buildings.

Although most of the buildings are leased, these are predominantly the smaller ones. As a consequence, USPS has direct responsibility for approximately 100 million square feet of roofing,

1
and the majority of this roofing is low-sloped. The leased

buildings have about an equal amount of roofing for which USPS

may have indirect responsibility. A conservative estimate of

USPS annual roofing costs is $30 million.

The buildings in the USPS system are spread across the

United States. As a result, USPS roof design, construction, and

maintenance procedures vary widely depending upon local practices

and preferences. In view of the complexity of its roofing

situation, USPS considered that significant cost savings might be

achieved through improvements in its roofing practices.

The USPS requested the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

to provide technical support in order to recommend improvement in

the quality assurance of its low-sloped roofing. In providing

this support, a study having two major tasks was carried out: 1)

a review of USPS roofing practices, and 2) a review of roof

management programs used by other organizations in both the

public and private sectors. The first task was intended to

identify and describe the USPS roofing practices and to determine

their strengths and weaknesses. The intent of the second task

was to define the essential elements which comprise effective

roof management programs. By comparing the USPS roofing practices

with the elements of effective roof management programs, a basis

would be set for providing recommendations to USPS for improving

its roofing practices.

This report presents summary results of the study including

an overview of USPS roofing practices and the study recommend2
ations. The results of the first task on USPS roofing practices

are given in a report entitled, "USPS Roofing Practices,"

[ 4 ] . The results of the second task on roof management are

given in a report entitled, "Roof Management Programs," [5].

1.2 Objective

The objective of this study is to provide the technical

basis for recommendations for steps which may be taken by the

USPS to improve its roofing practices.

1.3 Scope

The information concerning USPS roofing practices was

obtained from personnel responsible for the design, construction,

and maintenance of low-sloped roofing. The information gathered

included data on new, replacement, and repair applications.

Discussions related to USPS roofing practices were held with

personnel at Headquarters level, those in the design field

offices, and those in the maintenance field offices. Also

discussions were held with individuals from architectural/

engineering (A/E) and roofing consulting firms which provide

roofing services to USPS. The study did not address the economics

of roof management directly, although they must ultimately be the

justification for roof management programs. In general, it was

found that a roof management program may increase new roofing

costs 5 to 25 percent above the costs for those roofs constructed

without benefit of such a program [5]. However, individuals

3
involved with roof management indicate that the increased service

from the roofing offsets the higher initial costs.

The information concerning roof management programs was

obtained from discussions with persons knowledgeable in the

field. Discussions were held with representatives of large

organizations which are multi-regional with large stocks of

multi-purpose buildings to review their roof management programs.

Also discussions were held with individuals who provide roof

management services to building owners to review the steps

incorporated in these services. A benefit to NBS in obtaining

the information gathered in the study was the identification of

measurement research needs related to improved roofing performance,

particularly for organizations having large inventories of buildings.

4
2. USPS ROOFING PRACTICES

The study of the USPS roofing practices identified a number

of advantages and limitations in the program [4]. These areas are

summarized in this section of this report under the following

topics: roof performance, program flexibility, design, construction and workmanship, responsibility, guide specifications and

other documents, maintenance inspections, maintenance and repair,

maintenance guidelines and related documents, and training. It

is noted that the review of the USPS practices identified trends

in the mode of operation. Practices vary between the different

offices within the organization.

2.1 Roof Performance

The USPS is typical of many organizations which have a large

inventory of buildings situated across the U.S. Design and

construction of roofing is handled separately from maintenance

and repair activities. In general, many low-sloped roofing

systems, both built-up bituminous and single-ply, have performed

satisfactorily. It was found that many aspects of current USPS

roofing practice are consistent with accepted industry practice.

Nevertheless, a number of limitations were also identified and

consequently, these are areas for improvement. Roofing problems

have been numerous enough that many USPS staff consider roofing

to be a major facility problem. In the course of the study,

many examples of premature failures and early replacement of

roofing were described. The problems were found to be typical of

5
those associated with low-sloped roofing. As a consequence, it

is considered apropos that USPS take steps to improve its roofing

practices and activities with the aim of reducing the number of

premature failures.

2.2 Program Flexibility

One of the strengths of the USPS roofing program is its

flexibility. The USPS program does not, in general, have

restrictions that preclude changes in its mode of operation and

the use of new procedures. For example, USPS can use outside

expertise, new materials, innovative methods of application, and

diagnostic procedures if the staff determines that their use will

benefit USPS. This flexibility is a result of the autonomy that

the field offices have in conducting their roofing activities.

However, this flexibility can also be a weakness in the system in

cases, for example, where the staff makes use of new materials or

systems without their adequate review and evidence of long-term

service life, and incorporation of proper controls.

2 . 3 Design

The design of most USPS roofing is conducted by an A/E under

contract to USPS and under the direction of a project manager.

If the designer does not possess adequate knowledge of roofing,

it is likely that less-than-sat isf actory design will be obtained.

USPS does not have guide specifications and, in many offices,

only a few guidelines are available for designers who provide

6
roofing assistance. To help assure that the roof design will be

adequate, Headquarter's projects include the requirement that the

A/E will use a roofing specialist to provide design review. In

addition, some Field Real Estate and Building Offices (FREBOs)

also carry out this practice for new roofing, and have the design

done by a specialist in the case of re-roofing. This practice

has been found to result in successful roofing design for the few

years that it has been in use. However, not all the FREBOs are

using roofing specialists in this manner, but place full confidence in the A/E's knowledge of roofing. A shortcoming of this

point of view is that the roofing industry has changed drastically

over the last decade with a proliferation of many new materials

and systems. It is difficult for A/E firms to keep abreast of

these changes unless they have on their staffs at least one

designer who specializes in roofing. Of course, it is important

that, in cases where a roofing specialist is hired to provide

design assistance, the individual should be carefully selected as

having the proper background and training. USPS is responsible

for the selection of the roofing specialists used in its programs,

but uniform guidelines for their selection have not been prepared.

2.3.1 Materials Selection

USPS uses all types of materials in its roofing constructions

including built-up bituminous, single-ply, and spray-in-place

polyurethane foam. In those cases where roofing specialists are

providing design assistance, the selection of the material is

7
guided by the specialist. Where general A/Es are providing

design, little guidance may be given by the FRE80 except for

suggesting which general types of systems should or should not be

specified. Advice on the limitations in use of different

materials and systems is seldom given. This practice has

shortcomings in cases where the designer is not adequately

familiar with the performance of the material of choice. The

selected material may not be proper for the job at hand, and

other materials may be more suitable. Although the USPS project

manager reviews the A/E submittal, many of them have difficulties

in keeping abreast of the use of the many new materials and

systems which have entered the market in the last few years.

Since USPS uses a broad spectrum of materials, it has the

opportunity to learn of their performance under different

conditions and climates. Such knowledge might be useful to

prevent repetition of errors in cases where less-than-sat isf actory performance has occurred. However, USPS design personnel

seldom receive feedback on the roofs which they design, unless

problems have occurred. Furthermore, the feedback is seldom used

to prepare guide bulletins to alert other USPS staff of situations

which have resulted in the poor performance.

2.4 Construction and Workmanship

In many cases, workmanshio during application of low-sloped

roofing systems is considered by USPS staff to be satisfactory.

However, in other cases, the staff members have indicated that it

8
ls unsatisfactory to the extent that workmanship is considered to

be one of the most serious deficiencies with USPS roofing

practice.

Private sector contractors apply all USPS roofing, and are

selected on an open bid process. Such a selection process may,

in some cases, result in the awarding of the contract to a firm

which is not adequately qualified. Although USPS staff consider

factors such as experience, training, costs, and approval by a

material manufacturer, uniform criteria for contractor selection are not available in the USPS system. In many cases, the

regions or FREBO offices have developed guidelines for their

own use. Also, in many cases, USPS offices attempt to hold

contractors accountable for correcting deficiencies in roofing

traceable to unacceptable workmanship. However, some offices

have expressed a need to have criteria available for defining an

acceptable membrane as fabricated in the field, particularly with

regard to allowable tolerances. It is noted that standard

criteria for judging the acceptability of all types of roofing

systems are not available, although the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) has published the guidelines, "Quality

Control in the Application of Built-Up Roofing" [6].

The FREBOs often use term contractors (a firm under contract

for a given time period) for roofing applications. This practice

has the advantage that the contractor is available to respond to

requests for work without prolonged delay. Some roofing specialists

who provide roof services to USPS have questioned the adequacy of

9
some term contractors. They indicate that the term contractors

are, in some cases, not qualified to complete all the jobs

requested of them. USPS experience supports this point of

view. Instances were reported to NBS staff where: term contractors

were not provided with additional work because of unsatisfactory

performance; their contracts were not renewed; and their contracts

were terminated. These specialists expressed concern over

unqualified term contractors because they may be given a number

of jobs to do over the length of the contract. The evidence

suggests that the methods used to select contractors should be

improved to reduce the incidence of unsatisfactory workmanship.

USPS Headquarters and some FREBOs use full-time inspection

for all roofing jobs, while other FREBOs use the practice for

those jobs which exceed a given dollar limit. The inspector is

normally a roofing specialist. In contrast, some FREBOs require

no inspection during construction, unless the project A/E

determines that it is necessary. In these cases, the A/E is

responsible for assuring that the inspection is conducted. The

use of full-time inspection by a specialist during roof application is a practice that has been incorporated in many roof

management programs as a step to provide quality control of

roofing. Moreover, recently the Architect's Liability Committee

of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) recommended to AIA

that inspection during roof construction be provided by specialists

as a positive step to reduce roofing problems.

10
2.5 Responsibility

A key element incorporated in roof management is the

assignment of responsibility for the various activities that are

carried out in the roof management program. Most USPS offices

conducting roofing have no key staff member who has the responsibility

for coordination of the roofing activities. This is the case for

both those offices conducting design and construction, as well as

those doing maintenance and repair. One exception to this

finding is that some offices that use roofing specialists for

design and construction assistance have assigned a project

manaaer as a roofing coordinator.

With regard to another area of responsibility, USPS does not

presently have a mechanism for assigning the total responsibility

for design and materials selection, construction, and serviceability

of its roofing systems to a single source. The concept of single

source responsibility is a major aspect of some roof management

programs

.

2.6 Guide Specification and Other Documents

USPS does not have available guide specifications concerning

roof design and construction, although many offices including

headquarters provide some general limited guidelines on roof

construction requirements. The lack of guide specifications can

be a serious limitation in the USPS program, particularly in

those cases where roofing expertise is not used to assist the

project manager in design and construction. Today's roofing

11
market contains numerous types of materials and systems [7].

USPS design and maintenance personnel have difficulty in keeping

abreast of the new products. As a result, USPS project managers

may approve or select roofing systems with which they have little

familiarity.

An obvious limitation to the use of guide specifications is

the constant need for updating. However, a possible mechanism to

overcome this limitation is to use documents that are developed

by the industry and not prepared in-house. An example would be

the NRC A "Roofing and Waterproofing Manual" [8]. Many USPS

project managers involved in design use this document, as well as others developed by industry. However, the practice is far from

being universal throughout the USPS system, as many staff have

indicated that they make little reference to industry documents.

USPS Headquarters has prepared "short form specifications"

for use by field personnel to assist in the design of small

roofing projects. Although this practice is a step toward

providing control in the preparation of specifications by those

field personnel who are not trained designers, the "short form

specifications" must be maintained current to be useful. Review

of the "short form specifications" has indicated that revision

and updating are needed.

2.7 Maintenance Inspections

Roofing inspections are normally conducted as planned events

for the majority of USPS roofs. Nevertheless, USPS staff have

12
indicated that a number of roofs are not inspected regularly, but

only when a problem, normally a leak, develops. USPS directives

require that an annual inspection be conducted by a local

maintenance officer except where storm damage is suspected, the

climate is severe, or the roof has a history of problems. Then

more frequent inspection is required. The routine inspection is

intended to determine if any deficiencies have developed and to

initiate necessary repairs. In addition, any routine housekeeping such as the cleaning of drains should be carried out. It

is noted that, in contrast to USPS practice, it is recommended in

the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association ( ARMA )/National

Roofing Contractors Association, "Manual of Roof Maintenance and

Roof Repair" [9], that regular inspection of the roof should be

made at least twice a year.

The Building Maintenance and Engineering Office (BMEO) staff

conduct in-depth inspections of roofs in conjunction with general

inspections of buildings. The frequency of such inspections is,

on the average, every 2 to 3 years. Problems encountered by BMEO

staff during inspections are typical of those normally found for

low-sloped roofs. An important finding of the study is that

defects often observed by BMEO staff are clogged drains and

debris on the roofs. This indicates that the local routine

inspections are not always carried out as intended in the USPS

maintenance policy. Minor defects such as clogged drains can

lead to major roof problems if not corrected.

13
To assist those inspecting roofs, USPS has developed two

checklists. One is for use by local maintenance personnel, while

the other is for BMEO staff. Both checklists are strongly

orientated towards built-up roofing. It is accepted by USPS that

those using the forms are knowledgeable regarding roof inspection. However, as a consequence, if those using the lists are

not adequately trained, these checklists do not contain sufficient

information to assist the inspector adequately. Roofing specialists

under contract to FREBOs reported that they had been requested to

investigate roofs which had been designated for replacement by

the inspector. It was indicated that, in some cases, the roofs

in question were not in need of replacements but only required

repair. Apparently, local inspectors had observed defects in the

roofing, misinterpreted the magnitude of the problem, and

recommended replacement.

USPS does not have guidelines to assist in making decisions

as to when repair or replacement is needed. This is not a unique

circumstance, since this is generally true in the industry.

Such decisions are often based, in part, on the experience and

training of the individual evaluating the roof. In general, it

is considered that the USPS should take steps to improve the

ability of inspectors to evaluate roofs. This would include

emphasis on training and providing documents to assist those who

are not thoroughly trained in roof inspections.

Non-destructive evaluation ( NDE ) techniques are used

frequently by many BMEO staff. This occurs either on a routine

14
basis or after observing a roof and determining that moisture may

be present and a NDE survey is warranted. Tne use of such

surveys has been effective in that roofs have been successfully

renovated where only the wet section was replaced, while the

remainder of the roofing was left in place since it was in

satisfactory condition and functional. Nevertheless, in spite of

the cost savings achieved in these cases, some BMEOs do not make

much use of NDE surveys.

USP-S has encouraged the use of NDE surveys. BMEOs have

nuclear meters and staff trained in their operation. Moreover,

local maintenance officers are instructed to request a NDE survey

if their inspection of a roof indicates that moisture may have

penetrated the system. The Maintenance Technical Support

Center (MTSC) was providing training to BMEO staff in the use of

nuclear meters, but this training has recently been discontinued.

It was reported that the responsibility for training maintenance

inspectors in the use of NDE equipment is scheduled to be shifted

to the regions. It is suggested that USPS continue to use NDE

evaluations of roofing, either in-house or by contract, as needed

for conducting roofing investigations.

2.8 Maintenance and Repair

Repair of defects in a roof observed during inspection are

generally carried out by roofing contractors, although building

maintenance crews do some minor repair. The roofing contractors

15
are often term contractors who are thus available to provide

repair without undue delay.

Essentially no "on-the-spot" repair is carried out during

roof inspections. Thus, all observed defects are corrected at a later date. USPS practice has the flexibility to have emergency

repairs made within a day's time. However, normal repairs often

require two or more months to be done. In an extreme example

found in this study, one roof went without repair for over a year

during which time leaks continued when it rained.

In the case of minor repairs, the local maintenance officer

or BMEO provides the work order for completion. If major repairs

(normally greater than $5000) are needed, then the BMEO requests

the services of a FREBO to provide the design and construction.

The BMEO may prepare a work order and have a procurement office

issue a repair contract up to $25,000, if the BMEO staff believes

that they have the capability to do the design. In this case,

the BMEO may often use a "short form specification." This

practice has limitations considering that, in general, the BMEO

staff members are not trained designers and the "short form

specifications" are in need of revision.

BMEO offices keep maintenance and repair records for the

roofs under their responsibility. Although in most instances the

records are kept current by the BMEO, examples were cited where

the record keeping was inadequate. USPS has initiated a computerbased data management system to identify needed building maintenance

and repair work, its costs, and its progress. This system allows

16
for the tracking of roofing repair. However, it does not provide

for identification of the specific problem at hand or its

causes. In addition, information regarding the roof construction

and its age are not part of the data file.

2.9 Maintenance Guidelines, Bulletins, and Pelated Documents

USPS has guidelines available on roof maintenance, although

not all maintenance staff members are aware of these documents.

The main document is Chapter 2 of Maintenance Handbook #6 which

gives guidelines for repair and alteration inspections. It also

includes summary tables on techniques for conducting minor

repair. In reviewing this document, a number of observations

were made. The document considers primarily built-up roofing and

not single-ply or other types for commercial and industrial

buildings. The information provided on built-up roofing is in

need of revision and updating to reflect changes in built-up

roofing technology which have occurred in recent years. Also,

since the document provides information in summary form, it is

not adequate for inspectors who have little experience with

roofing

.

The MTSC prepares bulletins for distribution to the maintenance

staff. Many staff find the bulletins to be of assistance, but

not all staff are aware of these bulletins. Similarly, many

staff make use of industry documents which can provide valuable

assistance regarding roof maintenance and repair. However, a small percentage do not use industry-prepared documents at all.

17
2.10 Training

USPS provides training for its design and construction, as

well as maintenance and repair staff involved with roofing.

However, less than one quarter of these staff members indicate

that they attend training courses annually. Reluctance to take

time away from the office and the work at hand is cited as a major reason for not attending courses more often. Many staff

have expressed that they have difficulty in keeping current with

the new materials and systems which are presently used for

roofing

.

The primary source for training for maintenance and repair

personnel is the MTSC. Both design and construction, and

maintenance and repair personnel attend industry courses such as

those offered by the Roofing Industry Educational Institute

(RIEI). USPS has sponsored one RIEI course for USPS staff

members

.

A major source of information is attendance at vendor

seminars. An attraction of these courses is that they are often

provided at the USPS facility or at least locally. A limitation

is that they may lack objectivity which is a fact recognized by

many offices.

18
3. RECOMMENDATIONS

This section of the report presents recommendations to USPS

for improving its roofing practices. The recommendations are

based on the review of USPS current roofing practices [4], and

the review of roof management programs undertaken by major

organizations, both public and private, to help assure that their

roofs provide satisfactory long-term performance [5].

Three options are given as recommendations which include:

1. development of a total roof management program,

2. adoption of some pertinent practices included in roof

management programs to provide improved control of USPS

roofing, and

3. implementation of individual steps to modify current USPS

practices

.

The three options are listed in order of their complexity,

level of effort, and cost which would have to be expended to

implement the action. For example, the development of a total

roof management program is the most complex and would require

commitment of many individuals within USPS, as well as outside,

with expertise in roof management programs. Moreover, once in

place, a means must be implemented to maintain the program

current. Conversely, individual small steps taken to modify

roofing practices might be, in many instances, adopted quickly by

appropriate personnel within the USPS system. Sufficient data

are not available to estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing

the three options. As discussed in the report on roof management

19
programs [5], increased costs of new roofing done under a management program may be in the range of 5 to 25 percent

above the costs for roofing conducted without a management

program. As a step towards estimating the cost-effectiveness of

conducting a USPS roof management program, a study could be

conducted to compare the costs and roofing performance experienced

within two FREBOs. In this case, one FREBO would use only

roofing specialists for the design and construction of its

roofing, while the other would do in-house design or use general

A/E firms.

It is recognized that there is redundancy in the options.

For example, the individual steps listed in option 3 would be

included as necessary actions undertaken in the development of

a total roof management program. Nevertheless, the options were

listed in this manner so that USPS could begin to act on the

individual steps if the resources would not allow implementation

of a total roof management program.

The USPS is already conducting its roofing practices in many

offices in a manner which has a number of advantages or strengths.

However, such practices are not universally in place throughout

the system. It is intended that these strengths should be

considered in developing steps to improve USPS practices and

incorporated in actions taken.

It is again noted here that many of the aspects of current

USPS roofing practice were found quite acceptable and success20
ful. Nevertheless, improvements can be implemented which is the

intent of providing recommendations.

3.1 Option 1 — Total Roof Management Program

This option is the development of a total roof management

program for the USPS. Major objectives of roof management are to

increase control over the organization's roofing design, construction,

and maintenance, and to define the risks associated in carrying

out these functions. Mechanisms for providing the control are

incorporated in the program.

A roof management program should be developed based on the

four elements essential to roof management: (1) the roofing

system criterion, (2) the quality assurance plan, (3) the quality

control phase, and (4) the assignment of responsibility.

A model for the development of a roof management program for the

USPS could be that developed by the U.S. Air Force [10].

However, in this case, the plan should be designed to meet the

specific needs of the USPS. In particular, practices in the

U.S. Air Force program which limit the types of roofing materials

and systems could be altered to suit the USPS needs. Likewise,

mechanisms for providing on-site inspection of roof installation

could be incorporated to be specific to USPS roofing practices.

A roof management program for USPS would be extensive. Documents

would need to be prepared to define the roofing system criterion

for USPS including master specifications and details for design,

acceptable materials and systems, acceptable installation

21
practices, repair and maintenance techniques, contracts and

warranties. Mechanisms for quality assurance and quality control

would need to be established including procedures for review of

specifications, materials acceptance, and proper installation of

new, repair, and remedial roofing. It is noted here that the

inclusion of master specifications and details in the program

would not necessarily mean that USPS would develop their own

documents. Rather, industry documents such as the National

Roofing Contractors Association "Roofing and Waterproofing

Manual" might be used in part for the program.

An important aspect of the development of a roof management

program is the assignment of responsibility to assure that the

program and the steps and procedures incorporated in it are

carried out as intended. Current USPS practice does not, in most

circumstances, assign responsibility for roofing to specific

individuals within the various levels of the USPS organization

structure. In general, roofing responsibility is spread among a number of individuals without coordination. The roof management

program should address this limitation and include steps for

assignment of responsibility.

Another facet of responsibility assignment included in a

roof management program is the determination of clearly-defined

procedures for indicating the party responsible for the long-term

performance of the roof. Some existing roof management programs

have taken steps to tie together the responsibility for design,

materials, and installation with the intent that there should be

22
a single responsibility for these three areas of roof construction

practice. A program developed by USPS should consider a mechanism

for assigning a single responsibility.

3.1.1 Levels of Concern in Roof Management Planning

The majority of roof management plans reviewed in this study

concentrate on quality assurance and quality control of new

roofing. This finding can be rationalized if it is considered

that roofing construction should be satisfactorily completed to

provide acceptable long-term performance. Moreover, a properly

designed and constructed roof should develop few problems

requiring extensive repair during its service life. However,

USPS has a vast inventory of buildings of varying ages whose

proper maintenance and repair are equally important. Therefore,

a roof management program should address not only the proper

construction of new roofing, but also the performance of that

already in place. Inadequate routine inspection, and lack of

timely maintenance and repair of existing roofing, were found to

be among the limitations of current USPS practice.

It is considered that the roof management program for USPS

should consider five levels. The plan should describe the

mechanism for attaining quality roofing for each of these areas:

Level 1. New construction. The components of the roof

system are installed at the time of building

construction

.

23
Level 2. Reroof existing building. Generally, the nonstructural portion of the roof system is removed

and discarded. Repairs are made as necessary to

the structural components and a new roofing system

is applied.

Level 3. Recover existing roof. The existing roof is

repaired and restored to an acceptable condition

to receive a new cover, and a new membrane system

is put in place. A determination must be

made that moisture has not penetrated the existing

system to the point that it is an unacceptable

substrate for the new cover. The recover operation usually involves new insulation as a separate

layer and a new membrane with appropriate surfacing.

Level 4. Repairs to existing roof. This action is required

after a problem occurs or a major defect is

discovered during roof inspection. Remedial

action is taken to bring the roof to a serviceable

condition. In many cases, this involves less than

the total area of the roof.

Level 5. Roof maintenance. These are routine actions

carried out promptly to prevent problems and

extend the service life of the roof.

24
3.1.2 Plan Levels

The roof management program should be developed to address

the hierarchical organization of the USPS from its Headquarters

to the individual Post Offices. Thus, it is convenient to

consider five levels at which the program would be administered

and implemented: (1) Headquarters, (2) Regions including FREBOs,

(3) Districts including BMEOs, (4) Management Sectional Centers,

and (5) Post Offices. A key element is the assignment of

responsibility at each of these levels.

Level 1. Headquarters

.

The program should describe, in

general terms, policies concerning roofing as well

as the requirements of all USPS roofs. At this

level, procedures and guidelines for specifying,

constructing, and maintaining roofs would be

established to assist the lower levels in the

hierarchy. This level would address such items as

bidding, warranties, guarantees and the like. In

addition, the mechanism for the design and

construction of roofs by Headquarters staff

would be formalized.

Level 2. Regions

.

This portion of the program would

address the roofing needs of the individual

regions and FREBOs in specific terms, especially

as roof design, materials and construction vary

25
among the five Regions. With regard to new

construction and major renovation, the program at

this stage should provide for the prequalification

of manufactured materials, contractors, roofing

specialists, quality controllers, inspectors, and

testing laboratories for determining the quality

assurance and control of USPS roofing. It would

provide the mechanism for material and design

selection, as well as the on-site quality control

of the roof installation. The administrative

duties of the Regional staff regarding roofing

would also be defined.

Level 3. Districts

.

The procedures at this level would

also be specific and primarily aimed at the

actions undertaken to provide for necessary

maintenance and repair. Guidelines and specifications for maintenance and repair would be established,

as well as criteria for the selection of contractors

who provide maintenance actions for USPS. The

responsibility for establishing procedures for

record keeping would fall at this level. The

administrative duties of interfacing the FREBOs

and BMEOs , and also the MSCs and BMEOs would be

def i ned

.

26
Level 4. Management Sectional Centers. The duties and

actions required of the maintenance officers for

inspection and repair of roofs would be addressed

at this level. Included here would be items such

as scheduling of inspections, training, inspection

techniques and procedures, and reporting.

Level 5. Post Offices. This level involves varied tasks

depending upon the size of the building. For

those buildings where maintenance staff are

available to conduct periodic maintenance inspections, the program should address these activities.

For all buildings, the program should address the

steps to be taken in cases of emergency (e.g.,

leaks, blow-offs) to assure that prompt corrective

action is taken. Finally, the program should

address steps to be taken to raise the awareness

that the roof must be properly maintained and not

abused, if it is to provide satisfactory long-term

service

.

3.2 Option 2 — Pertinent Practices Incorporated in Roof

Management Programs

The second option of actions to be taken to improve USPS

roofing performance is to include in its existing roofing program

some pertinent practices which are incorporated in well established

27
roof management programs. However, this option falls short of

considering the development of a total roof management program.

It is considered that this option might be implemented in the

short-term as a step towards developing option 1.

Option 2 is based on the review of current USPS roofing

practices and the identification of some of its advantages and

limitations. These advantages and limitations are considered in

light of those practices which have been included in successful

roof management programs. The recommendations in this option

have two parts. The first deals with design and construction of

new roofing, as well as major repair and renovation of existing

roofs. The second concerns the maintenance and repair of

existing roofing. This division is consistent with current USPS

practice whereby Headquarters and the FREBOs are primarily

responsible for design and construction, while the BMEOs and

local maintenance officers are responsible for maintenance and

repair

.

3.2.1 Design and Construction

The primary recommendation regarding design and construction

is that the USPS initiate a uniform policy of using roofing

specialists to assist its project managers in roofing design and

construction. This recommendation is based on the current

limited practice of using roofing specialists at Headquarters and

at some FREBOs. Where the practice is already in use (Headquar28
ters and some FREBOs), it should be continued with consideration

of improvements given below.

The review of USPS practices indicated that, at the limited

number of FREBOs that have used the practice for a few years,

much success has been attained. Roofs constructed under the

practice have performed satisfactorily without premature major

problems. Those FREBOs currently using the practice anticipate

that the added initial costs of roofing will be offset by

increased long-term performance.

Roofing specialists should be used for three actions:

1. To provide design review for new construction and actual

design for remedial roofing. This practice has the

benefit that the roofing specialist may use his/her

expertise to define and provide acceptable design

including material selection for USPS. It precludes the

necessity of USPS staff preparing guide specifications,

details and the like which would be part of a total roof

management program.

2. To provide inspection during construction and assure

that proper steps regarding materials handling and

storage are followed. This practice has the benefit of

removing the burden of inspection from a general A/E or

USPS staff member who may not have adequate experience in

monitoring roof construction.

29
3. To provide investigation of roofing problems and prepare

recommendations for their solutions. This practice has

the advantage that an individual knowledgeable in roofing

technology recommends solutions to problems.

Although the practice of using roofing specialists has been

successful to-date for the USPS, some actions for improvement are

suggested as follows:

1. The USPS should assign a roofing coordinator at Headquarters

and at each FREBO to work with the roofing specialist. Even

when roofing specialists are used, USPS has ultimate responsibility for its roof design and construction, and at each

level USPS should have someone who can be delegated that

responsibility. The roofing coordinator should be experienced

in roofing technology and active in the industry in order to

keep abreast with technological changes. Steps for being

active might include participation at conferences, seminars,

training courses, and standardization committees such as ASTM.

2. USPS should develop uniform criteria for the selection of

individuals who are hired under contract as roofing specialists. This suggestion is based on the premise that the

benefits to USPS in using the assistance of roofing specialists are limited by the level of expertise of the specialists.

Some FREBOs currently using this practice have expressed

30
concern that they have had under contract individuals who

lacked desired qualifications,

3. USPS should provide guidelines for acceptable materials and

systems and limitations on their use. In addition, alert

bulletins on systems and designs which have given difficulties should be provided to the offices. This suggestion is

based on the realization that USPS has many thousands of

roofs in service and that feedback on their performance

would provide valuable information to help assure the

success of future design and construction. Also, industry

trends regarding technological changes should be described.

31
3.2.2 Maintenance and Repair

USPS should take steps to provide improved maintenance and

repair of its roofing. This recommendation should not be

construed as implying that the current practices are entirely

unsatisfactory. Rather, the recommendation is based on the

finding in the study that in a number of instances, maintenance

and repair procedures were conducted in less than a satisfactory

manner. Existing maintenance and repair procedures were listed

among the limitations of current USPS practices. Significant

here were the concerns regarding local preventive maintenance

inspections, and the time that sometimes elapses between the

discovery or report of a problem, and its solution.

One step to be taken is that each BMEO should be assigned a roofing coordinator to track the inspection of roofs and assure

that problems, when observed, are corrected without undue

delay. The majority of the BMEOs do not have one individual

responsible for roofing activities within the office. Moreover,

the computerized data base management system currently being

brought into use by the BMEOs should be revised to incorporate

information concerning roof construction, age, and the specifics

of problems discovered during inspections. Such information

might be used for periodic review of the performance of USPS

roofs including the successes and the failures. In addition, it

could provide the basis for revision of a listing of acceptable

materials and systems used by USPS, or for alert bulletins on

materials performance made available to FREBO staff.

32
To improve maintenance and repair practice within USPS,

three alternative suggestions are included here:

1. Improve local maintenance practice. The first line of

inspection and maintenance of USPS roofing is the local

maintenance officer from the MSC or Post Office. Inspection

and maintenance procedures for these individuals should be

improved. Although the BMEO staff members are in general

adequately trained in roofing, they inspect each roof only

every 2 to 3 years, unless problems develop and their

assistance is needed. Training of local inspectors should

be improved to increase both the knowledge of the inspector,

and the awareness of the necessity to provide adequate

periodic inspections of the roof and timely repairs of

observed defects.

The inspectors should be provided with improved tools for

conducting inspections. One item is to have available a detailed inspection and repair manual instead of the

current checklist which is only intended for those who have

some knowledge of roof inspections. The manual should

include information on all types of roofing which USPS uses

and should update the current manual concerning built-up

roofing. If work orders are to be prepared by maintenance

personnel, then the "short form specifications" should be

updated

.

33
Another item is to provide a uniform set of criteria for the

selection of term contractors who conduct repair work for

the maintenance officers (and in a broader sense, the BMEOs

and FREBOs). This suggestion is based on the finding that

in some instances, term contractors were inadequately

qualified. These criteria should qualify the contractor on

the basis of ability, experience, past performance, and

training, and not on the basis of cost alone. For conducting

minor local repairs where the assistance of a trained

designer is not warranted, the help of a qualified roofing

contractor can be valuable to the local maintenance officer.

Also included in this category is a review of current

contracting procedures. The intent is to determine whether

the procedures may be revised to decrease the time required

to let a contract for repair after a defect in a roof is

discovered.

2. Use of inspection and maintenance contracts. One

aspect of roof management programs which has been

increasing in recent years is the use of contractors who

specialize in the maintenance and repair of roofs.

These firms can provide record keeping, periodic inspection,

recommendations for immediate repair as necessary, and cost

estimates for long-term maintenance and eventual reroofing.

Although there are obviously costs associated with contracting

34
for such services, their use helps assure that timely

inspections are conducted by trained professionals.

Moreover, it also relieves the building owner of the

responsibilities to train inspectors to inspect the myriad

of different roofing systems that are currently available

and to prepare and keep current the accompaning manuals.

It is thus suggested that USPS undertake an exploratory

study to use the services of a maintenance and repair

contractor for a number of its buildings. During the study,

the cost benefits to USPS and improvements in roof inspection practices should be ascertained. Criteria would need

to be developed to assure that the selected maintenance

contractor ( s ) was suitably qualified.

3. Include a maintenance contract in the construction bid.

Another suggestion for improving USPS roof maintenance

practice is to include a maintenance clause in the construction contract for the roof. For example, the U.S. Air Force

program has incorporated, as part of the original construction contract, a performance agreement that the roofing

contractor maintains the serviceability of the roof for 5

years after completion [10]. USPS could explore a similar

mechanism. Or, it could investigate the use of the services

of a firm which specializes in total roof management. In

this case, the firm would accept single source responsi35
bility for design and construction of the roof, and also

agree through contract to maintain its serviceability for a

specified period of time (perhaps up to 20 years).

Because the inclusion of a maintenance clause in the

construction contract offers long-term benefits of overcoming

the current limitations in its practice of always providing

timely maintenance, it is suggested that a preliminary study

be conducted. The study should explore both the use of a maintenance clause in the construction contract and use of a firm which would accept total responsibility for design,

construction, and serviceability.

3.3 Option 3 — Incorporation of Individual Steps to Improve

USPS Practices

This section lists individual steps to improve USPS roofing

practices. The recommendations are based on the review of USPS

current practices and the identification of limitations in them.

This recommendation is given so that USPS may review each of the

individual items given and select those which it considers best

in view of staff or funding limitations, or current construction

policy. In general, the recommendations given here follow the

outline of topics summarized in Section 2.

36
° Design — prepare a uniform set of design guidelines for use by

A/Es who provide roofing services to USPS; this has

special significance in those cases where the A/Es do not

have specialization in roofing; USPS may not need to

develop the guidelines in-house, but might use industry

documents such as those prepared by the National Roofing

Contractors Association, or the Sheet Metal and AirConditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA).

— develop a knowledge-based expert system to provide design

guidelines to those providing design of USPS roofs.

— continue to use roofing specialists to assist in the

review of design for new construction and to provide

design for existing construction, as is currently

practiced at Headquarters and some FREBOs.

— develop a uniform policy among all FREBOs to use roofing

specialists (as is current practice at some of them) to

provide assistance with:

a. design and specification review and preparation,

b. inspection of roofing installation, and

c. investigation of reported problems and recommendations for solution.

37
— develop criteria for the selection of roofing specialists

contracted to assist USPS design personnel.

— investigate the use and cost effectiveness of roof

management programs offered by firms which provide

single source responsibility for design, construction,

and serviceability of roofing.

o Materials — provide a list of materials acceptable for USPS roofing,

design guidelines for their use, and information concerning

limitations for use; criteria for placing given materials

on the list would need to be developed.

— provide feedback to USPS roofing designers on the

performance of materials and systems for USPS roofing;

prepare guide bulletins on materials performance.

o Construction and Workmanship — improve workmanship during construction through the

development and use of continuous inspection for new

construction, re-roofing, and major repair or renovation.

— improve workmanship during construction through the

development and use of a uniform set of criteria for

selecting roofing contractors; the intent is to preclude

38
the use of marginal contractors for USPS roofing; the

criteria may be based on experience, past performance,

training, and financial responsibility.

-- develop a uniform set of criteria for judging acceptable

workmanship; included here is consideration of such items

as tolerances in membrane construction and the use of

test sampling of the system under construction; a

starting point could be the NRCA document "Quality

Control in the Application of Built-Up Roofing" [6],

o Responsibility — assign a roofing coordinator at Headquarters to

coordinate design and construction done at this level.

— assign a roofing coordinator at each office of the lower

levels where major design and construction, as well as

maintenance and repair, are carried out; this has

particular significance for the FREBO and BMEO offices;

the duties of the coordinator should be developed based

on those incorporated in roof management programs; the

intent is to improve USPS control of its own practices.

— develop communication between the roofing coordinators

from each of the offices; it may be feasible to hold an

annual meeting dedicated to roof performance.

39
— develop contract documents in a manner to define clearly

the responsibilities of each party to the roofing

contract; included here would be a mechanism for determing single source responsibility for the roof system

which the USPS purchases; in addition, all roofing

components from the deck up should be purchased from a

single manufacturer who takes responsibility for the

entire assembly; the intent is that USPS has a single

source of recourse if problems arise with the roof

within the warranty period.

o Design Documents — revise "short form specifications."

— provide roofing personnel with reference documents

developed within the industry such as the U.S. Air Force,

ARMA, NRC A, SMACNA, and SPRI manuals (see Appendix).

o Maintenance Inspections — improve inspection procedures conducted in-house through

better training of local inspectors and the development

of better inspection manuals and guides; increase the

awareness of local inspectors on the importance of

periodic maintenance.

40
assure that routine local inspections are conducted at

least annually as presently required by USPS directives;

it is noted that industry recommendations call for

routine inspections every 6 months.

develop an inspection manual for use on the roof.

revise current USPS inspection checklists; they should be

expanded to address all roofing systems; they should be

redesigned to provide instruction to those who may not be

fully trained in conducting roof inspections.

develop a computerized data management system for use by

the maintenance coordinator for tracking the inspection

of roofs; the system should address items such as the

scheduling of inspections, when they are done, when they

are due, and which roofs are overdue.

develop a uniform policy regarding the use of NDE

equipment to complement on site inspections now that USPS

has discontinued the training of BMEO personnel in the

use of nuclear meters; continue to encourage inspectors

to use NDE techniques, whether in-house or under contract,

where warranted.

41
— develop criteria for assisting inspectors in assessing

the condition of existing roofing, and decision makers

in deciding whether a roof should be repaired or replaced

consideration should be given to the development of a

knowledge-based expert system to assist those in the

assessment of roof condition.

o Maintenance and Repair — improve procedures to assure that roofing repairs are

completed in shorter periods of time than is done with

present practice.

— continue present practice of using, as warranted, outside

expertise to assist in the investigation of roofing

problems; within the maintenance offices, increase an

awareness that the MTSC is available to provide information and assistance.

— provide improved documents for use by maintenance

personnel in cases where they prepare the work order for

needed repairs.

— expand the recently-initiated data-based management

system for keeping records regarding roof repairs and

work in progress; items which should be added to the data

base include the type of roof system and its components,

42
its age, dates of inspection and the results, types of

needed repairs (if any) and causes to which the defects

are attributed; when a roof is built, pertinent information should go into a newly-created file.

-- improve maintenance and repair practices by investigating

the use of roof maintenance contracts with contractors

specializing in the business.

-- improve maintenance and repair practice by investigating

the incorporation of maintenance clauses in the original

construction contract or by using the design and construction services of a firm which would provide a single

source guarantee for the performance of the roof over its

warranty period.

o Maintenance Guidelines, Bulletins, and Other Documents — increase the awareness of the USPS maintenance staff of

the maintenance documents which USPS has available.

-- provide improved documents on roof repair techniques; the

documents should include reference to all types of

roofing systems and their scope should be expanded to be

useful to those who have knowledge in general building

repair and not specific expertise in roofing; consideration should be given to the use of a computerized system

43
to assist in providing repair information for maintenance

personnel

.

— provide maintenance personnel with industry documents

such as developed by the NRCA.

o Training — encourage the training of those involved with USPS

roofing, particularly the individuals who take little or

no training; emphasis should be placed on the newer

materials and systems, since USPS personnel have reported

troubles in keeping abreast of them.

— expand, as intended, the roofing course under consideration by the MTSC.

— continue and expand the use of industry courses such as

RIEI, NRCA, and universities.

44
4. SUMMARY

This study was conducted at the request of the U.S. Postal

Service (USPS) to provide technical support to improve the

quality of its low-sloped roofing. The USPS is among the

Nation's major users of industrial and commercial buildings and

has direct responsibility for the design,, construction, and

maintenance of more than 100 million square feet of roofing. Two

major tasks were carried out to provide the technical support:

1) a review of USPS current roofing practices, and 2) a review of

roof management programs used by other organizations in the

public and private sectors. A comparison of USPS practices with

the elements of effective roof management programs provided the

basis for recommendations to USPS for improving its roofing

practices

.

This report presents the final results of the study. Included

are a summary indicating the trends in current USPS roofing

practices and the recommendations to the USPS. Three options as

to steps which USPS may take to improve its roofing are suggested.

The first option is to develop a total roof management program.

The second is to adopt in its program some pertinent practices

which are included in roof management programs. In the third

option, a list of individual steps to be considered to reduce the

limitations identified in current USPS practices are given. The

study provided NBS an unusual opportunity for identifying

measurement research needs related to improved roofing performance

for organizations having large inventories of buildings.

45
5

.

REFERENCES

1. Griffin, C. W. , "Manual of Built-Up Roof Systems," 2nd

Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, Chapter 1 (1982), pp. 1-6.

2. "Opinion of Building Owners on the Construction Industry,"

Report to Wagner-Hohns-Inglis , Prepared by FleishmanHillard, Inc. (September 1983), 53 pages.

3. Appelhans, P., "Litigation Center Growth Continues," The

Roofing Spec (March 1980), p. 40.

4. Rossiter, Walter J. , Jr., Cullen, William C. , and Mathey,

Robert G., "U.S. Postal Service Roofing Practices," National

Bureau of Standards (U.S.), NBSIR 85-3275 (November 1985),

100 pages.

5. Rossiter, Walter J. , Jr., Cullen, William C. , and Mathey,

Robert G., "Roof Management Programs," National Bureau of

Standards (U.S.), NBSIR 85-3239 (November 1985), 60 pages.

6. "Quality Control in the Application of Built-Up Roofing,"

National Roofing Contractors Association, Chicago, IL,

(1985) .

7. "Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Roofing Materials

Guide," National Roofing Contractors Association, Chicago,

IL, Vol. 6 (February 1985).

8. "Roofing and Waterproofing Manual," National Roofing

Contractors Association, Chicago, IL (1985).

9. "Manual of Roof Maintenance and Roof Repair," Asphalt

Roofing Manufacturers Association, Rockville, MD/National

Roofing Contractors Association, Chicago, IL (1981).

10. "Built-Up Roof Management Program," Air Force Manual AFM 91-

36, Department of the Air Force (3 September 1980).

46
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS),

Design Management Division, Real Estate and Buildings Division.

Special thanks are extended to Mr. Warren L. Walker, Project

Manager, USPS, who provided technical liaison between USPS and

NBS . His assistance in discussing USPS roofing practices, as

well as in providing contacts with others in the USPS system and

arranging for the authors to obtain information from these

contacts is appreciated. The authors also acknowledge the

assistance of Mr. William D. Hayen, Maintenance Management

Officer, MTSC, and Mr. Leon Schroeder, Facility Systems Branch,

Technical Training Center, regarding USPS maintenance and

training practices. Sincere thanks are expressed to all those

individuals in the USPS, as well as private and public organizations,

who took their time to provide information and documents used in

this study. Finally, the authors express their appreciation to

Dr. Geoffrey Frohnsdorff, Chief, NBS Building Materials Division,

for his many valuable comments and suggestions regarding the

preparation of this report.

47
APPENDIX. SELECTED ROOFING INDUSTRY DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE

This appendix lists some industry documents which provide

guides for the design, construction, or maintenance of roofing

systems .

o U.S. Air Force Manual AFM 91-36, "Built-Up Roof Management

Program.

o Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute/National

Roofing Contractors Association/Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning

Contractors National Association, "Guidelines for Roof

Mounted Outdoor Air-Conditioner Installations."

o Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, "A Guide to

Preparing Built-Up Roofing Specifications."

o Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association/National Roofing

Contractors Association, "Manual of Roof Maintenance and

Roof Repair."

o National Roofing Contractors Association, "Commercial,

Industrial, and Institutional Roofing Materials Guide."

o National Roofing Contractors Association, "Handbook of

Accepted Roofing Knowledge."

o National Roofing Contractors Association, "Quality Control

In the Application of Built-Up Roofing."

o National Roofing Contractors Association, "Roofing and

Waterproofing Manual."

o Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National

Association, "Architectural Sheet Metal."

o Single Ply Roofing Institute, "Single Ply Roofing: A

Professional's Guide to Specifications."

o Urethane Foam Contractors Association, "Design Considerations

and Guide Specifications."

48
NBS-1HA (REV. 2-80

U.». DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Recommended Practices for the U.S. Postal Service Roofing

5. AUTHOR(S)

Walter J. Rossiter, Jr., William C. Cullen, Robert G. Mathey

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

U.S. Postal Service

Design Mangement Division

Real Estate and Buildings Department

Washington, DC 20260-6415

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

j Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bl iographv or literature survey, mention it here)

This study was conducted for the United States Postal Service (USPS) to provide

technical recommendations to improve the quality of its low-sloped roofing. Two major

tasks were carried out: 1) a review of current USPS roofing practices, and 2) a review

of roof management programs used by other organizations in the public and private

sectors. A comparison of USPS practices with the elements of effective roof management programs provided the basis for recommendations to USPS.

This report presents the final results of the study including the trends in current

USPS roofing practices and the recommendations to the USPS. Three options which USPS

may take as steps to improve its roofing are suggested. The first option is to

develop a total roof management program. The second option is to adopt sane pertinent practices which are included in effective roof management programs. The third

option is to take sane smaller steps from a list of items for reducing the limitations

identified in current USPS practices. A benefit to NBS in obtaining the information

gathered in the study was the identification of measurement research needs related to

improved roofing performance, particularly for organizations having large inventories

of buildings.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) construction; design; low-sloped roofs; maintenance; management; performance;

recommendations ; repair; roofing

13.

AVAILABILITY

| | Unlimited

| X | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

H Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

15. Price

UICOUM'OC «0«»-F»0
.