Reference NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

AlllDb Q37U^7

NBSIR 85-3239

Roof Management Programs

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

November 1985

Prepared for: U.S. Postal Service

Design Management Division

Estate and Buildings Department

- QC shington, DC 20260-6415

100

.056

85-3239

1985

NBSIR 85-3239

ROOF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

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

November 1985

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
W

j:^yi

W! %

' '

,

1^

liVM

H

«

I ^wk^Vl U|i jU

0.1 '»»•

1^1

<^1M»?''»'v8'4' I'Vf , '

n:

'' ip

'4

" ^./U :

?f ^

1 «

f•^

J‘<A.

» “- iH^t;

P--' %, ^j^.r

n».,

'. ,.v, .

' .' ' *>d„.

'f ,;. V CY V.

.^„..*,.p.v.'-V'

Stf!'.

[> „t (,, S'

»F

:j

M»tl''W>^Hr:»^t .,•*?> ..awxtmh

' ''

'•' i I'tt *«'

.Irfjlfc.-
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT Iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vl

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 6

1.3 Scope of the Study 6

2. ROOF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 7

2.1 Purposes of Roof Management 7 2.2 Essential Elements 8

3. TYPICAL ROOF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 10

3.1 Total Roof Management 11

3.2 Management of Roofing Design and Construction 23

3.3 Maintenance Management of Existing Roofs 24

4. DISCUSSION 29

4.1 Cost of Roof Management Programs 29

4.2 Effectiveness of Roof Management Programs 29

4.3 Responsibility 32

5. SUMMARY 38

6. REFERENCES 43

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 45

APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED REGARDING ROOF MANAGEMENT A-1

APPENDIX B. EXAMPLE OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS USED IN NEW ROOFING

MANAGEMENT B-1

APPENDIX C. REPRINT OF THE AIR FORCE QUALITY CONTROLLER APPOINTMENT

FORM C-1

111
ABSTRACT

Roof management programs are used by private and public sector organizations

in the United States to help assure that low-sloped roofing systems will perform

as Intended over their intended service lives. This report reviews those

programs. Three general types of roof management programs are identified and

discussed. For the most part, the structure and format of these programs have

not been formally published. A notable exception is the U.S. Air Force program.

The three types of roof management program currently conducted are: (1) total

roof management which treats the design, construction, and maintenance of new

and existing roofing; (2) new construction management dealing with design and

installation; and (3) maintenance management which considers the maintenance

and repair of existing roofs. Four elements are considered essential to an

acceptable roof management program: (1) the roof system criterion, (2) quality

assurance, (3) quality control, and (4) responsibility. In addition to the

roof management programs that have been developed in the private and public

sectors, several companies have organized to provide owners with total or

partial roof management services. Although the increased roofing costs

associated with new construction and total roof mangement programs have not

been studied, estimates for such programs range from increases to 5 to 25 percent

above the costs for roof construction without management. Many individuals in

the industry using roof mangement programs believe that improved roofing

performance results and that the Increased costs are justified.

Key Words: construction; design; low-sloped roofing; maintenance; management;

review; roofs

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Types of Roof Management Programs and the Time Span

in the Roof Service Cycle for Which Each Type is

Applicable 12

Table 2. Elements of Roof Management Programs and Associated

Activities for Roofing Design and Construction or Renovation 41

Table 3. Elements of Roof Management Programs and Associated

Activities for Roofing Maintenance and Repair 42

V
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Quality Assurance of Roofing - A Diagram of the

Construction and Service Cycle of Roofs Depicting

the Parties Involved and Steps In the Cycle
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Most industrial and commercial buiildings have low-sloped roof systems with

slopes generally less than four percent. Because of the low slope, the waterproofing is provided by a continuous membrane. Until the mid-1970s, most

low-sloped roof systems had bituminous built-up membranes. Over the last

decade the use of single-ply membranes has increased and in 1983 accounted

for about 40 percent of the membranes installed [1]. In addition to the membrane, the major components of a low-sloped roof system are structural deck,

thermal insulation and, in some cases, a vapor retarder.

Although the majority of the installed low-sloped roof systems have performed

acceptably, experience has shown that premature failures often occur. Griffin

[2] has indicated that roofing deficiencies constitute a major problem for

industrial and commercial buildings. A 1983 survey of building owners,

including private companies as well as state and local government agencies,

found that roof leaks were one of the most common problems experienced with

buildings [3]. Cash [4] has reported that, although built-up membranes are

often referred to as having a twenty year service life, membranes fabricated

with organic felts have no greater than a 50 percent probability of lasting 20

years before replacement is needed.

Low-sloped roof systems are complex, and the component materials should Interact

compatibly to achieve successful performance. According to Griffin [2],

factors contributing to premature roof failures may be listed as follows:

o The extraordinary rigors of roof-performance requirements

o Proliferation of new materials

1
o Complexity of roof-system design

o Expanding roof dimensions

o Field application deficiencies

o The modern trend toward more flexible buildings

The design and construction of any low-sloped roof system should include a

consideration of the factors listed above.

It has long been recognized [5] that four essential elements contribute to

assuring acceptable roofing performance: (1) sound design,

(2) suitable materials, (3) good workmanship, and (4) proper and timely maintenance. Thus, the construction and long-term performance of a low-sloped

roofing system involves numerous steps and interactions between various

professions. This is illustrated in figure 1 which shows the steps in the

process, factors contributing to the successful completion of each step, and

the parties Involved in the process. As is evident from figure 1, as the

construction process moves from the design stage (Including materials selection)

through installation and completion of the roof, the factors to be considered

vary considerably. For example, the design factors concern performance,

durability, material compatibility, costs, and performance criteria and standard

specifications for materials. In contrast, during construction the emphasis

shifts to logistics, application and installation methods, workmanship, and

on-site quality control of construction practices. Finally, the completed

roof must be properly maintained over its service life.

2
QUALITY

ASSURANCE

OF

ROOFING

THE

CONSTRUCTION

AND

SERVICE

CYCLE e B o ^ Z O h

I!» a. • • z s o .o

a ^ w S E • • 300 & o u u • • • •

.1

to S o o • s.

a, «» 3O

ao

«•eEoa • co = zz 5 • • 5

-m = o E £

UJU>u

UJX0) a.

UJ

(/)

(/) UJK<a

uu

<uu

•H>

OJ w

X3c

(0co • •H (U 4Jo o 3 >.

Ui

u

JJ

CO 0) co 4-1 u c

0) •H

4J CO

CJ. CM <u o 4J CO a

CO 0) M JZ M iJ

<0 •H T5 Q c

«0 <1 ”3

01 bO > c

•H o

CM > o c O t-4 Oi

CO >M 0> o •M

4-1 0) M o CO c a.

COM OJ 3 j=

CO 4J

CO < -

CO >» CMo

•H o

oi

03 of •

(VM3

00 3
The professions of the parties who contribute directly to the roof construction

process vary widely. They include designers (e.g., architect, engineer, roof

consultant), material manufacturers, the roofing contractors, the on-site

inspectors, and building maintenance personnel. In addition, the general

contractor and various sub-contractors are involved. Although the knowledge,

experience, and expertise of each of the parties may be specific to their

own area of responsibility, it cannot be overlooked that they form part of the

total process. Coordinated interactions between these professions must occur

to have successful roofing.

Although the professions and factors contributing to successful completion of

each step in the roofing construction process and service cycle vary widely, an examination of figure 1 shows a common link; namely, quality must be

considered and ensured at each step of the process. If error is introduced

into any of the steps, the risk of unsatisfactory long-term performance will

increase. For example, good materials and good workmanship will not overcome

a design error. When considering the complexity of the process, it is not

difficult to understand why low-sloped roof systems have experienced unacceptably

high incidences of premature failure.

It is often stated that roofing failures are system failures, resulting from

poor combinations of materials, lack of understanding of the roof assembly as a

multi-component system, or improper field practices [6]. The roofing industry

has long been considered as being fragmented among the various professions

which contribute to the construction and service cycle. No single profession

involved has taken total responsibility for the job. This limited responsibility or fragmentation among professions was described in a report issued

4
by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) in 1970 as "compartmentalized

responsibility" [6]. The description was intended to imply that none of the

parties involved, e.g.

owner, architect, general contractor, roofing contractor,

and materials manufacturer, was in a position to control the entire design and

construction process. In examining reasons for premature roofing failures,

the GSA report indicated that the lack of total control among the professions

in roof construction was a significant factor. Based on that examination, it

was recommended to GSA that a roof management program be established [7].

Roof management is the process whereby proper control and responsibility are

assigned for every phase of the construction process including design,

construction, and maintenance, and steps are taken to assure that the control

is exercised fully.

Although the concept of roof management for low-sloped roofing is not new, it

has not been put into widespread practice in the United States. Recently

there has been increased interest in roof management programs. In the most

notable example, the U.S. Air Force initiated a program in the late 1970s [8].

A number of private organizations which own and operate many buildings at

numerous locations across the United States have also initiated roof management

programs. This report presents the results of a study reviewing roof management programs in the United States and discusses the major elements comprising

roof management programs. A benefit of the study for the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) was assistance in identifying roofing research needs.

This study was conducted at the request of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) which

is among the Nation's largest users of buildings with an inventory of over

30,000. The total roof area of the buildings used by USPS is estimated to be

5
about 200 million square feet. The majority of these buildings are protected

with low-sloped roofing systems. Like many organizations with a large stock

of buildings and high incidence of roofing problems, USPS has serious concerns

about roofing performance. A conservative estimate of USPS annual roofing

costs is for new construction, repair, and replacement $30 million. A roof

management program, aimed at improving the performance of USPS roofing, offers

potential for significant savings in roofing costs through increasing roof

service life.

1.2 Objectives

Because of the potential cost savings and performance benefits to be gained

through the development and implementation of a roof management program, the

USPS requested the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to study the content and

effectiveness of some current roof management programs. This report describes

the results of the study. The objectives of the report are to identify the

essential elements of an effective roof management program and to review current

roof management programs conducted in the United States by both private and

public sector organizations.

1.3 Scope of the Study

This report describes one phase of a two-phase study undertaken to assist the

USPS in improving its roofing performance. In the other phase of the study, a

review of USPS roofing activities and practices was conducted. The results of

the other phase are available in a report entitled "USPS Roofing Practices" [9].

A comparison of currently accepted roof management practices with the roofing

activities and practices of the USPS will provide the basis for recommendations

to improve USPS roofing performance.

6
Information concerning roof management programs was obtained primarily from

discussions held with those knowledgeable in the field. The discussions were

complemented by published information, although few reports are available on

the subject of roof management. Contacts were made with building owner

representatives, consulting architecture/engineering (A/E) firms, manufacturers,

roofing contractors, and roofing technologists to determine the manner in

which large organizations deal with the construction, maintenance, and repair

of roofs. A review of the policies and procedures of several large organizations, public and private, was Included. In general, the large organizations

were multi-regional with large stocks of multi-purpose buildings such as the

USPS. Examples of the contacts made are included in Appendix A.

The study was limited to low-sloped roofing. Steep roofing which is normally

found on residential buildings, and to a lesser extent, on small commercial and

industrial buildings was beyond the scope of the study. Significantly fewer

problems are encountered with steep roofing as compared to low-sloped roofing.

Also, the scope of work for the project did not include addressing economic

considerations directly. However, they are extremely important when considering

roof management, since a major reason for improving roof management is economics.

2. ROOF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

2.1 Purposes of Roof Management

A roof management program is defined as a set of procedures for assuring that

roofing systems will perform as Intended over their anticipated service lives.

As stated by Bradford [10], a roof management program is put into effect with

a view towards treating the roofs of buildings as a financial asset to the

building owner and maximizing the benefits of good roofing performance.

7
Maximum benefits from an owner's investment in the roof will not be achieved

if the roof fails prematurely whether due to poor design, construction, or

maintenance. Within a roof management program, steps are taken to assign

responsibility and control for all steps involved in the construction and

service cycle of the roof. A roof management program is undertaken by an

organization to fit its particular roofing needs, taking into consideration

the organizational structure, number of buildings, their location and serviceability, and personnel.

2.2 Essential Elements

The elements essential of a roof management program are: 1) a roofing system

criterion; 2) a quality assurance plan; 3) a quality control plan; and 4)

assignments of responsibility.

1. Roofing System Criterion - This encompasses the selection of plans,

specifications, standards, guidelines, and the like which are commensurate with the quality of the roofing system desired by the owner.

The criterion considers the design, material, application, and perhaps,

maintenance of a roofing system, as well as the costs associated with

these factors. Whether or not maintenance is included depends upon

the particular roof management program undertaken by the owner. As

will be seen in section 3.3 of this report, certain roof management

plans are confined to the design and construction phase of the roof;

while others are limited to roof condition, maintenance,, repair, and

eventual re-roofing. In either case, documents should spell out

directly, completely, and in easy-to-follow terms the roof system

desired by the owner. If the owner wishes to use different types of

8
roof systems and materials, depending upon the given circumstances,

reference to all allowable systems and materials should be included.

Since changes in technology are occurring rapidly in the roofing

industry, means should be provided to review and perhaps update the

roofing system criterion periodically.

2. Quality Assurance - Quality assurance is a planned, systematic

pattern of all actions required to provide confidence that the roof

system will conform to the established requirements of the owner as

defined by the Roofing System Criterion. It is the owner's mechanism

by which the required quality is assured in each step of the roof

construction and service cycle. The steps to be taken to assure

quality must be defined completely and in detail. These may include

actions such as review of design and drawings, certification, testing,

and inspection. When quality assurance is achieved in design, materials,

and construction phases of a roofing system, the end result is a high

quality roofing system.

3. Quality Control - Quality control is the designer's, manufacturer's,

and applicator's implementation of the quality assurance plan for

each of their respective contributions to the roof system. Actions

are undertaken to insure that the roofing system and its design,

materials, and construction conform to the owner's requirements defined

by specific items in the Quality Assurance Plan. In general, quality

control is the responsibility of those parties who are conducting the

various steps in the construction. However, in some roof management

programs, quality control may be monitored by an owner's representative

9
who is a third party to the roof construction process. In this case,

the parties who are conducting the various steps of the construction

are not relieved of the responsibility to maintain acceptable quality

control.

4) Assignment of Responsibility - The assignment of responsibility among

the many parties contributing to the production of the end product

(which is the completed roof) has a direct impact on the quality

obtained. These responsibilities must be well defined from the Initial

stages to the end of the intended service life of the roofing system.

Those who are assigned key responsibility must have the experience

and training necessary to carry out their roles satisfactorily. The

chain of responsibility between the individuals must be clearly defined.

In some roof management programs, emphasis is placed on identifying a

single source to have responsibility for assuring that the design,

materials, and installation are satisfactory.

3. TYPICAL ROOF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

This section of the report presents a synopsis of roof management programs

which are being conducted in the United States. The information is a synthesis

of that obtained from discussions with personnel of organizations actively

engaged in roof management (Appendix A). In collating the results of the

various discussions held during the study, it became apparent that most of the

organizations active in roof management were conducting programs which could

be classified according to one of three modes of operation:

10
1) Total Roof Management - The program is Intended to manage the entire

construction process and service cycle of the roof Including design,

materials selection, application, and maintenance as well as quality

control aspects.

2) Design and Construction Management - The program is intended to manage new

roof construction, reroof Ing, and major renovation. The maintenance

of the completed roof is not included.

3) Maintenance Management - This program is the complement of design and

construction management in so far as it deals primarily with the

maintenance and repair of completed roofs.

The major features of these three types of roof management programs are reviewed

in the following sections. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between the

type of roof management program and its applicable time span in the roof service

cycle.

3.1 Total Roof Management

As mentioned above, total roof management concerns the entire service cycle of

the roof from design through maintenance. Two major types of roof management

programs have been identified: those in the public sector and those in the

private sector. These are described in this section of the report.

3.1.1 The Public Sector - USAF Manual 91-36

The concept of total roof management is best typified by the program of the

U.S. Air Force (USAF), described in USAF Manual 91-36, "Built-Up Roof Management Program" [8] which was published in 1980, Since then, major revisions

11
Table 1. Types of Roof Management Programs and the Time Span in the Roof

Service Cycle for Which Each Type is Applicable

Roof Management Programs

Type Time Span

1) Total Roof Management Roof conception to end of service life

2) Design and Construction Roof conception to acceptance of the

Management built roof

3) Maintenance Management Acceptance of the roof to end of service

life

12
to the criteria for selecting thermal insulations have been made as reported

by Courville and Kolb [11]. The USAF Manual is one of the most extensive

documents written on the subject of roof management. Several major private

corporations in the United States conduct roof management programs similar

to that described in USAF Manual 91-36. The USAF Manual 91-36 was designed to

be applicable to maintenance, repair, and replacement activities for built-up

roofs on Air Force facilities. However the key concepts Included in the manual

have been applied to new construction as well as low-sloped roofing using

other than multi-ply bituminous membranes.

The USAF Manual is divided into six chapters which outline the program. The

topics are:

1) General Information Including Scope and Responsibility

2) Roofing Data Base

3) Rating the Serviceability of Existing Roofs and Treatment Alternatives

A) Repair Procedures

5) Design Including Specifications and Drawings

6) Construction Management

The contents of the six chapters are described in the following sections.

3. 1.1.1 General Information Including Scope and Responsibility

The first chapter outlines the scope of the program, and sets responsibility for

its development and operation. The scope of the program deals with two major

areas

13
o an in-house preventive maintenance area for cataloging and quantifying

roof serviceability, and conducting roof repairs,

o an area dealing with contracts showing how to determine best solutions

and prepare construction documents that define quality control and set

accountability for suppliers in the process.

Program responsibility is assigned to two individuals at the facility level

who have been designated as the roof engineer (RE) and the roof technician

(RT), The roof engineer has responsibility primarily for developing a data

base or inventory of existing roofing, inspecting and periodically rating the

roofs, designing roofing projects, and verifying contractor compliance with

the plans and specifications. The roof technician's responsibilities center

around maintenance and include activities such as periodic inspection, the

development of a list of repair materials and the proper techniques for in-house

use. This chapter emphasizes the benefits of training, indicating that those

knowledgeable with the program will be better able to accomplish the program

objectives.

3. 1.1. 2 Roofing Data Base

This activity in the USAF roof management program concerns the development of

a data base which includes the type, amount, and condition of roofing which

must be managed. Tasks included in the development of the data base are:

o development of a listing of all roofs

o development of a roof inspection priority list and identification of

problems on suspect roofs

o development of a folder (file) for each building which contains:

14
- a completed form summarizing essential information on the roof

construction and its performance

- roof plan drawings

- inspection and condition-rating worksheets

- documents relating to work done on the roof such as work orders,

contractors’ submittals, construction records, contract

specifications, test results, and the like.

Information in the data base is to be used to assure that needed repair and other

work is conducted in a timely and acceptable manner. The data base is, of

course, updated and revised as necessary.

3. 1.1.3 Rating Existing Roofs and Treatment Alternatives

The chapter describes how to inspect and rate a roof to determine its condition

and useful life. The inspection and rating are conducted jointly by the roof

engineer and roof technician. Instructions for conducting the inspection and

a list of needed equipment are given. The types of BUR roofing problems are

clearly defined so that those involved in the solutions can communicate

precisely.

During an inspection, a determination is made of existing problems, their

severity and density (which considers the amount of roof area affected). Using

the information from the inspection, a procedure is given for estimating the

anticipated useful life of the roof. In developing the USAF program, it was

realized that the rating system had a large subjective element. One purpose

of the rating system was to provide a tool to identify needed repairs and

establish priorities for completing them. Although the rating system was

15
insufficient for performance prediction it was considered to be a first step

towards an objective, quantitative means for rating a roof. It was intended

that the rating system should be revised as feedback from the inspections and

ratings became available. It was recommended that once a roof was rated,

re-rating should occur about 3 years later in normal circumstances.

The information obtained from the inspection and rating procedure is used to

recommend needed work on the roof, whether repair or re-roofing. The alternatives described for such treatment are: (1) cold repair, (2) hot repair,

(3) recover existing membrane, and (4) removal and replacement. The risks and

benefits, as well as economic considerations, are discussed.

3. 1.1.4 Repair Procedures

The authors of the USAF Manual recognized that substantial roof repair work on

Air Force bases might be conducted by in-house personnel. Because of the

importance of doing repair work correctly and promptly, the USAF roof management

program devotes considerable detail to in-house repairs. The topics covered

include basic roof construction, maintenance materials, and procedures for

emergency and permanent repairs.

3. 1.1. 5 Design Including Specification and Drawings

This chapter concerns the development of contract documents for built-up roofing

projects. It is primarily intended for the roof engineer who has responsibility

for contracting work which will not be conducted in-house. However, it is

emphasized that, if contract documents are to be prepared by on A/E firm,

all the requirements given in the USAF Manual regarding specifications and

drawings must be included as a condition of the A/E contract.

16
This chapter has three parts:

o A discussion of the technical aspects of roofing including materials

systems, and work practices.

o The development of contract documents based on a master or standard

specification.

o The development of contract drawings based on a series of standard

roof drawings and details.

The master specification is quite comprehensive, although limited in scope to

built-up roofing systems. One author of the AF Manual indicated that this

limitation is, for the most part, based on the concept that some built-up

membrane material manufacturers will provide a warranty for the system, and

not just the membrane. Items in the master specification include:

o the construction contract Including two items which are controversial

within the roofing industry: (1) the appointment of a quality control inspector who is responsible to the contractor; and (2) an

agreement that the contractor is responsible for fixing defects or

problems with the roof for 5 years.

o basic quality control requirements for the roofing including acceptable

tolerances.

o a listing of 23 quality control work items that the contractor or

inspector must follow during construction.

o a listing of materials d products acceptable for the contract and

applicable standards.

o execution of the work according to the requirements of the contract.

17
I

3. 1.1. 6 Construction Management

The final chapter of the USAF program deals with construction management.

This reflects the belief that the successful completion of all construction

projects requires an accurate understanding of the contract obligations by the

parties to the contract. The contract obligations clearly define the roles

and responsibilities of the parties involved in the contract. Thus, a chapter

in the USAF Manual describes the basic concepts underlying the development of

the master specification, particularly regarding quality control, inspection

by the contractor-appointed quality controller, and the agreement by the contractor to fix leaks and defects for a five year period after completion of

the job. In addition, the role of government inspectors is explained with

regard to pre-construction conferences, auditing the contractor's quality

control, and evaluating laboratory reports on test cuts taken during

construction.

Paraphrasing the text in the Air Force Manual, the contractor is held responsible

for Installing the roof as specified in the contract. The government performs

its own audits and tests to determine whether the terms of the contract are

met. The USAF program includes the following provisions as part of the contract:

o the manufacturer's requirements concerning materials, and where and

how to Install them; included is a certification that the manufacturer

has reviewed the project requirements and Indicates that the system

Is proper for the project,

o minimum acceptable standards for materials.

o a manufacturer's certification that the roof contractor is qualified

to apply the material.

18
o quality assurance provisions regarding the level of quality the contractor

is to achieve during construction and methods to measure that level of

quality; included here is the contractor appointed quality controller,

o the authority of the government inspector.

o mandatory sampling of the finished roof membrane, methods of testing

penalties for nonconformance, and acceptance of the membrane,

o the contractor’s responsibility to repair leaks and other defects for

5 years.

The contractural obligations that the manufacturer review the project requirements

concerning materials and certify that the contractor is qualified to apply them

are steps taken to overcome the fragmented responsibility which historically

has dominated roofing construction projects. These obligations are intended to

identify a single source of responsibility for the design, materials manufacturer,

and installation of the roofing. As stated in the USAF manual, "the manufacturer

acknowledges that its products are put to their proper use." Appendix B includes

a copy of the manufacturer's contract submittal which the USAF program requires

for design review and contractor approval.

3.1.2 The Private Sector

Many organizations in the United States either own or lease many buildings of

varying size and use across the country. Examples of these organizations are

department stores; food chains; manufacturers of automobiles, building products,

and textiles; and chemical producers. These organizations have concern for

the performance of the roofs on the buildings they occupy. In many cases, the

amount of roofing is considerable and the organizations realize that it is

economically feasible to carry out roof mangement programs to minimize premature

19
failure and maximize the return in the monetary investment in the roofs.

Contacts were made with several of these organizations to discuss their roof

management programs and to learn their views and experiences concerning their

program's successes, failures, advantages, disadvantages, and limitations.

From the information provided by these organizations, it was seen that the

roof management programs generally fall into one of two categories. The first

type mirrors closely the concepts of the USAF program, although the actions

taken to carry out the program may differ. The second involves contract not

management whereby a firm contracts with the building owner to manage the

owner's roofing.

3.1 2.1 Private Sector Programs Managed within the Organization

Private sector programs include the major elements of a roof management program:

(1) a roofing system criterion, (2) quality assurance, (3) quality control,

and (4) assignment of responsibility. In this regard, the salient features of

the programs include:

o Designation of individuals within the firm as being responsible for

roofing. These individuals plan and coordinate major roofing activities,

maintain a level of training and expertise, and often interact with

roofing industry organizations such as ASTM, NRCA, (National Roofing

Contractors Association) and RIEI (Roofing Industry Educational

Institute). In many, but not necessarily all cases, these individuals

utilize the assistance (through contractural arrangements) of roofing

consulting firms.

o Development of master specifications for the firm's specific roofing

needs. Depending upon the company, the master specification may be

20
broad in its reference to materials and systems, or it may be

restricted to the use of materials and systems with which the organization feels comfortable, has extensive experience, and satisfactory

performance. The master specifications are intended for use by inhouse architects responsible for roof design, or for use as guidelines

by contract architects and engineers performing design services for

the organization. In the latter case, the individual responsible for

the organization's roofing or the designated roofing consultant reviews

the design to check that it is in accord with the master specification.

o Requirements that manufacturers of materials review the design

specifications and drawings and indicate approval that the design is

compatible with the intended use of the material. In many cases, the

manufacturer is asked to provide a list of contractors approved for

application of the material and eventual certification that the contractor who receives the bid is approved by the material manufacturers.

As is the case with the USAF program, this aspect is intended to

designate single source responsibility for the design, materials

manufacture, and installation. In other cases, some private firms

will only hire contractors whom they have found through experience

to be satisfactory.

o Guidelines for the selection of the materials used in their roofing.

In most cases, the selection is based upon an in-house analysis of

material properties and performance history.

o Techniques for controlling the quality of the installed roofing.

These techniques often include field inspection during construction.

21
provided either by an in-house inspector or a contract consultant,

and sampling and testing of the installed membrane,

o Development of maintenance and inspection programs for the completed

roof. In this case, unlike the Air Force program, necessary repair

v7ork identified during inspections is not normally handled in-house,

but by roofing contractors. Sometimes, firms will have contractural

arrangements with roofing contractors to provide routine inspection

and maintenance.

o Contractural requirements. Some roof management programs in the

private sector will incorporate contractural agreements (similar to

those in the Air Force program) which delineate the responsibilities

of all parties involved in the construction process.

3. 1.2. 2 Contract Roof Management

With this type of program, a firm such as a roofing material manufacturer or a

consulting engineering company specializing in roofing provides, under contract

and for a fee, complete roof management. In this case, the firm takes responsibility for design, construction, and maintenance and repair, and includes

warranties to keep the roof leak-free and defect-free for periods of time

ranging from 15 to 20 years. As an example, one roofing material manufacturer

provides a warranty of 20 years for built-up roofing and 15 years for single-ply

systems. In the type of program under the direction of a roofing materials

manufacturer, the materials used to construct the roofing system (including

membrane, insulation, and accessories) would generally be from the product

line of the manufacturer. Thus, if the manufacturer's product line includes

built-up and polymer modified bituminous membranes, and certain generic types

22
of single-ply roofing, there would be a choice of materials available to the

owner. If the roofing products sold by the manufacturer do not encompass a

wide range of materials, then the owner's choice may, of course, be limited.

This approach to roof management by a materials manufacturer differs from the

traditional role it has played in the roof construction and service cycle.

Traditionally, the material manufacturer has taken responsibility for the

quality of the materials only, and deferred responsibility for design and

installation to the designer, and contractor, respectively. In this type of

roof management program, the design is accomplished by architects or roofing

specialists employed by the material manufacturer. Installation is done by

roofing contractors under agreement with the manufacturer who also provides

for construction Inspection. The agreement between the manufacturer and contractor details the responsibilities and liabilities of the two parties regarding the installation, maintenance, and repair of the roof, as well as the

in-service performance of the roofing materials. However, the material manufacturer has sole responsibility through a contract with the owner to assure

that the roof performs as intended over its service life. Generally if a

problem occurs with the roof, the owner would first contact the material manufacturer for its solution. It is intended that problems be fixed as quickly

as possible regardless of which party was responsible for the problem. Such a

determination of responsibility would be settled, with arbitration if necessary,

after the repair is completed.

3.2 Management of Roofing Design and Construction

Roof management programs for roofing construction are also conducted by large

organizations with multi-purpose buildings throughout the United States. In

23
many cases, these organizations have a construction division at the corporate

level and located at the company's headquarters. The construction division is

responsible for the organization's new construction and may, in some cases, be

involved with major renovation and repair of existing buildings. It is the

construction division which conducts the roof management program. In general,

these types of roof management include the basic controls associated with the

design and construction aspects of total roof management programs including:

o designation of responsibility,

o development of master specifications,

o use of approved roofing contractors,

o guidelines for the selection and limitation of materials, and

o control of the quality of the installed roofing.

The major difference between a roof management program for new roofing

construction and one of total management is that the new construction program

has no elements of maintenance management at the headquarters level of the

company. The construction division of the company has responsibility for

the building up to the time construction is completed, and the building is

then turned over to the appropriate division of the company for operation and

maintenance. Thus, the maintenance of the roof becomes the responsibility of

those using the building. The roof may or may not receive adequate maintenance

but, in either case, those responsible for its proper design and construction

are divorced from its maintenance.

3.3 Maintenance Management of Existing Roofs

This type of roof management is concerned primarily with the maintenance of

roofs. As such, it complements a management program for new roof construction.

However, it was often found that this type of roof management program was not

directly connected to new construction management.

24
In recent years, there has been a growth in the number of firms which provide

specialized maintenance management programs for building owners. One reason

offered for this growth is that an increased number of building owners have

become aware of the benefits of maintaining the serviceability of their roofs

and maximizing the value of their investment in the construction of the roofing

system.

An overview of the major steps which have been incorporated in maintenance

management programs is summarized below. It is noted that most of the steps

are comparable to those described for roof maintenance in the USAF Manual [8]

or in the RIEI roof maintenance guidelines [12]:

o Make an inventory of the the number and type of low-sloped roofs

which need to be managed.

o Identify the condition of each roof using a survey report which

includes the results of visual inspections and test cuts. At this

step, defects are also identified and options for repairs are

recommended. The results of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of

the moisture content of the insulation may be included in identifying

roof condition. The use of NDE methods in assessing roof condition

is not consistent among all firms practicing maintenance roof management. At least one organization contacted purchased its own infrared

thermography equipment and uses it routinely on every roof being

evaluated. Other firms engaged in roof management only use NDE when

it is believed that the roof condition cannot be adequately evaluated

without NDE.

25
o Prepare an accurate small-scale roof plan. Repairs to be conducted on

the roof may be identified on the plan. When a work order is drawn up

for repairing the roof, the plan may be attached to help clarity

with regard to areas of the roof to be repaired. A small roof plan

may be readily copied for distribution to individuals Involved with

maintaining the roof.

o Prepare scale drawings of the metal and flashing details of each roof.

The dimensions of the drawings should be exact so that, if replacement

metal pieces are needed for repair, a sheet metal worker can make the

replacements without a visit to the roof. (This step would not be

necessary if accurate details existed.)

o Prepare a roof survey report which describes in narrative form the

condition of the roof. Separate roof areas (for example, different

levels of the building) are normally treated as single entities and

have separate reports. The reports should use standard industry

language for precision in communication.

o Complete a "budget" report for the roof. This report contains an itemby-item description of the problems and defects of the roof and an

estimated cost for repairing them. The needs for maintenance repair

and their costs are categorized as to the time frame when they are to

be done. A common categorization includes the following: (1) immediate

needs (those which must be done without delay to keep water out

of the roof system and building); (2) short-term future needs

(those which must be done soon to maintain and extend serviceability);

and (3) long-term future needs (a subjective estimate of when the

roof may need to be replaced). The budget report enables a comparison

26
of the cost of projected maintenance and repair versus replacement

costs. It also provides a planning document for the orderly allocation

of funds to complete needed repairs and replacement. It is intended

that the budget report be revised and updated whenever the roof is

surveyed or has work done on it. Budget reports are often maintained

on computer-based data management systems,

o Prepare a master file on each roof. This file is used to follow the

performance of the roof. It generally would contain the historical

information regarding construction, designer, contractor,

specifications, and drawings. Survey reports, work orders, repairs,

roof plan, and similar documents would be maintained in the master

file. If a master file were set up on an existing roof for which

the historical information was not readily available, such information,

in all likelihood, would be omitted because of the costs and time

involved in searching for it. Some master files may contain an aerial

photograph of the roof.

o Set up a bid package for necessary repairs and maintenance work to be

done for each roof. The bid package provides the building owner with

a determination of the costs of labor and materials, and a scope of

the work which is to be done.

Roof maintenance management may be provided to an owner in three main ways. The

owner may set up an in-house program to conduct all steps within the organization. In the second, an owner may contract with a firm which provides maintenance management services and have all maintenance and repairs done by the

contracting firm. And in a third case, the owner may handle some maintenance

27
management activities internally and contract for others. In any case, the

owner would designate someone within the organization as having the

responsibility for roof maintenance. This Individual should have basic training

in roofing technology. Examples of the duties are;

o keep inventories of the roofs and records regarding maintenance,

repair, and performance.

o schedule roof surveys (either in-house or by contract),

o coordinate survey reports with all involved in carrying out necessary

repairs and assure that repairs are performed; schedule maintenance

and repair in a timely fashion.

o prepare budget reports and submit them to those responsible for

providing allocations.

o provide drawings and specifications for work to be done either inhouse or by contract. If done outside, review the drawings and

specifications for adequacy; assure that needed revisions are completed,

o arrange for the contractor and work with the procurement office so that

materials and labor are obtained as intended,

o arrange, as necessary, for consulting assistance and laboratory testing,

o provide for on-the-job quality control during installation and acceptance

of roof installation in the case of roof replacement,

o provide guide recommendations for techniques for use in the repair and

maintenance of existing roofs.

28
4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Cost of Roof Management Programs

As mentioned earlier in this report, an analysis of the economic considerations

of roof management programs was beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless,

it would not be attractive to a building owner to undertake a roof management

program unless it was economically justifiable. Reports on the economics of

roof management were not found during the course of this study. Discussions

with those involved with roof management programs indicated that increased

initial expenses were not quantified. Rough estimates of the added costs were

often given in the range of about 5 to 25 percent of the conventional costs of

new or replacement roofing construction. The added costs were described as

varying depending upon the type and extent of the roof management. For example,

individuals involved with the USAF program indicated there has been no

appreciable increase in bids for the construction of Air Force roofing. They

also indicated that the contractor may add 5 to 10 percent for the 5-year

performance agreeement. It was pointed out that a major contribution to the

added costs due to roof management is the use of full-time inspectors or quality

controllers during roofing installation. The review of a designer's specifications and drawings for conformance to the owner's requirements was often

relatively low in cost. Those individuals who discussed the Increased expense

of roof management agreed that the added costs were beneficial in achieving

improved roof performance.

4.2 Effectiveness of Roof Management Programs

As was the case with costs, reports are not available which document the

effectiveness of roof management programs in providing improved long-term

29
roofing performance. The major source of information on effectiveness is the

opinions of those practicing roof management who were contacted. They are

very positive that their approaches to roof management have resulted in more

trouble-free and longer-lasting low-sloped roofing systems. In particular,

the representative of one national firm which has had a roof management plan

akin to that of the USAF for 13 years indicated that roofs designed and constructed during that time have performed extremely well with few problems.

According to roofing program director for this firm, the result of the roof

management program "... has been zero roof failures and virtually cost-free

maintenance" [13]. Before Initiating its program, this firm had estimated

that its built-up roofs were lasting, on the average, 12 years. Since the

roof management program has only been in place 13 years, it has not been

possible to compute a revised average lifetime, but it is clearly going to be

well over 13 years.

Representatives of the U.S. Air Force and consultants responsible for assisting

the USAF have also spoken favorably about improved roofing performance. Again,

the evidence is anecdotal, since no studies of USAF experience have been reported.

The State of Illinois has been managing the design and construction of its

roofing systems for about 4 years. The emphasis of its program is on control

of design through review processes and Installation through tight pre-qualification of roofing contractors. One representative of the program, when asked

about the effectiveness, responded that "he could not say enough about how

well it was working." It was indicated that premature failures in the first

few years of a roof life have been avoided since initiation of the program.

30
In another case where testimony was provided on the effectiveness of roof

management, the representative of a large national organization indicated that

his firm used to manage new roof construction very effectively in the early to

mid-1970s. However, because of the added costs associated with roof management and a downturn in the economy, the roof management program was allowed to

slip away. Emphasis was then placed on first costs on roof construction and

not long-term roof performance. In this case, the finn found that the performance of its low-sloped roofs deteriorated. Thus, it is presently considering

a return to a roof management program for design and construction.

Fricklas [14] recently discussed the advantages of contract maintenance

management. He indicated that such programs assure that roofs receive prompt

and continuous attention, while relieving building owners of the worry of

routine roof maintenance management. He also pointed out that it is difficult to measure the cost-effectiveness of such programs, but reported that in

his opinion, there is a consensus that contract maintenance management is

worth the costs involved. He endorsed the concept of contract maintenance

management and suggested that such a program begin on a roof after the

expiration of the roof warranty.

Although most discussions concerning roof management programs provide evidence

of their effectiveness, the authors of this report have been associated with

one poor experience with new roof management. In this case, the design and

construction of a relatively large low-sloped roof ended in application of

system which has not performed satisfactorily. A roofing specialist had been

placed under contract to provide design assistance, review of specifications

and drawings, and also full-time inspection during installation. Investigation

31
of the problem indicated that the roof in question experienced poor performance

associated with design, materials selection, and installation practices, in spite

of the use of the roofing specialist. This points out that caution must be

exercised and that roofing consultants and specialists, selected to provide

owners roof management assistance, should be carefully chosen after review of

their qualifications.

4.3 Responsibility

4.3.1 Design and Construction

A key element of a successful roof management program is the assignment of

responsibility to those involved in the roofing process. As mentioned earlier

in this report experience has shown that, traditionally within the roofing

industry, responsibility for design, construction, and maintenance of roofs

has been fragmented among the parties involved. The fragmented responsibility

has not been in the best interests of successful roof performance. In recognition of this fact, roof management programs attempt to define clearly the

responsibility of each party before the construction begins, thus providing

the control so that the owner will obtain the desired roof system with a minimum

risk.

An owner normally assigns responsibility by one of two methods. First he may

appoint an individual(s) in the organization to watch over the roofing program.

For example, in the USAF program for design and construction, the role is

filled by the designated roof engineer at the base level. The USAF also has

an engineer assigned at each major command, as well as an overall coordinator

for all AF roofing and structural problems. Second, the owner may hire a roof

carry out the same duties or assist someone within the organization.

32
For roofing construction, the assignment of responsibility is primarily intended

to assure that those conducting design, materials selection and manufacture,

and application are clearly aware of the tasks which they are to carry out.

The individual having the responsibility monitors the designer, materials

manufacturer, and roofing contractor to assure that they complete their part

in the process as intended by the owner and that the three parties fulfill

their assignments compatibly. This is primarily done by the owner (or his

representative) assuring that: the design is according to acceptable practice;

the selected materials are compatible with the design; and the contractor has

the experience and capability for installing the selected materials. This

latter point is often taken into consideration by using contractors who have

been "approved" by manufacturers for installing their materials. The success

of this approach to control the quality of workmanship is, of course, very

dependent upon the level of ability to properly install materials as determined

by the manufacturer. Very often the roof management program incorporates

full-time Inspection of the installation.

A novel approach incorporated in some roof management programs requires by

contract that the material manufacturer also review the design specifications

and drawings. Then, upon review, the manufacturer certifies that its requirements for design are met or notes exceptions. It is also certified that, when

the system is installed by an "approved" roofing contractor, the roof will

perform as intended and a warranty will be issued for the system by the material

manufacturer. Under this warranty, the material manufacturer will make, or be

responsible for another party making, necessary future repairs to the roof for

a specified period of time. In these cases, the system includes materials

33
from the deck up as certified in the design review: membranes, flashings,

insulation, vapor retarder, fasterners and adhesives.

An example of this approach to tieing together the design, materials

manufacture, and roofing installation in a contract document is given in

Appendix B. Included in the material manufacturers certification from the

USAF Manual. This appendix also includes documents used by the State of

Illinois: (1) the Roofing System Manufacturer's Certification (RSMC) and

(2) the Roofing System Manufacturer's Warranty (RSMW). As described in the

RSMW, the warranty is for ten years and includes the system from the deck up.

Exclusions to the warranty include a provision that materials supplied by an

entity other than the manufacturer are not included except where such materials

were part of the specified roofing system certified by the manufacturer prior

to bidding the roofing work.

Connecting design, materials, and installation by the material manufacturer

certification of design review and installation is intended to provide the

owner a single source of recourse in the event of future problems. The approach

is controversial and not totally accepted by all material manufacturers. For

example, in discussing the Illinois program with a state representative, it

was indicated that not all manufacturers of roofing materials would participate

in the program and sign the Illinois documents. Those who have signed include

both built-up roofing and single-ply manufacturers.

One major manufacturer Indicated that a manufacturer only has responsibility

for roofing materials, and not design, installation, and other factors such as

34
misuse, and abuse. In the opinion of this manufacturer, the design and contracting professions have responsibility for those aspects of roof construction

and it is not the intent of the manufacturer to remove that responsibility

from them. Thus, this particular manufacturer will not, as a matter of policy,

routinely sign the owner's certification. However, the manufacturer will sign

the certification if, after review, it is found that the design meets the

company's published specifications and recommendations. The manufacturer will

only provide the warranty if it is also in line with the company's warranty

policy for its materials and systems.

4.3.2 Quality Control During Roof Installation

Inadequate workmanship during roofing installation has often been cited as a

major factor resulting in premature roofing failure. For example, the Federal

Construction Council (FCC) found that the majority of responses to a questionnaire on roof performance issued to its members listed poor workmanship among

the primary causes of premature failure of federal roofing projects [15]. As

a result, the FCC recommended that "federal agencies should provide for very

thorough inspection of roof installations to ensure strict compliance with

project specifications." It is noted that this recommendation assumed that

the project specifications were prepared in accordance with acceptable roofing

practice.

The importance of adequate workmanship and the use of inspection during roofing

installation has recently been emphasized by the Claims Coding Subcommittee of

the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Architects Liability Committee [16|.

This subcommittee reviewed many insurance claims regarding roofing and found

that in nearly all of the claims analyzed, architectural Inspection and

35
general-contractor control of the roof installation were neglected. As a

consequence, the subcommittee recommended to the AIA that roofing specialists

be used during construction, since most of the problems analyzed were believed

to have been preventable, if an expert had supervised construction.

Consistent with the belief that poor workmanship is often responsible for

premature failures, roof management programs involving design and construction

often emphasize the need for quality inspection. In most cases, such inspection

is conducted by the owner's representative who is a member of the company or a

roofing specialist hired by the owner. Among those contacted during this

study, almost all agreed that providing inspection during installation results

in improved roofing. Third party inspection does not relieve the roofing

contractor from his responsibility to apply the roof properly as specified.

It is also generally indicated that continuous, full-time inspection, can be

costly. Moreover, in some cases involving the Federal or State governments,

shortages of available personnel and budget restrictions prohibit the use of

inspectors during installation. Considering these factors, in a different

approach to providing inspection, the USAF roof management program developed

the concept of the roof quality controller. Here, an individual is hired

by the contractor and is designated by the contractor to monitor the installation quality. The quality controller has no additional activities regarding

roofing other than the responsibility to assure that the customer receives

what is required by the contract. The appointment of the quality controller

is handled by contractual agreement between the roofing contractor and the Air

Force. The roofing material manufacturer is not involved in this agreement.

A copy of the submittal from the contractor is given in Appendix C. Note that

36
the quality controller has the authority, in principal, to order a job stopped

if it is not proceeding in conformance to the contract specifications and

requirements

.

The assignment of responsibility to control installation quality by an individual

hired by the roofing contractor is, as may well be imagined, a controversial

subject in the roofing industry. The concept was developed on the basis that

when an industry produces a product, it also provides in-house quality

control of the product. On the roof, the roofing contractor is the "manufacturer of the roofing system," and thus, it is argued, should have the primary

responsibility for quality control. Regarding the workability of the concept,

one point of view is that it will not succeed. The contractor-appointed quality

controller is too close to the contractor and thus must be biased to monitor the

quality of the installation effectively. The situation has been equated to one

where "the cat protects the mouse." On the other hand, some individuals connected

with the USAF program indicate that the concept is workable and is working.

They cite examples where the quality controllers have actually shut down roofing

jobs until steps were taken to improve the quality of the installation.

Two major national organizations using a roof management program akin to that of

the USAF also have used the contractor-appointed quality controller on installations for a number of years. Individuals from these companies related some

experiences which had been satisfactory and some which had been disappointing.

In one case, it was indicated that the concept worked where large industrial

building constructions, including roofing, were underway. In these cases, the

company had construction project managers available at the job site who were

engineers and could keep control of the construction, including the roof. The

37
use of the contractor-appointed quality controller did not work in jobs where

construction project managers were not involved. Both of these national

organizations recently changed their method of conducting inspections during

construction, because of the number of times that it did not work. The quality

controller is now a person from an accredited laboratory and trained in roofing

technology. The quality controller may still be hired by the contractor as

part of the job contract but, under this program, reports to the owner or his

representative. The quality controller is selected from an approved list

assembled by the owner. In other cases, the quality controller is hired directly

by the owner.

5. SUMMARY

This report reviews current roof management programs used by private and public

sector organizations in the United States to help assure that low-sloped roofing

systems will perform as intended over their intended service lives. In recent

years , roof management programs have increased in popularity with building

owners as awareness of the economic benefits of maintaining the servicability

of their roofs increased. Three general types of roof management programs are

identified and discussed. For the most part, the structure and format of

these programs have not been formalized in publication. A notable exception

is the USAF program. The three types of roof management program are:

(1) total roof management which treats the design, construction, and maintenance

of new construction and existing roofing; (2) roofing design and construction

management dealing with design and installation; and (3) maintenance management

which considers the maintenance and repair of existing roofs. In addition to

the roof management programs which have been developed and used by organizations

38
In both the private and public sectors, several companies have organized

themselves to provide owners with either total or partial roof management

assistance.

Four elements are essential to an acceptable roof management program. These

are

1) The Roof System Criterion - This determines the quality of the roofing

system desired by the owner and deals with the selection of plans,

specifications, standards, guidelines, and criteria.

2) The Quality Assurance Plan - This is the planned, systematic pattern

of all actions required to provide confidence that the roof system

will conform to the requirements of the Roof System Criterion.

3) The Quality Control Plan - This is the implementation of the Quality

Assurance phase.

4) Assignment of Responsibility - This defines the individuals who are

responsible for the tasks carried out in a roof management program.

Roof management programs are intended to provide the mechanism for the

construction and maintenance of low-sloped roofing systems over their intended

service lives. In principle, the tasks conducted to reach this goal are generic

to all roof management programs. In practice, some roof management programs

are broader in scope and activity than others, A reason for the liraititation

of some programs is the limited resources available to those conducting the

program. Tables 2 and 3 present, respectively, a summary of the four essential

elements of roof management and a summary of the activities associated with

each for roofing design and construction, and maintenance and repair.

39
Studies have not been reported which indicate the added costs for design,

construction, and maintenance of roofs associated with roof management programs.

Estimates from individuals in the industry involving new construction with

total roof management programs have been placed the cost increase in the range

of 5 to 25 percent. A majority of those contacted in the study firmly believe

that the benefits of roof management in improved roofing performance justify

the added costs. The higher initial costs are believed by those contacted to

result in improved roofing performance and considerable savings over the service

lives of the roofs.

40
Table 2. Elements of Roof Management Programs and Associated Activities

for Roofing Design and Construction or Renovation

Element Sub-Element Activity

1) Roof System Criterion o master specification - implement in-house

(Materials and design) - adopt industry document

- prepare guidelines for

specific details such

as slope, thermal resistance, placement of

roofing top equipment, etc.

o master details - implement in-house

- adopt industry documents

o acceptable materials

and systems

- prepare list of acceptable

materials and limitations

of use

- conform to consensus standards

- conform to industry

standards

o application - prepare guidelines for

acceptable application

practice

- hold pre-bid, pre-job,

and pre-work conferences

o final acceptance - implement final inspection

procedures

o warranty - obtain warranty that

satisfied owner's requirements

2) Quality Assurance o owner's requirements - develop plan to assure that

owner's requirements are satisfied

3) Quality Control o design - review specification

including details

o materials - certification

- testing

o application - handling and storage

- inspection

- sampling and testing

4) Responsibility o roof system criterion - assigned as appropriate

for the activities listed

for elments 1, 2, and 3

o quality assurance - assigned as appropriate

o quality control - assigned as appropriate

41
Table 3. Elements of Roof Management Programs and Associated Activities

for Roofing Maintenance and Repair

Element Sub-Element Activity

1) Roof System Criterion o condition assessment - train personnel

- Implement instructions

for conducting condition

assessment

- implement guidelines for

assessing the condition

of the roof

- report condition of the

roof including recommendations for maintenance

or repair

o repair and maintenance

techniques

- select mechanism for

maintenance and repair

either in-house, or by

contract

- implement guidelines for

carrying out satisfactory

maintenance and repair

o warranty - obtain warranty that

satisfies owner's

requirements

2) Quality Assurance o owner's requirements - develop plan to assure

that owner's requirements

are satisfied

3) Quality Contol o procedures - review maintenance and

repair scope of work

o materials - assure that materials

conform to appropriate

specifications

- assure that repair

materials are compatible

with existing roofing

o workmanship - assure that maintenance

and repair are conducted

in accordance with

acceptable roofing

practice

4) Responsibility o roof system criterion - assigned as appropriate

for the activities listed

for elements 1, 2, and 3

o quality assurance - assigned as appropriate

o quality control - assigned as appropriate

42
6 . REFERENCES

1. Cullen, W. C. , "Survey Compares Practices to Problems," Roofing Spec

(October 198A), pp, 37-40.

2. Griffin, C. W. , "Manual of Built-Up Roof Systems," 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill,

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

3. "Opinion of Building Owners on the Construction Industry," Report to

Wagner-Hohns-Inglis , Prepared by Fleishman-Hillard , Inc. (September 1983),

53 pages.

4. Cash, C. G, , "Durability of Bituminous Built-Up Roof ing Membranes ,

First International Conference on the Durability of Building Materials

and Components," ASTM Special Technical Publication 691 (1980), p. 752.

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

Clifton, James R. , "Low-Sloped Roofing Research Plan," National Bureau

of Standards (U.S.), Special Publication 659 (July 1983), p. 2.

6. "Roof and Waterproof Deck Systems Study," Report to the General Services

Administration (U.S.), Prepared by Construction Consultants, Inc.

(May 1970), p. 13.

7. Ibid., p. 30.

8. "Built-Up Roof Management Program, "Air Force Manual AFM 91-36, Department

of the Air Force (3 September 1980).

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

"USPS Roofing Practices," NBS Report, In Preparation.

10. Bradford, John, "Preventive Maintenance Can Help Extend Roof Life,"

AIPE Facilities Management, Operations, and Engineering, Vol. 11,

No. 6 (November/December 1984), pp. 39-41.

11. Courville, G. E. and Kolb, J. 0., "Economic Analysis of Insulation

Materials Used in Low-Slope Built-Up Roof Systems," Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, ORNL/TM-9004 (June 1984) p, 1-1.

12. "Roof Maintenance," The Roofing Industry Educational Institue, R-102

(1980), 27 pages.

13. Thomas, Rose, "The Pros and Cons of Roofing Consultants," Building Design

and Construction (February 1985).

14. Fricklas, R. L. , "Contract Maintenance — Its Time Has Come,"

Roof ing/Siding/Insulation (January 1985), p. 8.

15. "Low-Slope Roofing Problems," Transactions of the Federal Construction

Council for 1979-80, Federal Construction Council, Washington, D. C. , pp. 21-27.

43
16, AIA Memo, "Roofing Problems," (May 24, 1985), p. 2.

44
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was sponsored by the United States Postal Service (USPS), Design

Management Division, Real Estate and Buildings Department. Mr. Warren L. Walker,

Project Manager, USPS, provided technical liaison between NBS and USPS. His

assistance and encouragement during the course of the study were appreciated.

The authors also acknowledge with thanks those individuals in the roofing

Industry who gave their time to discuss the elements, concepts, and functions

involved with conducting roof management programs.

Special thanks are given to those individuals who took time to provide valuable

comments and suggestions regarding this report: J. Bradford (Bradford Roofing

and Insulation), G. Frohnsdorff (NBS), D. Furman (USAF), H. Marien (USAF),

F. Potasnik (Construction Consultants, Inc.), and E. Schrieber (Construction

Consultants, Inc.). Finally thanks are expressed to J. Clifton (NBS) for his

assistance in developing the diagram on the roof service cycle.

45

APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED REGARDING ROOF MANAGEMENT

This appendix includes a listing of organizations contacted during the study

regarding roof management. The organizations were selected based on the

experiences of the authors of this report. Some of the organizations owned

many multi-purpose buildings located across the U.S. and had initiated programs

of total management of design, construction, and maintenance. Other organizations concentrated on a limited area such as maintenance management. Also,

some of the organizations listed here were not owners of buildings, but rather

firms which provided a roof management service. Information obtained during

discussion with individuals representing the organizations listed formed the

basis for the information presented in this report.

- Armstrong International

- Baltimore County Public Schools, Maryland

- Berryraen and Associates, Advanced Roof Management

- Bickerdike Allen Partners (United Kingdom)

- Bradford Roof Management

- Charles Brandt Goldsmith and Associates

- Construction Consultants, Inc.

- Eastman Kodak

- E. I. du Pont de Nemours

- General Motors Corporation

- Manville Products Corporation, National Accounts Group

- Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland

- Montgomery Ward

- Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.

- Proctor and Gamble

A-1
Prospect Industries

Roof Engineering, Inc.

Safeway Stores

Sverdrup and Parcel

State of Illinois

U.S. Air Force
APPENDIX B. EXAMPLE OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS USED IN NEW ROOFING MANGEMENT

This appendix contains some documents used in the design, construction, and

procurement of roofing. The documents are presented for illustration purposes

only. Included is a copy of the material manufacturer’s certification regarding

design review and contractor's approval which has been taken from the USAF

Manual on Roof Management. Two other documents used by the state of Illinois

are also given. They are entitled, "Roofing System Manufacturer's Certification

(RSMC)" and "Roofing System Maufacturer' s Warranty (RSMW)".

B-1
AFM 91-36

SUBMITTAL 1

BURS Manufacturer Certification;

The following statement is required from each BURS Manufacturer:

(Name) is accredited as an authorized and approved applicator of our roofing system*

We have reviewed the project requirements in the contract;

Reference . Project No. ; and believe our system or systems are proper for this project* Our system or systems most

suitable for the buildings In this project are:

Building Nximbe r Roofing System Designation

(From the contract) (As appropriate for each building)

BURS Manufacturer Firm Name

Addre ss

Authorized Representative's Signature

Printed or Typed Name

Date

B-2
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD RSMC

3rd. Floor, Wm. G. Stratton Bldg. Roofing System Manufacturer's Certification

Springfield, IL 62706

Date:

TO: Architect/Engineer CDB Project No.

Title

Location

CDB Proj. Mgr.

Our technical staff has examined the Architect/Enginecr's drawings, specifications and required warranty for the

roofing work on this project.

We do not wholly or partially endorse the building design or any materials or services not part of our advertised

roofing system.

CERTIFICATION

We hereby certify that:

1. All materials we will furnish and deliver to the project will be of good merchantable quality, will meet or exceed the specification requirements and will, if properly applied by one of our approved roofing applicator

firms in accord with our instructions, provide a sound weather/watertight roofing system.

Z Upon completion of the installation in accord with the drawings and specifications and our recommended

installation procedures, we will Issue the warranty specified in the project specifications. Roofing System

Manufacturer's Warranty, CDB Form RSMW. (Attached)

3. The drawings and specifications follow the recommendations of our roofing manual for this type of roofing

system with:

No exceptions.

The following exceptions: (Approval will be given upon correction of documents in accord with these

recommendations.)

ROOFING SYSTEM MANUFACTURER .

By: .

Title Date:

Direct Dial Telephone Number: ( ) cc: Manager, Technical Services, Capital Development F jard, 3rd Fir. Wm. G. Stratton Bldg. Springfield, IL 62706

CDB-RSMC-16 NOV t1

B-3
Stst* of illinob CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD

3rd. Fk>or, Wm. G. Stratton Bklo. Sprin^f^, iL S2702

RSMW

Boofing Syttam Manufacturar'a Wvranty

Effacthra Data:

Roofing System Manufacturer: CDB Project No.

f'bme. Building Owner

Address Owner Address

Building Name

Building Address

Roofer Name

Address

Telephone

i. WARRANTY

A. The Roofing System Manufacturer, identified as _______________________

; .8

with (ts principal office at

Roof Area

Roof Specification ______

Lin, Ft. Flashing

Lin. Ft. Expansion Joint Covers

Insulation Type

Corporation

he 'Wanufaaurer” warrants to the Buildirtg Owner named above, hereinafter called "Owner" that, subjea to the

provisions of this document, the Manufacturer will, as its owner expense, make or cause to be made all repairs necessary to maintain the roofing system in a wateaight condition for a period of ten years from the date of accepted substantial completion of the roofing system.

B. System includes:

1. Membrane(s).

2. Flashings (except metal or composite metal components not furnished by the Manufaaurcr as part of its advertised system).

3. Ins-jlation.

4. Vaoo'’ retarder.

5. Fasteners and adhesives.

C. Limitation: The Manufacturer’s liability under this Warranty shall be limited to ($ . ) which is the Owner's original cost of the installed roofing system.

II. OWNER’S-RESPONSIBILITY. The Owner will notify the Manufacturer if repairs covered by the Warranty are required. The notice

will be sent by Cenified Mail, return receipt requested, to the Manufacturer's office specified in the Manufacturer's Maintenance

Manual within 30 days of discovery of leaks or other defects in the roofir^g system. The Owner will provide the Manufacturer free access to the building during regular business hours over the life of the Warranty. The Owner acknowledges that the Manufacturer

has provided its Roofing Mainterwnce Manual, including instructions necessary for the Owner to inspect and maintain the roofing

system during the warranty period.

COB 0176016 NOV t1 01760 .

B-4
ni. EXCLUSIONS.

A. The following are excluded from this Warranty:

1 . Roof maintenance for corrections of cortditions other than leaks. 2 Damage to any pan of the building (other than the roofing system) or to its ooments.

3. Damage resulting from repairs made to the roofing system without the Manufacturer’s prior authorization.

4 Damage resultirtg from any or>e of the following: •

a. Settlement, expansion, contraction, cracking, wyarping, deflection or movement of roof deck, walls, coping structural members or building foundation.

b. Natural disasters (i.e., windstorm, hail, flood, hurricane, cyclone, lightning, tornado or earthquake.

c Changes in building usage. r>ew installations on, through or edjacem to the roofing system made after the effearve date of

this Warranty, unless the Manufacturer has given prior written approval of uch changes in building us'ge or rte// irutalla- tions

d. Accidents, vandalism or other ur>controllable events.

e. Lack of positive drainage (standing water) except where the Martufacturer has oamified aooeptanoe of standing water as paa of the roofing system design.

f. Chemical attacks on the membrarre from sources unkrwwn or not present et tinye of roofing system Installation. g

Falling objects, misuse or abuse of the roofing system, traffic, recreational activities or storage of material on the roofing

system.

h. Infiltration or condensation of moisture in, through or around walls, copings. buildir»g structure or underlying or surrounding areas.

i. Movement or deterioration of metal components adjacent to the roof (except where auch components are a part of the

Manufacturer's advertised roofir>g system).

j. Failure of materials supplied by others (except where such materials are a part of the specified roofirig system certified by

the Manufacturer prior to bidding the roofing work).

k. Tests of test cuts not authorized by the Manufecturer.

l. Failure of the Owr>er to provide maintenaix* in accord with the Roofing Maintenance Manual.

m. Failure of the Owner to notify the Manufacturer of leaks or other defects within 30 days of discovery.

B. THIS WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.

In Witrvess Whereof. Manufacturer end Owner have caused this Warranty to be duly executed on the above date. MANUFACTURER OWNER

By By —

Title Title

Date Date «_

CD&-017D9-t6 NOV f1 01760.

B-5
1

ndT A.i

toofl ;f wifoi 0MhHu4 arff lo rmq y«>i o) »e«m«Q j; i

ri uyu lewHia.' - C'

Dpi^viC. %.

j63V^-., »a'.

"iv. ,^MA»prtf<«iyeofci«rwe,on^^

,<tK* .,^i''N»wqqi (iMlf g|i4 imuo^tM Mi «riAw’.

, v' :‘)v 2-'S5 %

,'

' 'di

"" tv , ,

’

n»7ta«t( 'iTiuf**< 4 ^

I^IOungcwHi 'rvi)«:tn«v ‘an^ibiyoA • ,

r,i

L\m f ^

***^y*y ^ ’® wtiAR* t«na»ni'o*i *(fi b «ik^ i«» ammu i)rt'tt*1 a

* ^' ^ ’** —->—m. iii II.. I

-

,

1 I, I y,; , w»m% 1^- _-f,i

-w.

. AIJ1IW..J

L'

a ir(vw

‘T

1C :mwfvr^'

' r

if »ni to rt<J<t*rn>MC» 10 /»0*f*v8t|«| J/l *

1 0 *«» ftffoooQwop noiM OTOW iq»Mi» fooiMf Of miMi^ Ifoof*^^ }«mn to noiroiolioifb io -n»m#vol?

4mi9fV9 i^iiftNjn 9flRrv#«u V ^irf!VTW ^-imn

4* - >»IA '•-—r»*rwn<to>i<W fWf VC t>ffHoiwy«jrio?T cm .wiyi ^ .(ourtaM •arurwmioM yiitcpfl Mr /Irtyt tn<oo> fcywioitOow i|<»qif or >*n<^ ytt to ” ^ ''" "’^;t<ifru*biofyittrtC

' ff»yr#iriatw*i<^

^

wtwiwfto

a *•'( xwt?^fto-gea>mr»itfy>iyfwt*MrotHTo w«nn«»n»^.iAi

^•l-ltiv' 4 “e*r

‘^- JUTII*

r*- A*»-

i»* ^8(. tt n» <hwyfc t«EMM **J* • 01 oaja^Hwnaoi •' rao# r* u>^i5*n'fiir a (MU' of "t **• W*s7M»- 4l A- ;Wi«J i'RiAirTirs^)Vf5ft-,i^ /

V

W>

«riT *tJi‘ 3 AwrOgp!! '•'•‘< .' *r-5sse7«»r

j

«riO MV sr ^ »0M'- .. 5

<'-’^ 'M*'fe^ id i 4 Vftcjy Hujtfw**

:B»/nr «| V LrsrnniuH mtMvK

fi tjr*f|diow;i t%» -1 f i. . . W4 Mil^!J'Af!' MIlmfMtf tu ($

oym^ntin V • M OmMT •* in V,-Ma ^ OOIMM N IN W|iT|nty iM /iwj«;«l^^Ttii

IN’IP bf»if» N C*^(4oj Mad, imvr^.ff40f^

fONlKVIo * ‘'^»*' actu'*' i '>*^vv cN»f)aO iRtV^^'B'facmi'w^l

Ilf.- MMiifiPMiNii Of li»a« Of 'OttHr-jOi** » v t?. , viif, ^r^tm tV Xht •CON ** N»f*v '.vavM »** iN . .*<?« IN ••W’lT'.* y. YN nrtSNi4g|N i<i# Mj« NWoof#^ ittKNfN ^’*0 ^ MMMN <N

^ V^aa«<ria iN i«b<

\ Wh 01^

Ki^ »

'^' '‘W '. m" -""•

i.

r« vo¥i «r<«Tro a
APPENDIX C. REPRINT OF THE AIR FORCE QUALITY CONTROLLER APPOINTMENT FORM

The U.S. Air Force in its roof management program uses a contractor-appointed

quality controller to monitor the quality of the roofing installation. The

contractor identifies the quality controller through a submittal to the Air

Force which accompanies the work contract. This appendix includes a copy of

that submittal form.

C-1
SUBMITTAL 2

Appolntsnent of Quality Controller

t

(Wane

)

is appointed as quality oonCTdller

on Project with the authority to regulate the quality of

the work so that it conforms to the contract* The quality controller

is authorized to order discontinuance of any operation causing non- conforming work and is directed to report to an officer of this firm.

The quality controller is not stibordlnate to the foreman* job superintendent, or project manager*

The quality controller is a registered roofing journeyman or has at

least 5 years prior experience in the supervision and inspection of BURS

construction sisLilar to that required in this contract* The quality

controller understands all requirements of these specifications.

Kame of Firm

Address

Telephone

Authorized Representative's Signature

Printed or Typed Name

Date

I acknowledge receipt of this letter*

Quality Controller's Signature

Printed or Typed Name

Date

C-2
NBS*n4A REV. 2 -ec) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions;

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. PubI ication Dateif?r

4. TITLE and subtitle

Roof Management Programs

5. AUTHOR(S)

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

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than MBS, 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 Management Division

Real Estate and Building Department

Washington. D.C. 20260-6415

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I 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

private and public sector organizations in the

United States to help assure that low-sloped roofing systems will perform as intended

over their intended service lives. This report reviews those programs. Three general

types of roof management programs are identified and discussed. For the most part, the

structure and format of these programs have not been formally published. A notable

exception is the U.S. Air Force program. The three types of roof management program

currently conducted are: (1) total roof management which treats the design, constructioji

,

and maintenance of new and existing roofing; (2) new construction management dealing

with design and installation; and (3) maintenance management which considers the maintenance and repair of existing roofs. Four elements are considered essential to an acceptable roof management program: (1) the roof system criterion, (2) quality

assurance, (3) quality control, and (4) responsibility. In addition to the roof

management programs that have been developed in the private and public sectors, several

companies have organized to provide owners with total or partial roof management services

Although the increased roofing costs associated with new construction and total roof

mangement programs have not been studied, estimates for such programs range from

increases to 5 to 25 percent above the costs for roof construction without management.

Many individuals in the industry using roof mangement programs believe that improved

roofing performance results and that the increased costs are justified.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s,-

construction; design; low-sloped roofing; maintenance; management; review; roofs

13. AVAILABILITY

[j«j Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I 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 PAOt

^1

15. Price

f fr
.^1

'i .ii?"

.

-

r-

•'.‘^ It ATAO 01

'ly-t

" 3 JT>T8 ^tf*QVIA ai-Ti T iBBcWMIr '“ Wa 1 _ irr*”

T^i.ih tJ»%|ii»tHofflty », 1^* •»(<^.4 W4l

di f ' f»>»#.> pt I,

I if^ l. ^||l^l^^.

»• >

^6' j^fl'

i

. ^ ' V I.(,r'^

" '*'

tf 4 MlJC JAMQiTAll L»^d wWdb<t#(>rt^l(fciW U9lXltt If W>t^ft#rft

'

.tt .'M M.L fMA^ailkr4 AA 1 ^4^ .'Mi

'

, _ , , .

^ TA3 fTfA^a

;,|.f|if^ » #f L«r •f^r|^flief^.|*''$Mi •l4i^«5>f«* ‘W .4.0 ,f 0Tfif«HI4|r., ,i* ||14* to to*t imifiixmS -itt thi* dbnt*«icrt. X>m- ><i

ipi^Mjiii^ ' ....... mm.IJI'S? VUWi?ffS

um 63AfrVJfiifl6:f-iSa 1^

«c*’jiMM «# ]rii« ii /j—

»

AA4n*Mt

»:>*T30E ifOfQf^

rt oi ilV ia *7fir9««5mi eW

f . ••

'iitr^

.JM^rnUMSlA<LMftl^ii8mtsat» •3B38a

-,.... giAa^rOd^^gst .nomi

zaiOM y«ATi

XSi l|tti»»cAi*f toiarvMMrtottvf**

».»««rt » »n-t2,**5

r

'•^c. Tcatft’. wiiffrfBugiiCT rifan>«i»b ;.wiwi

4nh fl^foolaftslfxjigio loJOff 'atrat^TTna'

bvhnmiftt ^4%:k^•f^l^r$9l^4lt4ii4i'Xv^a^^k9^cl^•^ol Hmtfj »iv«ff ^Iffl 03 fflfjCI

‘

87«4«|i OAoirfj ««o.$;y«3 aiilT ••fvil to^V3f• bstfiftaol xiruti 34^0

J(t9 cat*^ a4M»AA4y <Ay» r -;Bto»»4'<Miar»fcwrtfcinUajii^^ »aAw.<Mto iHug- annBf»fcfl4W ^ooi 1o; h9<^3

^»t49f9^ 4. «b90«.U4uo ^XXf«:iu) natKl aoo »vmd tMigoiq ••ads to^SAcsol boa »'Suiiotn 19

M87goiq Jthts»£$iefim q »»a »A »IA^ 3 •! aoi$%^^*9

,i^im»n3*no7 ,a^i99b sda asafia ftsUfv ano«i«gMMi Hoo? taaos <D :n« bsssubnoo iciSAfisip

gAllfab aafaagAA««i’%uiad^HRoa~i#»ffH^'”rgna‘faos latSfXx* baj> wao lo a^ntoajnitMf. biiA

fnl9m «4d «sabiajt<j^9 daJUhf soaiiaiifffWB •oAMialaaM (C) Una inolSAnsSsfll bn* nglaab da Hi

•A Qj f.sJtaaa»M bftfblAOoa «%9 03na«*£» ivof .a)ooT gal^aUr* I 0 slaqai baa aonSniii

xail»Y>|i (S) ,not7»3iJs mJ»X9 Hoot »dJ (l) r«ftigosq SnaatagbAf* tool aiOfASqto »e toof •rf# 0i Aolltbb# fli *>tsiiadl cm>qa#ir (A) bu ,io7ano9 xaiiat/p (O ,^>:>ir8llNi ^

lAVM ,«-soi3f<« blidtiq bito 9)9t,t7(j ads nJt b»qoisv»b nf»d avad imHj aoraigoiq a/t'.xaa^a

V3M SofttMigbAtoi >001 /tlaiaq *ro ias«3 «3tMXW0 sblvosq os basioagso »VJid falAa^^i

loo^ l»40S boo folsoosjaooD fR*a dsh« ^3oibo»«a!!»s«oo goilooi boaaaionl ad3 dguodj

003$ aftffto «Mfgay!| dOi;« aol bfSMlaM •b»abu3€.ootol loo offd fVA^soiq In

3na«aif«mv^ nol lam i«noo loos lol •J»03 adl ovodo looasaq tS oi g oa ofamai^i

bayos^EBJ; iiuli »^9lif*d tuRAigosq lofOADniMi loos gniaiu xsJfubni ads ol •lAobiribdi iH ^ .b^Hilaot aiooa bof&oaonl mdi $9ti$ bo* •slotos •onjwiolsaq gott^'x

. g IL fL

ik

.•! 4

'IV

ifl «•\<lt» **i kim»f»i kk* »*n**ii vi4^ vtiw •iVfttftta l»j>»»doA|<» .#»;«v^ «vUwi at ^iZ>Jt)«on,T^}i ,

•loot {wolvb'} iJoMiagfftiyi ;«oo*AainlMi {goiloot boqoio^-ooi ;nglt»9b inoi39«n3aoiio

to , 0H M

kaoAo a9Tw»do

M, f—5

-

14

'

!>hO .is

os rriJjflAJt^v^

b«)>oilf)U {T}

atTM fi *>w fO

^

, 4.0 ,rtO£i»JO**W ,«>0^0 »<»0k'>0 tftonwnovoO J.U .«'n»ou»HI !• «n<nt MifiO Q['

t ^

fl

• ©.1 - •“»“

*•>£{ .AV ^iaOtniioC , 4?tTM> aalvikt liia4 i*<i>*T iknodaO Ob»0 {^

tifr- 0

**'*'**'*'^* -'Aiy