Abstract
With the rising cost of materials, labor, insurance, etc., owners, engineers and project managers are becoming more and more sensitive to unwarranted expenses associated with construction related projects. It is safe to assume that each owner and engineer desires a quality paint project. However, the added cost of an independent paint inspector can really hit the bottom line. Requiring quality assurance (QA) or quality control (QC) inspections on any painting project is a step in the right direction. History has shown that projects that incorporate proper inspection procedures increase the service life of the coating by two to three times.1 However, this diminishes greatly when the inspections are “downgraded” or “value engineered” in the interest of economy and saving money. Examples of this practice would be the use of hold point vs full-time inspection and utilizing a Basic Coatings Inspector (formerly Level 1) instead of a Senior Certified Inspector (formerly Level 3). In many instances the coating applicators are allowed to “self-perform” inspection related checks instead of using a third-party inspector. Yet another common practice is to have a QC inspector from another trade (building, welding, utility, etc.) perform the paint inspection QA/QC. These individuals, although qualified in their individual field often either have no coating inspection certifications at all, or if they have the certification, have no coating related experience. This article aims to provide several clearly defined minimum requirements for inspection that will help ensure a higher level of quality from both the inspector and the inspection process regardless of the products used or written specification requirements.
