Facilities replacement costs have become so expensive that maintenance painting to protect the investment and sustain appearance is a necessity to avoid future major costs. Unlike initial painting there are many variables associated with maintenance painting. Until recent years, published guidance on what constituted an effective maintenance painting programs in terms of execution and performance was minimal. Although more information is now available, facility managers must decide on the most effective way to conduct maintenance painting opposite their needs. This paper will describe the Single Source Responsibility method, its merits, and user benefits relative to in-house and consultant managed programs.

Subject
Costs, Protective coatings, Materials, Objectives, Industries, Consultants, Investment, Engineering, Scale, Operations management, Health, safety, and environment, Contractors, Maintenance
© 1989 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP. Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with the author(s).
1989
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.