Document MJ34mBddQBnQdrqz6aemRYRVk

iii CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIVISION WRG 39( TO B. R. Williams FROM W. K. Rogers DATE August 4, 1971 SUBJECT Mono-Kote i PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT WRG-616 " : CC: R. M. Vinj|i-g- ......... ----- H. BrownCgl THIS COPY FOR K. Harrison R. C. Ericson T. P. Feit R. J. Bragg R. Wright A. M. Rosenberg After six fairly successful months of selling both Mono-Kote III and Mono-Kote IV, we are still faced with some problems that could seriously jeopardize our future as a major factor in the fire proofing market in the region: (1) Problems with shrinkage and other cracking,, especially where high thicknesses are involved. . (2) Problems with pumping of Mono-Kote IV. (3) Problems with the slippery deck surfaces which occur when Mono-Kote is oversprayed onto floors. (4) Problems with clean up of deck surfaces resulting from overspray, particularly when the Mono-Kote has hardened. (5) Interpretation of "quartz or free silica" of approximately 5% in Mono-Kote by the State of New York - Department of Labor - Division of Industrial Hygiene; which at last word from them required respirators as minimum protection. (6) Some hesitancy on our part to recommend Mono-Kote on exterior columns or spandrels, and a lack of "sales ammunition" to counter the "K" value claims of competitors in this area. (7) Variations in Bag Weights. EXHIBIT Er^y-, \ (D HOME OFFICE l;r~. L3 Aouz'ii CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIVISION B. R. Williams 2 August 4, 1971 I realize that we are working on most of the above problems and that there is a great deal of customer inexperience or apathy involved, but since any one, or' combination of these problems, could eventually seriously hurt our chances at the market place, I have taken each problem as I know it and treated it individually. The major area of concern is that with all of these problems occurring, whether our fault or not, the various New York City inspectors, some architects and at least two or three major . contractors and owner-builders, are questioning the quality of Mono-Kote. One job (Mario & DiBono's) has already been stopped and another, the Rudin Job (Glenboro), is close to being stopped by the New York City inspectors. This, of course, can only weaken our position and seriously impair the good will we have built up as a result of our efforts over the past eight months and the Mono-Kote Seminar we had in New York. With the entrance on the market of CAFCO's new "MARK 5" cementitious product, the situation becomes even more critical. It's time we went on the offense technically with full back-up data on successful projects on a. national scale, a firm and full set of specification, application and clean-up procedures, and control procedures for on-the-job use by our people, the applicators, and any inspection agencies.I I know that Bob Ericson, Ralph Bragg, Jim Cintani, John Ottinger, etc., have already begun moves in this direction, especially in the area of technical services and control; and can offer addi tional information and advice on how to overcome these problems. WKR/jac Attachments W. K. Rogers 'V-v r-: CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIVISION TO B. R. Williams DATE s FROM W. K. Rogers SUBJECT Mono-Kote 1 CC: R. M. VinjAg-....... ......... ---H. Brown^THIS COPY POR K. Harris cm R. C. Ericson T. P. Feit R. J. Bragg R. Wright A. M. Rosenberg After six fairly successful months of selling both Mono-Kote III i and Mono-Kote IV, we are still faced with some problems Chat could seriously jeopardize our future as a major factor in the fire proofing market in the region: (1) Problems with shrinkage and other crackings especially where high thicknesses are involved. * (2) Problems with pumping of Mono-Kote IV. (3) Problems with the slippery deck surfaces which occur when Mono-Kote is oversprayed onto floors. (4) Problems with clean up of deck surfaces resulting from overspray, particularly when the Mono-Kote has hardened. (5) Interpretation of "quartz or free silica" of approximately 5% in Mono-Kote by the State of New York - Department of Labor - Division of Industrial Hygiene; which at last word from them required respirators as minimum protection. (6) Some hesitancy on our part to recommend Mono-Kote on exterior columns or spandrels, and a lack of "sales ammunition" to counter the "K" value claims of competitors in this area. (7) Variations in Bag Weights. ------------------- HOME OFFICE o IO \rcr> * gfr C.H-9 f `'95 P S 1 ** B. R. Williams CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIVISION 2 August 4, 1971 I realize that we are working on most of the above problems and that there is a great deal of customer inexperience or apathy involved, but since any one, or' combination of these problems, could eventually seriously hurt our chances at the market place, I have taken each problem as I know it and treated it individually. The major area of concern is that with all of these problems occurring, whether our fault or not, the various New York City 1 inspectors, some architects and at least two or three major contractors and owner-builders, are questioning the quality of , Mono-Kote. One job (Mario & DiBono's) has already been stopped and another, the Rudin Job (Glenboro), is close to being stopped by the New York City inspectors. This, of course, can only weaken our position and seriously impair the good will we have built up as a result of our efforts over the past eight months and the Mono-Kote Seminar we had in New York. With the entrance on the market of CAFCO's new "MARK 5" cementitious product, the situation becomes even more critical. It's time we went on the offense technically with full back-up data on successful projects on a national scale, a firm and full set of specification, application and clean-up procedures, and control procedures for on-the-job use by our people, the applicators, and any inspection agencies. I know that Bob Ericson, Ralph Bragg, Jim Clntani, John Ottinger, etc., have already begun moves in this direction, especially in the area of technical services and control; and can offer addi tional information and advice on how to overcome these problems. WKR/jac Attachments W. K. Rogers ' ;U 9n