Extratherm Insualtion Instead of Kingspan

corboy

Hi All,
I have searched the threads but cant find an answer to my dilema.

Builder has laid:
100mm Xtratherm Extra Performance Polyiso Thin-RXT/PR

under our UFH

Our Architect had specified

100mm Kingspan TF70,

Is there a differnece in U values or quality, should I be worried or ask him to change the insulation??

Any advice or info to relieve my worries would be appreciated,

Thanks

ardara1

corboy wrote: »

Hi All,
I have searched the threads but cant find an answer to my dilema.

Builder has laid:
100mm Xtratherm Extra Performance Polyiso Thin-RXT/PR

under our UFH

Our Architect had specified

100mm Kingspan TF70,

Is there a differnece in U values or quality, should I be worried or ask him to change the insulation??

Any advice or info to relieve my worries would be appreciated,

Thanks

Insulation comparisonis best done by comparint the RESISTANCE - that is
dividing the thickness by the THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY

eg 100mm Kingpan = 0.100/0.023 = R 4.35
100mm Xtratherm = 0.100/0.023 = R 4.35 (Exactly the same performance)

To confirm - just search the agrement certificates

corboy

Excellent,
Thats a great relief,

Thanks

sunnysoutheast

hi there

There may be no difference in performance but there might be in the price - when we were building the Xtratherm was about 15% cheaper than the equivalent Kingspan. When we upped the insulation spec. during the build our contractor sourced the cheapest available, which was Xtratherm, and we paid that price.

It may be that the architect's spec. says something like "Kingspan TF70 or equivalent as approved" and you may want to check that he/she will sign off.

You may also want to remind the builder that the difference in sourcing costs, if any, should be taken off the agreed price for the original specification. Maybe ring around a few merchants first to check prices.

Good luck
SSE

corboy

Good point SSE, but its very early in the build process to be rocking the boat, Think I'll highlight the fact that i've noticed the change and the fact that it is chepaer insulation but leave it at that for the moment. Might need him to be flexible for me later in the build.....

Thanks again

sunnysoutheast

hi corboy

Obviously up to you what you do but remember you're the customer. I'd make it clear that that you'll require a) a written agreement and b) a contract variation to be made for any change in the quoted specification. You could have a change like this made and run into problems with signoff.

Bear in mind a builder will only be "flexible" later on if it suits them, i.e. they're short of work. The fact that they made more profit earlier on will be forgotten. Don't be seen as a soft touch.

SSE

kkelliher

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

You may also want to remind the builder that the difference in sourcing costs, if any, should be taken off the agreed price for the original specification. Maybe ring around a few merchants first to check prices.

Not exactly true as in all contract specified items the builder can supply a comparative item (Kingspan or similar approved). There was a law brought in a good few years ago which banned the anti competitive specification of specific brand items in projects. This is why all spec items will say "or similar approved". If the product is the same same quality as the specified product then the builder has given you the product as per the spec and any saving is a benefit for him and not for you. Alot of builders will allow for Xtratherm instead of Kingspan in their tender anyway to keep their price competitive.

Slates

kkelliher wrote: »

Not exactly true as in all contract specified items the builder can supply a comparative item (Kingspan or similar approved). There was a law brought in a good few years ago which banned the anti competitive specification of specific brand items in projects. This is why all spec items will say "or similar approved". If the product is the same same quality as the specified product then the builder has given you the product as per the spec and any saving is a benefit for him and not for you. Alot of builders will allow for Xtratherm instead of Kingspan in their tender anyway to keep their price competitive.

Quinntherm is cheaper than both Kingspan or Xtratherm

sunnysoutheast

kkelliher wrote: »

Not exactly true as in all contract specified items the builder can supply a comparative item (Kingspan or similar approved). There was a law brought in a good few years ago which banned the anti competitive specification of specific brand items in projects. This is why all spec items will say "or similar approved". If the product is the same same quality as the specified product then the builder has given you the product as per the spec and any saving is a benefit for him and not for you. Alot of builders will allow for Xtratherm instead of Kingspan in their tender anyway to keep their price competitive.

Interesting - doesn't sound like this change was approved beforehand, in any case. OP?

So what happens if, in the plumbing, I want a Grundfos pump, for example? Or MK sockets for the electrics? Or Worcester Bosch boilers? There's (cheaper) alternatives to all of these but, if if there's no financial incentive to do so as the contractor will pocket the difference, why should/would the customer agree to a change?

The builder should specify the materials to be used in the tenders shouldn't they - if they've quoted for Kingspan they should put it in?

SSE

Mellor

If they are the ones you want then source and buy them yourself.
If you are leaving it up to the contractor then it is up to him to pick. They have to be to equal performance and quaility to be susbstituted,

The client isn't agreeing to a change, they don't have a choice. Bare in mind if the producter ends up costing more then the contractor takes a hit, so its fair that if its cheaper that he saves it.

Mellor

kkelliher wrote: »

Not exactly true as in all contract specified items the builder can supply a comparative item (Kingspan or similar approved). There was a law brought in a good few years ago which banned the anti competitive specification of specific brand items in projects. This is why all spec items will say "or similar approved".

In general the above is right, but i'd change the part in bold.
An anti competitive law was brought in a few years ago, this introduced the situation were the contractor could sub in equal products if he wished. If didn't however stop or prevent the naming of branded products. Still possible to name them, just not possible to insist on them.
An exception to this is on Government Contract tenders. Where products can't ne named at all, and there are no PC sums or similar.


Also the line "or similar and approved", should really be used, as the "approved" part suggests that contract admin still have final say as they choose to approve or not approve a product.

That said, its still used alot even is it doesn't apply. Something like "or equivilant" would be better