You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
 Prev Next
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
ICF512
Registered Users
New Member
Posts:9
 |
| 10/12/2000 11:16 PM |
|
Why can"t all of the noted Gerus of the S.I.PA. and people doing business with Sips come up with a supportive document that considers total costs of construction vs. stick to prove that we are more econimical? We tend to price against a construction process Vs. a assembly process and give no value for all the associated savings derived from sip use. Recent statics show the industry growing by leaps and bounds.
We are endorsed by virtually eyery agency in the country as be the the best. But we always seem to get cought in this comparason of apples vs tomatoes that doesn't make sense. How do we illustrate to peope the superior benfits of what we got?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICF501
Registered Users
Basic Member
Posts:109
|
| 10/13/2000 1:21 AM |
|
Thanks for genius implication for SIPA. I think we have proven our point and have demonstrated that SIPS outperform sticks in all areas, integrity of structure, energy consumption of the structure, energy consumption to construct (human energy) or labor, enviromental sensitivity, lessened callbacks due to warped and twisted lumber, comfort to the occupants, etc. We cannot lessen SIPS to stick as we are a system and a system approach to construction. Our system is simpler due to fewer parts and the ease and ability to pre-fabricate in a factory setting to ensure quality control. It is not our responsibilty to lower ourselves to stick frame comparisons, but rather to elevate the consciousness of the construction industry. SIPS SAVE LABOR. When labor and materials are put forth as one entity, SIPS are at least equal in price to that of sticks, if not more cost effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6