Published for the first time in Construction & the City newspaper – issue: 4/2004-01-24

Construction & the City newspaper initiated a timely and important discussion on the fulfillment of the requirements laid down in the Ordinance on the essential requirements and construction products conformity certification. I congratulate the newspaper’s team for this initiative and would like to present my comments on the Ordinance in question based on my experience gained as a consultant on the development and introduction of factory production control  (FPC) systems over the past year and  a half.
 Ph. D., dipl. eng. Ivo DIMITROV, KALI OOD, Sofia 

I would like to draw the attention of the readers on certain main points, which, in my opinion, require further study. Their importance is not fully realised by both the construction product producers and some of the accredited assessors. 
The first topic on which I would like to share my experience relates to the product certification.

Product certification – myths and reality

According to a number of criteria laid down in the Construction Products Directive, the construction products are classified in SIX groups (1, 1 +, 2, 2 +, 3 ? 4) for conformity attestation.
Each group requires the fulfillment of certain conditions by the relevant manufacturer.
In this case we shall examine groups 1 and 2, which imply product conformity assessment including the availability of a factory production control  (FPC) system, audited by an independent third party, which secures the production.
To clarify further the problems involved we shall make reference to the concrete production where the problems identified are literally classical.
This group (group 1+) requires both initial product conformity assessment and a certified factory production control system. It should also be mentioned the parallel operation of the Bulgarian State Standard (BSS) (BSS 7268 - 83) and of BSS EN (BSS EN 206-1:2002). Such cases will be typical in the next years for a number of construction products.
In practice the assessment of the product is carried out after the undertaking concerned has introduced a factory production control (FPC) system, which is also subject to audit by the conformity assessment body.

Therefore, there are three practical steps to do this:

- the undertaking develops and introduces a documented FPC;

- the conformity body tests the product assessed – the sample is taken at a moment chosen by the assessor, who on the 28 day tests the concrete elements and gives his conclusion on product’s conformity;

- issue of a product certificate, which allows the manufacturer, on his turn, to issue a conformity declaration to his clients.

The two positive results from the first two steps constitute the grounds to issue a certificate of conformity for the relevant class of concrete.

The appropriate interpretation of this problem requires, however, the clarification of a couple of rather confusing myths.

MYTH No 1: The standard – a basis for regulating/determining product’s quality

It is a myth since the European standards do not use the word quality. This notion rather vague is replaced by the explicit term of conformity.

In other words, the term of DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY means that the manufacturer declares to the user with a certain extent of probability (in this particular case  more than 95%), that the product supplied meets the concrete requirements of the client, laid down in a specific enquiry. 

In that case the role of the product standards is, on one hand, to provide the basis for negotiating the parameters of a given product between a manufacturer and an user and, on the other hand – to protect the public interest through regulating specific requirements with respect to the product, its production and control.
This means that the regulation of the product is performed, on one hand, on the basis of  client’s requirements, which are precisely defined and laid down in his order, and, on the other hand, through the product standard, which regulates the conformity assessment of the product in question.

In brief, the issuance of the declaration of conformity is possible only provided that there are specific requirements of the client, which are indicated in his order.  

MYTH No. 2: FPC may be created as well only on the basis of BSS (in this specific case – only on the basis of BSS 7268 - 83).

It is either a myth or a total misinterpretation of the logic of the requirements with respect to the factory production control (FPC).

It is a myth since BSS 7268 – 83 and BSS, which are not in compliance with the European standards adopted in accordance with the EU construction directive, are created on the basis of a completely different logic, which does not entail special  requirements to the management  of the product manufacturing.

The absence of specific requirements with respect to the given factory production control (FPC) of a specific product makes impossible in practice the adequate assessment of the conformity of the FPC itself. Therefore, the participation of the certifying body may be insignificant, because the only thing, which the certifying officer may guarantee, is that he has seen a written material containing documents entitled concrete FPC (in our specific case). This is so because every time when the certifying body makes a serious remark with respect to the production system as presented by the manufacturer, the latter may ask reasonably the question “On which document are based your requirements?” i.e. the creation of the FPC according to the old FPC represents a task completely unclear and logically is not subject to audit (the audit should establish a certain number of conformity/unconformity and in our case there are no criteria for  FPC conformity).

For comparison purposes, I shall indicate the example of BSS EN 206-1:2002, where specific requirements to the concrete factory production control are described on ten pages. The task is clearly defined : in that case the auditor assesses the conformity of the system introduced by the producer with the requirements to it as specified in the respective product standard.

In order not to mislead anyone involuntarily, it should be underlined that the requirements to the FPC and the documents drawn up are not presented only in this point of the standard no matter that it is exhaustively developed.

MYTH No 3: ISO 9001 certified quality management system is a sufficient reason to accept the existence of a FPC audited

According to such an opinion it is enough to make a product conformity assessment – initial test and ongoing control.

This opinion is a myth due to the simple reason that ISO 9001 (in particular BSS EN ISO 9001:2001) is a general standard, which refers to the quality management and represents a series of general requirements, relevant both for the trade activities and  the production of construction products. In the case of product certification, it is important to refer the relevant FPC for a given product to the standard, which regulates the said product.

In that case, there is a requirement for development of a specific process of management of the production and control of the conformity of a specific product in accordance with the requirements of a specific product standard.
The last amendments of the Ordinance on the essential requirements and construction products conformity assessment of December 2003 confirm this opinion. Article 28 explicitly stipulates as follows: “Where a manufacturer has in place a BSS EN ISO 9001:2001 certified quality management system, it is considered that the requirements for the factory production control are met, provided the quality management system covers all requirements of the technical specification of the product concerned.”

Factory production control – characteristics and requirements

Treating the factory production control (FPC) as one of the mandatory factors for certification of the products from groups 1 and 2, essential particularities should be made clear in this respect.

In the first place it should be noted that the product European standards lay down the necessary but not sufficient conditions for the FPC development. At least because the FPC, which have been developed on the basis of European standards should be implemented into practice with minimum input and be in the same time sustainable (i.e. to be able to handle a large range of tolerance in different areas such as loading of the technological facilities, tolerance in the input, etc.).

When developing the FPC an account should be taken that technical and technological task, which is being solved, is in the same time a management task. In this respect, the FPC design process could lead to the solution of a task from the class of tasks  related to the production management of a given product while the requirements as laid down in the respective product standard should be treated as a series of basic criteria for conformity of the solution.

The second focus is placed on the fact that the Construction Product Directive itself is in process of being implemented in the EU and the respective CEN committees. This means that for products which are regulated in a series of standards (for example masonry elements, additive materials, geotextile, etc. ) the whole series of standards regulating such products should be studied. In this approach we do not risk to omit essential requirements to FPC, which, in the given specific product standard of the series in question, are not specified clearly enough.

The third very serious problem relates to the question how to proceed with respect to the creation of a FPC where no BSS EN has not been adopted. 

Depending on the specific situation the specific solution will be different:

The first version is the existence of an EN product, which has not become yet BSS EN.

In that case  the solution is evident. The FPC is created in accordance with the existing EN and it is only in the part concerning “test for assessment of product conformity” that the effective BS is followed.  Upon the entry into force of the  BSS EN, this part is replaced by the one as described in the respective standard. It is in this way that is avoided the development and in particular the introduction of two different factory production control systems referring to one and the same product.

This solution is justified from any point of view as far as the rates for adoption of the European standards such as BSS have been lately quite high.

The second case is the absence of an EN adopted and the existence of a draft EN - prEN for the product.

In that case we would again advise the manufacturers to stick to the previous version. It is in this way that ITONG Bulgaria EOOD proceeded. To illustrate the  dynamics, we shall mention that the work related to  Final Draft of prEN  for masonry structures of autoclave aerated concrete has began; by the date of the  audit of the FPC an EN has been already adopted and a year later there was also  a BSS EN. The required corrections in this case were so insignificant that the quality manager of the company, who made the necessary changes in the course of the work, without additional effort, managed perfectly.

The most difficult case is where there is neither EN, nor a prEN at an earlier stage.

In that case an individual approach should be applied. The first step would be, of course, to prepare the technical approval, while being particularly vigilant that the developer is well acquainted with the world level of knowledge in the field of the product concerned, with the manuals of the European organization of technical approvals and the European standards in the field in question. The same applied for the development of FPC – compliance with the requirements for FPC of similar groups of products laid down in European standards already developed.

I would like to examine in detail this problem since I am in the opinion that it is of great practical importance insofar far as the FPC introduction in practice is a delicate task both for the management and for the staff of the manufacturing company. By the adoption of an anticipating approach in the FPC introduction, the negative effect of introducing two times different factory production control systems for one and the same product, is eliminated. If the work performed with respect to the FPC is of high quality, it is very probable that the FPC is created ahead in compliance with the future product requirements; the required changes (following the introduction of a harmonized standard) would be relevant only to the undertaking in question and the number of the undertakings affected by the additional changes – rather limited.  

Certainly, such an approach entails much higher requirements including to the persons in charge of the conformity assessment, which should constantly monitor the practice related to the preparation of the European standards.

Practical steps designed to solve the problems identified

The new aspect of the task for certification combined with the above mentioned myths, makes extremely difficult the decision making process of the companies management on the appropriate way to proceed in order to obtain the required certificate, meet the requirements as laid down in the Ordinance in question and issue the declaration of conformity as required by their clients.

The myths in question make the users confused: how to evaluate the performance of their suppliers and to issue them valid (from legal point of view) declarations of conformity.

In this respect I would allow myself to give a few practical advises to the companies-producers when choosing a company to assess the conformity of their products.

Selection of a company for assessment of product conformity

When selecting a company for conformity assessment in addition to the respective company identification by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, you should check whether the assessor in question is accredited by the BEA. However, this accreditation is not mandatory, but the BEA’s accreditation means that the person performing the conformity assessment meets not only the set of the minimum requirements of the MRDPW, as laid down in the Ordinance concerned, but covers also the BSS EN 45011 requirements. This fact provides additional guarantees and security for the company producer that the person, who is to carry out the conformity assessment,  performs in a professional and conscientious manner its work and and that the problems of the manufacturer would be solved in a sufficiently competent way. 

This issue is not of less importance since the conformity assessor not only provides formal legal grounds to the producer to issue the declaration of conformity but should also be a guarantor for the full compliance of FPC introduced in the undertaking with all requirements of product’s technical specification.  I would like to put the stress on that point since the users and the market supervising bodies have the right to assign the conduct of control checks of a given manufacturer to a person designated by them to assess the conformity. In this respect, a certain “indulgence” demonstrated by the assessor may cost too much to the manufacturer.

Certification scope

When concluding a contract for conformity assessment of the construction products it will be more reasonable to aim at simultaneous certification under BSS and BSS EN. The appropriateness of such decision is justified by both financial and managerial point of view:

- Double costs for the certification in short-term period are saved (e.g. once under BSS and once under BSS EN) since the rates for adoption of the European standards such the BSS have been lately quite high.

- The parallel BSS and BSS EN certification protects the producer from the need to introduce in short period of time two different FPC for one and the same product. Furthermore that as it was mentioned above, the creation of an adequate FPC based only on the requirements of the “old” BSS will not be possible.  

Unfortunately some assessors, probably involuntarily, mislead the companies producers by offering only BSS certification and free maintenance of the certificate after the third year.  What is misleading in this case is that during this period, it is very likely that a harmonized European standard comes into force, which not only makes useless such kind of “bonuses” but also involve the undertaking in paying double costs and making double efforts for implementation.

To avoid such failures it should be appropriate to make a reference with the list of harmonized standards prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works and the period of parallel operation of  BSS and BSS EN  for one and the same product.

When we discuss the problems related to the implementation of the FPC into practice, we should not ignore the critics of certain colleagues who blame the MRDPW that the characteristics of the FPC are not clear and that the adoption of the Ordinance was untimely. We should not neglect them at least because we have to take into account the large amount of work, which was performed in relation with the drafting of the Ordinance  and in particular in relation with the latest changes thereof, which clarify fully and as much as possible  in detail (considering that this is a legislative act) the issue concerning the factory production control systems by means of a very professional synthesis of the requirements quoted in various documents and European standards. 

In this respect we would like to underline the timely adoption of this Ordinance, which will allow the Bulgarian companies to prepare themselves to work in the competitive environment at the European market. The critics forget the fact that one of the most serious instruments of the contemporary competition is, in fact, through the technologic know-how, ensuring the quality of the product concerned.

Our experience in more than 20 undertakings shows that the FPC leads immediately to a very fast restructuring and development of the existing know-how and the construction of a similar technological data base, which, on the basis of the statistical assessment, allows the optimization of the production process.

In conclusion I would like to underline that the experience from the practical introduction of FPC into manufacturing environment shows that there are no obstacles to introduce in Bulgarian condition BSS and EN for construction products and to comply with the requirements of the Ordinance concerned.

Върни се в началото