ShedSafe – An Industry Body or A Brand – Part 2?

Posted on : September 28, 2011

Shedsafe errors in the requirements of its members?

This Part 2 (of many to come) is basically regarding the accreditation requirements placed on its manufacturers of sheds that are Shedsafe Accredited. The first requirement that is outlined below is in regard to the thickness of the steel roofing utilised in shed construction. Prior to delving into this area – a brief explanation of the product flow is required of the steel used in the shed roof cladding .

The steel manufacturers process iron ore in a furnace to produce steel – very basic and this is then transformed into the many steel products available on the market. The roof sheet steel is in a coil approximately 940mm wide with a BMT (Base Metal Thickness) of 0.42mm which can have a Coloured paint coating or Zinc Aluminium Alloy. This coil is sold to the metal rollformers to run through a rollforming machine to get the required profile of roofing. These companies also rollform the purlins, battens, tophat, gutters, ridge cap, fascia, barge mould, gable roll and fold most of the required metal flashings. These are all rolled from an order from the shed manufacturer according to the shed being supplied. In some cases the shed reseller may be part of a large group and simply order direct from the parent rollformer.

So the rolled coloured corrugated roofing arrives on site (and all other parts) as a direct result from the customer shed order that has been designed, approved, manufactured, delivered and ready for erection. Your shed is also issued with a 15 year roofing, cladding and purlin warranty from the steel manufacturer also sometimes the parent company of the shed reseller.

Lets start with the quote to the customer from the shed reseller. You’ve given all the details of your requirements of a shed and accepted the quote. Here is a small sample of one such Shedsafe Accredited reseller that is also owned by a national Shedsafe Accredited Shed manufacturer.

 

Details of Roof Sheet Thickness

 

Notice the roof cladding is 0.40 TCT Trimdek Profile C/B. The Trimdek and Colorbond description is fine, the 0.40 TCT is the roof sheet properties – that is in this case a 0.40mm thick Total Coated Thickness or back to the earlier description is equivalent of 0.35mm BMT (Base Metal Thickness). So this is 0.07mm thinner than the normal roof sheeting that should be installed on a domestic sheds. Why do they supply this sheeting for roof materials on sheds? Because it’s cheaper and many people don’t know the difference! So Shedsafe accredited resellers and manufacturers have been through the extensive training and requirements of the ASI run Shedsafe group. In fact in one of their requirements of shed manufacturers to become accredited is the fact outlined above regarding product warranty for 15 years. Here is the item by Shedsafe that requires manufacturers and resellers to:

 

15 Year Roofing Warranty

 

So the Shed Industry Benchmark group of Shedsafe – is setting the target or requirement of a 15 year warranty and its strick accreditation process is followed by all of its members. So the sample above (a shed which was supplied in 0.35BMT roofing) will have a 15 year warranty? WRONG.

Now lets look at Shedsafe again, an industry body run by the ASI of which BlueScope is the major sponsor. BlueScope also manufacturers the steel coloured coil for these very same Shedsafe accredited manufacturers and resellers. So lets examine the warranty for 0.35BMT roofing use in sheds.

 

 

BlueScope Roofing & Cladding Warranty

 

The main part in this warranty is that the supplier of the steel will not give a warranty on the 0.35BMT roofing that can be found in part 1 of the terms and conditions of the BlueScope Shed & Garage Warranty.  The basic error is that the BlueScope run ASI and its ShedSafe group have not covered all the small detail and continues to stipulate that Shedsafe accreditation is the Industry Benchmark. If they cannot enforce a simple base metal thickness that the manufacturer stipulates – what else is also wrong?

If your shed is supplied with 0.35BMT (or 0.40TCT) roofing – then it is not covered by the BlueScope warranty and the shed reseller will have to provide an independent cover for this warranty. Will they provide a 15 Year warranty on a 0.35 BMT thick roof sheet?
Accreditation is a simple word that enforces the meaning of having all the checks and processes in place to eliminate error.
This is one error that Shedsafe has to correct.
Next week part 3 – more detail of the marketing group Shedsafe!
Share

16 Responses to “ShedSafe – An Industry Body or A Brand – Part 2?”

  1. John P said...

    Wow!!!

  2. The Roofer said...

    Great to see! The shed industry has been using 0.35 BMT for roofing for years – including BlueScope owned shed suppliers.

    Something is very wrong with this obvious ignoring of the rules!

  3. Slim said...

    The article is really good and lets the customers know what is really going on in the industry. Thanks for another good article Shedeye.

  4. Dave said...

    Good to see someone actually speaking the truth and giving factual articles regarding the shortcomings in the shed industry today – why doesn’t BlueScope actually look at the promises and conditions outlined by ShedSafe? Unbelievable quality assurance in play here between a sponsor, an industry body and ShedSafe (a so called industry leader and accredited shed supplier auditor) – should have the ACCC look into this lot for conflict of interest!

  5. Mike said...

    Firstly I like to say great work Shedeye on your analysis of the industry.

    The whole point of ShedSafe is to make sure that the engineering and compliance is up to a standard to ensure customers get a building that meets those requirements. There are still plenty of steel buildings that are being supplied that do not meet the current building standards but compliance officers turn a blind eye to them because of the business that those companies generate. This is not the practice that I want to see continue and im sure you don’t either.

    I think this kind of endeavor is great for our industry as it’s a step in the right direction for self-regulation and professional practice. Im sure that ShedSafe will continue to evolve but I think the current focus is on getting the engineering up to the required standards before other issues are tackled.

  6. The Roofer said...

    Yes Mike – you are correct – in your comment:-
    “The whole point of ShedSafe is to make sure that the engineering and compliance is up to a standard to ensure customers get a building that meets those requirements” – The problem outlined in the above article is the use of sub-standard BMT roofing which has not been tested on any span tables for roofing – by commenting as per below – you state:- “the current focus is on getting the engineering up to the required standards before other issues are tackled.” This inference that the 0.35BMT roofing usage by ShedSafe Paid up Members is not an engineering problem is wrong!

    The ASI & ShedSafe should publicly guarantee that the use of 0.35BMT roof sheets are to be given a warranty and should also have BlueScope Lysaght generate span tables for them – eg how does ShedSafe accredit the design when no manufacturer has span tables for this 0.35 BMT sheeting?

    A lot of problems are going to caused by the use of this ALFOIL equivalent of roof sheet usage by all the big manufacturers of sheds.

    ShedSafe is a Brand – not a BCA or Australian Standards Group – it is an arm of BlueScope and the ASI and has to comply to their regulations.

    0.35BMT cannot be used on steel sheds as no span tables by any manufacturer will back it up!

  7. Mike said...

    Thanks Roofer, i agree with you on this matter completely.

    The supplier in questions is not proving a ShedSafe building and should not purport himself to be supplying a product that is. I suspect that this supplier is registered to supply one manufacturer’s ShedSafe product but is using software from another manufacturer that is not ShedSafe. This helps him compete on price through the supply of an inferior building. We sometimes come across this when these cowboys go in under the cost price of our buildings. It’s not possible to compete with suppliers that are disregarding the whole process, but this shouldn’t detracted from the direction that ShedSafe are trying to push the industry down. That’s the whole point of this exercise, to weed out suppliers like this.

    The supplier in question should be exposed and shamed for their unethically behaviour.

  8. The Roofer said...

    Mike,
    What if the “supplier” is an agent of the “sponsor” of ASI who happens to run ShedSafe – isn’t this a conumdrum (maybe a conflict of interest)?

    “If the said supplier is registered to supply one manufacturer’s ShedSafe product but is using software from another manufacturer that is not ShedSafe” – then the mechanism of ShedSafe’s accreditation should be under question to allow this? Why isn’t this condition of compliance within the “TERMS & CONDITIONS of ShedSafe Membership (The conditions are only labeled 1 to 10 and no mention of this)?

    How can a manufacturer supply a Shedsafe accredited shed to different design software data that has not been accredited.

    Accreditation is simply a series of checks and balances to ensure (100%) that all procedures have been followed – this is not happening at present! The ShedSafe membership “Terms & Conditions” no way meet the standards of QA nor International Standards Organisation (ISO) for Quality Assurance!

    You are right – they should expose these operators – but will they???

  9. The Roofer said...

    Hi Shedeye,

    Is it possible to reveal the identity of the Accredited ShedSafe Reseller and ShedSafe Manufacturer that is quoting and supplying 0.35 BMT roof sheets. As this is illegal, the BCA should look into it (and while they’re at it – maybe look into ShedSafe for not picking up on this point!)

  10. Mike said...

    Roofer, I’m not disagreeing with you on this but I feel that the outrage should be directed at the supplier and not the brand. They are the ones that are clearly supplying a non-compliant building that is being signed off by a lazy compliance officer.

    ShedSafe haven’t accredited the designs mentioned above or 0.35BMT roof sheet as these do not meet the Australian standards and stating that is incorrect. That supplier is misusing the brand to mislead people and should be prevented from doing so.

    More does need to happen, there are plenty of yahoos that will take anyone’s money pretending to supply something they cannot.

  11. The Roofer said...

    Mike,

    Oh! But they have – ShedSafe have validated the use of 0.35 BMT through lack of knowledge of the BCA & manufacturing of roofing sheeting Span tables – as per their statement as follows:

    In the Terms & Conditions of ShedSafe Membership – it states the following:-
    Under item
    1: general Terms & Conditions for Use
    j):Accredited business agree to provide steel roofing & walling with BMT (base metal thickness) and / or TCT (total coated thickness) nominations approved by ASI.

    Clearly ShedSafe is dictating the terms of compliance by using the nominations approved by the ASI (not BCA or Australian Standards) – this is exactly what the industry body has to avoid in confirming compliance within its own parent body – It is a conflict of interest -and in leagal terms would collapse in a court of law if failure was proved by non-compliance to the “Official” regulations. eg: ShedSafe said it was OK to obey the ASI – but did they comply to the BCA and Manufacturers Technical Data? No No No! They have to comply to the BCA – not the ASI – who happens to be sponsored by the two biggest rollformers!

    Mike – I really think that the concept of ShedSafe is good (in the right format) – but the leadership of ShedSafe is lacking in actual understanding of the shed industry and all the “COWBOYS” – unfortunately the cowboys are in the group that portend to support and manage ShedSafe!

    A truely independent ShedSafe would have solved these problems years ago – when it was just the ASI (The Shed Group).

  12. Shedeye said...

    Hi Roofer,

    I won’t name and shame, what I can tell you is that we have more than ten examples, and I am afraid optimism in shedsafe may be misplaced. The idea of shedsafe is a good one, IF it was run by a government agency or a truly independent body, unfortunately this is not the case in it’s current form, and in fact we believe that this has the potential to do more damage to shed industry than good. Replacing one monopoly with another.

    Nice debate guys, this is what shedeye is all about!

  13. Shedeye said...

    Hi Mike,

    Since becoming a Shedsafe member have the quality of your sheds improved?

    Given that NOT ONE manufacturer has been knocked back don’t you think that it is merely a brand to protect the incumbents?

    We have talked to many companies, very large players in the industry and they have clearly stated the ONLY reason they have joined is that it is affecting their sales!

    Thanks for having the guts to debate this publicly.

  14. The Roofer said...

    Thanks Shedeye,

    Keep up the good investigating Shedeye – and thanks to Mike for his contribution as a ShedSafe member.

    Eventually the outcome has to be good for the consumers, not the manufacturers!

  15. Mike said...

    Thanks boys, more discussions like these certainly need to occur so that we can forge a clear path forward.

    I think the last thing we want is to be forking out money to create another government agency to oversee the industry. My preference being self-regulation within our own industry but something tells me that’s going to take a while to get off the ground fully.

    What you say is certainly true Shedeye, i look foward to the day that we can easily classify the quality of a shed so that consumers know what they are getting without having to become experts in design and engineering.

    Keep up the good work guys!

  16. Chris said...

    Hi,

    After reading this very interesting article I thought that “Shed-Safe” was more a marketing campaign ran by the big players with the most to loose by all these import product we unfortunately see into our country these days. I recently got a quote from two “Shed-Safe” accredited distributors, played dumb & both quotes where quoted with 0.47 TCT / 0.42 BMT roofing & 0.40 TCT / 0.35 BMT for the walls. So this means they comply with what they say will & the colorbond guarantee is still met?

Leave a Reply

*