I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is not satisfactory to me but I wish to waste no further time on this matter as we are unliklely to reach agreement therefore I suggest this complaint be closed I do want to go on record as stating that I am not raising this complaint as part of any business or organization but as a licensed professional Fire Protection Engineer in both [redacted] and [redacted] with a professional obligation to raise awareness where misleading product claims may have adverse impact on fire protection and life safety of the public be it related to residential, commercial, or industrial structuresWhen I raised my concern directly to the VP of Sales and Engineering, [redacted] ***, on 8/20/I was told that Strongwell would not pursue any testing related to thermal barrier equivalents or update marketing materials because there was "no financial value" to Strongwell in doing so In regard to the response provided by the business I would like it on record that while they state "DURASHIELD@ panels are designed and marketed for use in industrial building applicationsThis product has never been marketed by Strongwell for commercial or residential construction." model building codes (NFPA 5000, Uniform building Code, International Building Code, etc.) are adopted in all States as well as by the U.Sgovernment for federal projectsThese codes include requirements for foam panels to meet standalone testing or be separated by a prescriptive thermal barrier in industrial buildingsThese requirements have been included in model building codes for some years and in my career I have never come across an "Authority Having Jurisdiction" that provides industrial buildings with a wholesale exemption from compliance with the applicable adopted model codesThe fact that DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panels are marketed for industrial applications has no bearing on the applicability of code requirements for thermal barriersAnd generally, due to the more significant hazards associated with industrial buildings, overall code requirements are very often more stringent, not less While all other statements provided by the business are technically accurate I still firmly believe that the literature overall creates a misleading picture of the acceptability of the DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panel as a standalone building panel through omission of information related to thermal barriersThe literature should be updated to include instruction that if a building using DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panel is subject to compliance with a building code, which virtually every building is, then a thermal barrier or thermal barrier equivalent is requiredCompetitors of Strongwell are able provide either standalone or thermal barrier equivalent or otherwise indicate in the marketing and technical data sheets that a thermal barriers is required depending on applicable codes / regulations for a given project Regards, [redacted] ***
Strongwell has reviewed your August 31, letter and the complaint filed against our company on August 20, 2015.The product referenced in the complaint is DURASHIELD@ Fiberglass Foam Core Building Panels manufactured by Strongwell In Strongwell (which was then MMFG
until name changed on July 1, to Strongwell) sold such panels to ** *** our authorized distributor located in *** It is our understanding that ** *** received an order from BP to assemble/fabricate these panels into an enclosureWe further understand the enclosure at some point was later sold by BP to the company filing the complaintStrongwell was not involved in the transactions, including specification of materials and engineering of structures.That said, the issue that involves Strongwell is the claims made by our company regarding DURASHIELD@ panelsAccordingly, after a comprehensive review of your letter, we have the following comments:DURASHIELD@ panels are designed and marketed for use in industrial building applicationsThis product has never been marketed by Strongwell for commercial or residential constructionDURASHIELD@ literature is explicit in stating the resin systems used for manufacturing this building panel meet the UL VO rating for flammabilityWe stand by this claimWe do not claim these panels meet any building codes for fire or any specific building code of any kindStrongwell literature identifies DURASHIELD@ as having a flame spread rating of "Max 25" per ASTM ENo claim of a "Class interior finish" in accordance with ASTM Etesting as listed in the complaint is referenced in the literature. This product is not marketed with any claims to its surface finish.4. We acknowledge that the resin systems used in the manufacturing of DURASHIELD@ will generate smoke For this reason, Strongwell literature does not claim the DURASHIELD@ panel meets the ASTM Esmoke generation of required by the building code and do not claim these panels can be used where smoke generation is a concern.5. Strongwell's literature makes no claims or references to any NFPA fìre standards and specifically has not claimed DURASHIELD@ will meet NFPA 268 which the claimant desiresWe have no plans to pursue a NFPA fire ratingfor [email protected] Strongwell was not a party to the apparent transaction between ** and the claimant, we make no comment to claims that may have been made or inferred between them regarding code applicability and smoke generationFurther, we accept no responsibility for actions listed under "Desired Settlement" which are intended to make DURASHTELD@ meet codes for which it was not designed, intended, marketed or sold.We do, however, accept full responsibility for all claims made in DURASHIELD@ literatureFor your review, we have enclosed copies of literature that existed in the mid/late 1990's (when Strongwell was known as MMFG) as well as our current DURASHIELD@ literatureWithout qualification, we believe all claims to be accurate and truthful.In closing, we ask you to be aware that we take this complaint seriously and believe we are responding fairlyIf you have any questions, I encourage you to call me at your convenience.Sincerely,*** ** ***Phone: *** ***
Mr.[redacted] engaged BlackWater Webworks for our services starting in April 2014. BlackWater Webworks built the site that Mr[redacted] had requested at that time to his satisfaction. In fact, Mr[redacted] paid in full and expressed no concerns whatsoever and seemed overly pleased with the...
product. In fact, so pleased that after speaking with a prospective customer, Mr[redacted] engaged BlackWater Webworks for a 'version 2' of the original site. The work that Mr[redacted] is currently complaining of is based off of this additional work, for which we have, again, completed in full and even loaded on his server. During the site build progress, Mr. [redacted] continued to add additional elements to the project that were not currently in scope. As a result, this additional work, for which he agreed to pay for, takes more time to build. Mr. [redacted] has NEVER paid BlackWater WebWorks $40,875 and in fact, still owes BlackWater WebWorks for the final payment installment of roughly $8,000. The entire site that Mr[redacted] had requested of BlackWater Webworks is completed and has even been loaded on his own server since June 5, 2015 - which, at that point, Mr[redacted] changed all access passwords and locked us out of the server. Up to that point, the site could be fully accessed and was functional on BlackWater Webworks servers.
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. I do not agree and I am rejecting the statement made from Mr. [redacted]. I paid "Blackwaterwebworks" the total as I described in my initial message of (40,875) and did not get a completed product and can substantially prove it (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PROOF). All of the payments were made to [redacted].com which apparently [redacted] Owns as well and is also NOT AN LLC! Everything that was done on the site was not complete as it should have been and I did not get landing pages before the date June 1, 2015. My team traveled to [redacted] June 2nd for the event that took place June 4th-6th, thousands of miles only to attempt to show a DEMO that should have been completed and launched to save embarrassment further more and deface my Idea and Patents. I asked [redacted] for Landing Pages for weeks upon weeks and never got real responses.. only; "Let Me Check", "Im not sure" and then no response to my messages when I asked to just see them, I as a customer am entitled to see the work that is being done on the site I have paid for and was always given the run around. The landing pages were never completed on time and were absolutely horrible when I requested them from Mr. [redacted]. They looked totally unprofessional and NOT WORTH THE MONEY I PAID FOR THE SITE! The first product I had from [redacted] was Version 1, It made me happy at the time I got it because I had been waiting on it to be completed and no idea what I was getting until I finally paid for it! After I had it thoroughly reviewed by credible government individuals it was proven to me that the site was not what it was claimed to be and I was way overcharged for a something that did not not function properly! That site has since been taken down due to the embarrassment that I received NOV 6th, 2014 in [redacted] California because when professionals were logging on they were unhappy with bugs and other things were not working correctly. I waisted a ton of money flying to [redacted] from Afghanistan on "my own personal leave time" because of the Hype that my idea has brought to the community only to have to go back to the drawing board because it was a disappointment to see that it was not working as it was claimed to be. BLACKWATER WEBWORKS is not a legal LLC in the state of South Carolina and it is Claimed on the site that it is.. after investigating further with the Secritary Of State of South Carolina there is no such business under Blackwater Webworks or [redacted] whom I paid for services! This is FRAUD in its self & misrepresentation! It is true that I still owed money to Mr. [redacted] for the remainder of the site and I did have it placed on my servers and "rightfully so" to protect my personal asset. He did not want it on my servers and insisted to keep them on his and I felt pressured when I wanted them to be in my control. He threatened to take the DEMO completely offline so that I could not show it in [redacted], NV at the CALI Conference on June 4th-6th due to me not paying in full for the site?? The reason I did not pay for the site was due to the fact that it was not complete... Example: who would pay full price for a car to drive if you are missing the motor?? It missed many many launch dates and it was missing very vital pieces to be able to launch and I was ABSOLUTELY NOT going to pay for it until it was done RIGHT!! No one would ever threaten to shut you down before an important event and I had always paid A LOT of money to [redacted] on time 100%! Never one time had I not paid [redacted] if he requested funds, but this time I was not about to get lied to and scammed into paying for another ($5,000) only to be put in a worse situation than before.The total that I was suppose to owe is not ($8,000), he decided to charge me for placing my property on my own servers and also charged me for my mother coming to the office to get trained on the sites operations because it was not completed. My mother went there to see the progress on the site and to learn why it was not completed since I am Deployed to Afghanistan and he charged another ($1,000) for that which makes no since he didnt even ask me if that was ok?!!!! He is a complete scam artist!! He has continued to lie to me and my team, continued to fraud me and has absolutely produced nothing that I could use for the public launch usability and he has known about this launch date of June 1st 2015 since December 2014! That is 6 months! I cant sign anyone onto my business, I cant launch properly, I still have to find someone else with the capability to help me build this because of the situation that I am now in because of his company.I believe that Black Water Web Works should absolutely refund me for the waist of time, money, effort and lack of responsibility that they have ensued upon me and my business with their lack of professionalism and shady business ways. I have PERSONALLY lost a lot of my hard earned money to "Blackwaterwebworks" while being deployed to Afghanistan serving my country. Its been a detriment to my own personal success. These people are not who they say they are! They will take your money happily and make you feel like you are getting something but in fact lie to you and give you a product that is way over priced and not functional.If Mr. [redacted] could not do the site all he had to do is tell me instead of continue to take my money and take advantage of me while I am deployed. I had no way to check on the status of my site unless he actually got on the phone with me and even that was impossible to do most of the time!! I have many people as witnesses to those meetings that were missed with no communication as to why! This happened more times than not and left people that were on the call from Afghanistan and England with time waisted wondering why [redacted] and his team are so unprofessional that they cant even let us know why meetings were missed. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that this company should be in business.Regards,[redacted]
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID
[redacted], and find that this resolution is not satisfactory to me but I wish to
waste no further time on this matter as we are unliklely to reach agreement therefore I suggest this complaint be closed.
I do want
to go on record as stating that I am not raising this complaint as part of any
business or organization but as a licensed professional Fire Protection
Engineer in both [redacted] and [redacted] with a professional obligation to raise
awareness where misleading product claims may have adverse impact on fire protection
and life safety of the public be it related to residential, commercial, or
industrial structures. When I raised my concern directly to the VP of Sales and
Engineering, [redacted], on 8/20/2015 I was told that Strongwell would not
pursue any testing related to thermal barrier equivalents or update marketing
materials because there was "no financial value" to Strongwell in
doing so.
In regard
to the response provided by the business I would like it on record that while
they state "1. DURASHIELD@ panels are designed and marketed for use in
industrial building applications. This product has never been marketed by
Strongwell for commercial or residential construction." model building
codes (NFPA 5000, Uniform building Code, International Building Code, etc.) are
adopted in all 50 States as well as by the U.S. government for federal
projects. These codes include requirements for foam panels to meet standalone
testing or be separated by a prescriptive thermal barrier in industrial
buildings. These requirements have been included in model building codes for
some years and in my career I have never come across an "Authority Having
Jurisdiction" that provides industrial buildings with a wholesale
exemption from compliance with the applicable adopted model codes. The fact
that DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panels are marketed for industrial
applications has no bearing on the applicability of code requirements for
thermal barriers. And generally, due to the more significant hazards associated
with industrial buildings, overall code requirements are very often more
stringent, not less.
While all
other statements provided by the business are technically accurate I still
firmly believe that the literature overall creates a misleading picture of the
acceptability of the DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panel as a standalone
building panel through omission of information related to thermal barriers. The
literature should be updated to include instruction that if a building using DURASHEILD
Foam Core Building Panel is subject to compliance with a building code, which
virtually every building is, then a thermal barrier or thermal barrier
equivalent is required. Competitors of Strongwell are able provide either
standalone or thermal barrier equivalent or otherwise indicate in the marketing
and technical data sheets that a thermal barriers is required depending on applicable
codes / regulations for a given project.
Regards,
[redacted]
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is not satisfactory to me but I wish to waste no further time on this matter as we are unliklely to reach agreement therefore I suggest this complaint be closed I do want to go on record as stating that I am not raising this complaint as part of any business or organization but as a licensed professional Fire Protection Engineer in both [redacted] and [redacted] with a professional obligation to raise awareness where misleading product claims may have adverse impact on fire protection and life safety of the public be it related to residential, commercial, or industrial structuresWhen I raised my concern directly to the VP of Sales and Engineering, [redacted] ***, on 8/20/I was told that Strongwell would not pursue any testing related to thermal barrier equivalents or update marketing materials because there was "no financial value" to Strongwell in doing so In regard to the response provided by the business I would like it on record that while they state "DURASHIELD@ panels are designed and marketed for use in industrial building applicationsThis product has never been marketed by Strongwell for commercial or residential construction." model building codes (NFPA 5000, Uniform building Code, International Building Code, etc.) are adopted in all States as well as by the U.Sgovernment for federal projectsThese codes include requirements for foam panels to meet standalone testing or be separated by a prescriptive thermal barrier in industrial buildingsThese requirements have been included in model building codes for some years and in my career I have never come across an "Authority Having Jurisdiction" that provides industrial buildings with a wholesale exemption from compliance with the applicable adopted model codesThe fact that DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panels are marketed for industrial applications has no bearing on the applicability of code requirements for thermal barriersAnd generally, due to the more significant hazards associated with industrial buildings, overall code requirements are very often more stringent, not less While all other statements provided by the business are technically accurate I still firmly believe that the literature overall creates a misleading picture of the acceptability of the DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panel as a standalone building panel through omission of information related to thermal barriersThe literature should be updated to include instruction that if a building using DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panel is subject to compliance with a building code, which virtually every building is, then a thermal barrier or thermal barrier equivalent is requiredCompetitors of Strongwell are able provide either standalone or thermal barrier equivalent or otherwise indicate in the marketing and technical data sheets that a thermal barriers is required depending on applicable codes / regulations for a given project Regards, [redacted] ***
Strongwell has reviewed your August 31, letter and the complaint filed against our company on August 20, 2015.The product referenced in the complaint is DURASHIELD@ Fiberglass Foam Core Building Panels manufactured by Strongwell In Strongwell (which was then MMFG
until name changed on July 1, to Strongwell) sold such panels to ** *** our authorized distributor located in *** It is our understanding that ** *** received an order from BP to assemble/fabricate these panels into an enclosureWe further understand the enclosure at some point was later sold by BP to the company filing the complaintStrongwell was not involved in the transactions, including specification of materials and engineering of structures.That said, the issue that involves Strongwell is the claims made by our company regarding DURASHIELD@ panelsAccordingly, after a comprehensive review of your letter, we have the following comments:DURASHIELD@ panels are designed and marketed for use in industrial building applicationsThis product has never been marketed by Strongwell for commercial or residential constructionDURASHIELD@ literature is explicit in stating the resin systems used for manufacturing this building panel meet the UL VO rating for flammabilityWe stand by this claimWe do not claim these panels meet any building codes for fire or any specific building code of any kindStrongwell literature identifies DURASHIELD@ as having a flame spread rating of "Max 25" per ASTM ENo claim of a "Class interior finish" in accordance with ASTM Etesting as listed in the complaint is referenced in the literature. This product is not marketed with any claims to its surface finish.4. We acknowledge that the resin systems used in the manufacturing of DURASHIELD@ will generate smoke For this reason, Strongwell literature does not claim the DURASHIELD@ panel meets the ASTM Esmoke generation of required by the building code and do not claim these panels can be used where smoke generation is a concern.5. Strongwell's literature makes no claims or references to any NFPA fìre standards and specifically has not claimed DURASHIELD@ will meet NFPA 268 which the claimant desiresWe have no plans to pursue a NFPA fire ratingfor [email protected] Strongwell was not a party to the apparent transaction between ** and the claimant, we make no comment to claims that may have been made or inferred between them regarding code applicability and smoke generationFurther, we accept no responsibility for actions listed under "Desired Settlement" which are intended to make DURASHTELD@ meet codes for which it was not designed, intended, marketed or sold.We do, however, accept full responsibility for all claims made in DURASHIELD@ literatureFor your review, we have enclosed copies of literature that existed in the mid/late 1990's (when Strongwell was known as MMFG) as well as our current DURASHIELD@ literatureWithout qualification, we believe all claims to be accurate and truthful.In closing, we ask you to be aware that we take this complaint seriously and believe we are responding fairlyIf you have any questions, I encourage you to call me at your convenience.Sincerely,*** ** ***Phone: *** ***
Mr.[redacted] engaged BlackWater Webworks for our services starting in April 2014. BlackWater Webworks built the site that Mr[redacted] had requested at that time to his satisfaction. In fact, Mr[redacted] paid in full and expressed no concerns whatsoever and seemed overly pleased with the...
product. In fact, so pleased that after speaking with a prospective customer, Mr[redacted] engaged BlackWater Webworks for a 'version 2' of the original site. The work that Mr[redacted] is currently complaining of is based off of this additional work, for which we have, again, completed in full and even loaded on his server. During the site build progress, Mr. [redacted] continued to add additional elements to the project that were not currently in scope. As a result, this additional work, for which he agreed to pay for, takes more time to build. Mr. [redacted] has NEVER paid BlackWater WebWorks $40,875 and in fact, still owes BlackWater WebWorks for the final payment installment of roughly $8,000. The entire site that Mr[redacted] had requested of BlackWater Webworks is completed and has even been loaded on his own server since June 5, 2015 - which, at that point, Mr[redacted] changed all access passwords and locked us out of the server. Up to that point, the site could be fully accessed and was functional on BlackWater Webworks servers.
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. I do not agree and I am rejecting the statement made from Mr. [redacted]. I paid "Blackwaterwebworks" the total as I described in my initial message of (40,875) and did not get a completed product and can substantially prove it (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PROOF). All of the payments were made to [redacted].com which apparently [redacted] Owns as well and is also NOT AN LLC! Everything that was done on the site was not complete as it should have been and I did not get landing pages before the date June 1, 2015. My team traveled to [redacted] June 2nd for the event that took place June 4th-6th, thousands of miles only to attempt to show a DEMO that should have been completed and launched to save embarrassment further more and deface my Idea and Patents. I asked [redacted] for Landing Pages for weeks upon weeks and never got real responses.. only; "Let Me Check", "Im not sure" and then no response to my messages when I asked to just see them, I as a customer am entitled to see the work that is being done on the site I have paid for and was always given the run around. The landing pages were never completed on time and were absolutely horrible when I requested them from Mr. [redacted]. They looked totally unprofessional and NOT WORTH THE MONEY I PAID FOR THE SITE! The first product I had from [redacted] was Version 1, It made me happy at the time I got it because I had been waiting on it to be completed and no idea what I was getting until I finally paid for it! After I had it thoroughly reviewed by credible government individuals it was proven to me that the site was not what it was claimed to be and I was way overcharged for a something that did not not function properly! That site has since been taken down due to the embarrassment that I received NOV 6th, 2014 in [redacted] California because when professionals were logging on they were unhappy with bugs and other things were not working correctly. I waisted a ton of money flying to [redacted] from Afghanistan on "my own personal leave time" because of the Hype that my idea has brought to the community only to have to go back to the drawing board because it was a disappointment to see that it was not working as it was claimed to be. BLACKWATER WEBWORKS is not a legal LLC in the state of South Carolina and it is Claimed on the site that it is.. after investigating further with the Secritary Of State of South Carolina there is no such business under Blackwater Webworks or [redacted] whom I paid for services! This is FRAUD in its self & misrepresentation! It is true that I still owed money to Mr. [redacted] for the remainder of the site and I did have it placed on my servers and "rightfully so" to protect my personal asset. He did not want it on my servers and insisted to keep them on his and I felt pressured when I wanted them to be in my control. He threatened to take the DEMO completely offline so that I could not show it in [redacted], NV at the CALI Conference on June 4th-6th due to me not paying in full for the site?? The reason I did not pay for the site was due to the fact that it was not complete... Example: who would pay full price for a car to drive if you are missing the motor?? It missed many many launch dates and it was missing very vital pieces to be able to launch and I was ABSOLUTELY NOT going to pay for it until it was done RIGHT!! No one would ever threaten to shut you down before an important event and I had always paid A LOT of money to [redacted] on time 100%! Never one time had I not paid [redacted] if he requested funds, but this time I was not about to get lied to and scammed into paying for another ($5,000) only to be put in a worse situation than before.The total that I was suppose to owe is not ($8,000), he decided to charge me for placing my property on my own servers and also charged me for my mother coming to the office to get trained on the sites operations because it was not completed. My mother went there to see the progress on the site and to learn why it was not completed since I am Deployed to Afghanistan and he charged another ($1,000) for that which makes no since he didnt even ask me if that was ok?!!!! He is a complete scam artist!! He has continued to lie to me and my team, continued to fraud me and has absolutely produced nothing that I could use for the public launch usability and he has known about this launch date of June 1st 2015 since December 2014! That is 6 months! I cant sign anyone onto my business, I cant launch properly, I still have to find someone else with the capability to help me build this because of the situation that I am now in because of his company.I believe that Black Water Web Works should absolutely refund me for the waist of time, money, effort and lack of responsibility that they have ensued upon me and my business with their lack of professionalism and shady business ways. I have PERSONALLY lost a lot of my hard earned money to "Blackwaterwebworks" while being deployed to Afghanistan serving my country. Its been a detriment to my own personal success. These people are not who they say they are! They will take your money happily and make you feel like you are getting something but in fact lie to you and give you a product that is way over priced and not functional.If Mr. [redacted] could not do the site all he had to do is tell me instead of continue to take my money and take advantage of me while I am deployed. I had no way to check on the status of my site unless he actually got on the phone with me and even that was impossible to do most of the time!! I have many people as witnesses to those meetings that were missed with no communication as to why! This happened more times than not and left people that were on the call from Afghanistan and England with time waisted wondering why [redacted] and his team are so unprofessional that they cant even let us know why meetings were missed. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason that this company should be in business.Regards,[redacted]
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID
[redacted], and find that this resolution is not satisfactory to me but I wish to
waste no further time on this matter as we are unliklely to reach agreement therefore I suggest this complaint be closed.
I do want
to go on record as stating that I am not raising this complaint as part of any
business or organization but as a licensed professional Fire Protection
Engineer in both [redacted] and [redacted] with a professional obligation to raise
awareness where misleading product claims may have adverse impact on fire protection
and life safety of the public be it related to residential, commercial, or
industrial structures. When I raised my concern directly to the VP of Sales and
Engineering, [redacted], on 8/20/2015 I was told that Strongwell would not
pursue any testing related to thermal barrier equivalents or update marketing
materials because there was "no financial value" to Strongwell in
doing so.
In regard
to the response provided by the business I would like it on record that while
they state "1. DURASHIELD@ panels are designed and marketed for use in
industrial building applications. This product has never been marketed by
Strongwell for commercial or residential construction." model building
codes (NFPA 5000, Uniform building Code, International Building Code, etc.) are
adopted in all 50 States as well as by the U.S. government for federal
projects. These codes include requirements for foam panels to meet standalone
testing or be separated by a prescriptive thermal barrier in industrial
buildings. These requirements have been included in model building codes for
some years and in my career I have never come across an "Authority Having
Jurisdiction" that provides industrial buildings with a wholesale
exemption from compliance with the applicable adopted model codes. The fact
that DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panels are marketed for industrial
applications has no bearing on the applicability of code requirements for
thermal barriers. And generally, due to the more significant hazards associated
with industrial buildings, overall code requirements are very often more
stringent, not less.
While all
other statements provided by the business are technically accurate I still
firmly believe that the literature overall creates a misleading picture of the
acceptability of the DURASHEILD Foam Core Building Panel as a standalone
building panel through omission of information related to thermal barriers. The
literature should be updated to include instruction that if a building using DURASHEILD
Foam Core Building Panel is subject to compliance with a building code, which
virtually every building is, then a thermal barrier or thermal barrier
equivalent is required. Competitors of Strongwell are able provide either
standalone or thermal barrier equivalent or otherwise indicate in the marketing
and technical data sheets that a thermal barriers is required depending on applicable
codes / regulations for a given project.
Regards,
[redacted]