SSPC-QP COM

November 1, 2004

SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings

COMMENTARY ON QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES

1. History of QP Standards 2. Summary of SSPC Qualification

Procedures
This commentary is for information only and is not part
of SSPC-QP 1, QP 2, QP 3, QP 4, QP 5, QP 6, or QP 8. 2.1 SSPC-QP 1, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR
SSPC currently develops six types of consensus standards, EVALUATING PAINTING CONTRACTORS (FIELD AP-
one type being the “Qualification Procedure,” or QP. QPs are PLICATION TO COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES)”:
published procedures, developed by SSPC technical commit- SSPC issued the first version of QP 1 in September, 1989 after
tees through a consensus process, which define a sequence of consensus on its content was reached by the C.3.5 Technical
actions or functions a contracting firm or inspection firm must Committee on Applicator Prequalification. QP 1 was reviewed
meet to establish a level of competence or qualification. This and reissued in August, 1998.
commentary will summarize the current QP Quality System QP 1 is essentially the basis for SSPC’s Painting Contrac-
standards and explain how they can be used to (1) improve tor Certification Program (PCCP), also established in 1989.
the process of qualifying a contractor or inspection firm to The PCCP is an administrative program set up by SSPC to
perform work and (2) provide a system for the contractor or independently evaluate industrial painting contractors against
inspection firm to reduce rework, latent defects, and become the requirements of QP 1 and other QPs.
more productive and efficient. The QP 1 procedure identifies four function areas of the
The first five qualification procedures, QP 1, QP 2, QP 3, contractor’s quality system that have to be evaluated: man-
QP 6, and QP 8 were developed by SSPC to form the basis agement procedures; technical capabilities; quality control
of administrative certification programs designed to provide procedures; and safety and health compliance procedures.
facility owners and specifying engineers with a tool to use when The objective of using the certification is to determine whether
evaluating the qualifications of contractors who apply protective the painting contractor has the capability to perform surface
coatings in the field or shop. Because of the onerous task of preparation and coating application in the field (i.e. on site) on
reviewing submittals and evaluating contractors on site and complex industrial structures such as bridges, storage tanks,
the annual volume of industrial painting projects contracted power generation facilities, ships and offshore platforms, and
each year, SSPC established these certification programs as other industrial and marine structures.
a service to the facility owner who otherwise would lack the Once SSPC determines, through its evaluation process,
staff and time to review applications and visit contractors on that a contracting firm meets the requirements of QP 1, SSPC
site to qualify them in accordance with for QP 1, 2, 3, 6, or 8, . issues a certificate to that effect. The evaluation process con-
Larger organizations who have the staff and time to evaluate sists of a review of detailed submittals and an on- site audit
contractors in house, can use QP 1, 2, 3, 6, or 8 as a basis to at both the contractor’s business offices and an operating job
determine the primary capabilities of the contractors they hire site. Facility owners, specifying engineers, and others who
for painting, metallizing, or polymer surfacing installation over hire industrial/marine painting contractors can then use this
concrete as an alternative to requiring SSPC certification. certification as part of the prequalification process for evaluat-
QP 4 was developed by SSPC to provide facility owners ing bids or proposals from contractors.
with a standard to measure the qualifications of demolition and
repair contractors who remove or disturb hazardous coating 2.2. SSPC-QP 2, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR
in the process of cutting or repairing previously painted steel. EVALUATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PAINTING CON-
SSPC has no administrative certification program for QP 4 TRACTORS TO REMOVE HAZARDOUS PAINT”: SSPC
or QP 5. issued QP 2 in late 1993 as an interim standard. A final ver-
QP 5 was developed by SSPC to provide owners with a sion of QP 2 was issued in August, 1995. A revision of the
standard with which to evaluate the qualification of companies 1995 eidtion version was issued in 2000. The QP 2 standard
who provide coating and lining inspection services. SSPC does is developed and revised by the SSPC C.3.5.b, Hazardous
operate an administrative program that certifies inspection Paint Removal Qualification technical committee.
agencies to the QP 5 standard.

8-1
SSPC-QP COM
November 1, 2004

QP 2 is the basis for the QP 2 certification program, 2.4 SSPC-QP 4, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR
developed as a supplement to the QP 1 program in 1993 as EVALUATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTORS
part of PCCP’s first expansion. As with QP 1, the consensus DISTURBING HAZARDOUS PAINT DURING DEMOLITION
qualification procedure formed the basis of an administrative AND REPAIR WORK”: SSPC-QP 4, developed by SSPC
program to evaluate whether a contractor, that met the require- technical committees C 5.3.B Removal of Hazardous Coatings
ments of QP 1, also had the capability to effectively manage the and C.3.5 on Applicator Prequalification, was issued by SSPC in
removal of hazardous (e.g. lead based) paints from industrial 1997. It is similar to QP 1, QP 2 and QP 3 in that it establishes
steel and marine structures. a consensus procedure to evaluate the capability of a general
QP 2 establishes several categories of qualification contractor to invoke appropriate worker and environmental
based on the contractor’s capability to remove, contain, and protection programs while disturbing hazardous (e.g. lead
properly handle and store hazardous paint debris. In addi- based) paint incidental to demolition or repair work.
tion to meeting the requirements of QP 1, five more function QP 4 is intended to evaluate contractors who are not paint-
areas of the contractor’s quality system are evaluated. They ing contractors but who disturb hazardous paint in conjunction
include: management of hazardous paint removal operations; with non-painting work such as bridge demolition or structural
technical capabilities; qualifications of competent persons; repair. A painting contractor certified to QP 2 also meets the
and site-specific safety, health and environmental compliance requirements of QP 4 and thus is also capable of performing
criteria as they relate to hazardous paint removal operations. such demolition and repair work.
QP 2 defines two categories of qualification, A and B, which QP 4 differs from QP 1, 2 and 3 in one important aspect:
are based on the use of negative air pressure in containment SSPC does not offer an administrative certification program to
structures. evaluate general contractors against the requirements of QP
As with QP 1, contractors seeking QP 2 certification 4. This is primarily because SSPC does not normally provide
must provide a series of submittals to SSPC for review and services to repair and structural demolition contractors who
acceptance and also undergo an audit at one of their active tend to belong to other trade or professional associations that
hazardous paint removel job sites. QP 2 is intended to be represent their interests.
used side by side with QP 1 to evaluate painting contractors The impetus for QP 4 came from bridge maintenance
who must remove hazardous paint in conjunction with surface authorities who asked SSPC to develop a procedure for such
preparation and maintenance repainting operations. work which they could then invoke in their contracts for repair
and demolition work. This would ensure that the repair con-
2.3. SSPC-QP 3, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR tractor was capable of implementing the same worker and
EVALUATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF SHOP PAINTING environmental protection programs on site as the painting
CONTRACTORS”: QP 3 was developed by the SSPC techni- contractors are required to do under QP 2.
cal committee on Shop Coating Qualification and published in
1995. QP 3 defines a procedure for evaluating shop painting 2.5 SSPC-QP 6, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR
organizations (e.g. shipyard paint departments, structural EVALUATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTORS
steel and miscellaneous metal parts fabrication shops; blast WHO APPLY THERMAL SPRAY COATINGS (METALLIZING)
and paint shops) that apply industrial protective coatings in a for CORROSION PROTECTION OF STEEL AND CONCRETE
permanent, stationary facility or shop. The requirements for QP STRUCTURES”: SSPC QP 6 was developed by technical
3 are similar to those for QP 1, except that QP 3 requirements committees C.3.5 on Applicator Prequalification and C.1.6.B
are applicable to shop coating operations. on Thermal Spray Coatings and issued in August 2004. Un-
SSPC also set up an administrative program in 1996 to less otherwise specified, QP 1 certification for field surface
evaluate shops against the requirements of QP 3. Facility preparation and coating application or QP 3 for shop surface
owners and others who contract for shop painting services preparation and coating application are required to supplement
use this program to evaluate the capabilities of the paint shop. the requirements of QP 6.. The QP 6 requirements are similar
QP 3 establishes several qualification categories based on the to QP 1 and QP 3 except that they define a quality system for
degree to which the shop can isolate coating operations from the thermal spray metallizing specialty process.
outdoor weather conditions and control ambient conditions. SSPC is introducing an administrative program in 2005 to
SSPC revised its QP 3 procedure and administrative cer- evaluate contractors and shops against the QP 6 standard.
tification program in 1999 to coordinate its program with that QP 6 defines two qualification categories, one for steel,
of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) which and one for concrete. A contractor may be qualified for steel,
certifies structural steel fabrication shops that apply protective concrete, or both steel and concrete.
coatings in the shop after fabrication of new structural steel.
The AISC Sophisticated Paint Endorsement (SPE) program is 2.6 SSPC-QP 8, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR
recognized by SSPC as an equivalent to SSPC’s QP 3 program, EVALUATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTING
with the exception of safety, health, and environmental compli- FIRMS THAT INSTALL POLYMER COATINGS OR SUR-
ance. AISC does not require evaluation of health, safety and FACINGS ON CONCRETE AND OTHER CEMENTITIOUS
environmental compliance in its SPE certfication program. SURFACES”: The QP 8 qualification procedure, issued in
July 2003, was developed by SSPC technical committee C.3.5

8-2
 SSPC-QP COM
November 1, 2004

on Applicator Prequalification and members of the Polymer

Coating and Surfacing Institute (PCSI). QP 8 is intended to
provide owners with a procedure for evaluating the qualifica-
tions of contractors who install coating and lining systems on
concrete and other cementitious surfaces (e.g., primary and
secondary containments). Many QP 8 requirements are similar
to those of QP 1 and QP 3, with additional special requirements
for repair, surface preparation, and application of coatings to
concrete substrates.
SSPC is establishing an administrative program in 2005
to evaluate specialty contractors against the QP 8 standard.

2.7 SSPC-QP 5, “STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR EVAL-

UATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF COATING AND LINING
INSPECTION AGENCIES”: SSPC-QP 5, developed by the
SSPC C.6 Group Committee on Education and Certification,
was issued by SSPC in 1999. It differs from the QP standards
mentioned above in that it establishes a procedure to evaluate
companies that provide coating inspection services rather than
contracting firms performing construction work. QP 5 provides
facility owners, when issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) for
inspection services, with standardized criteria for evaluating
and qualifying inspection firms. Facility owners can use QP 5
by requiring firms submitting proposals for coating inspection
work to submit evidence that they meet the requirements of
SSPC-QP 5 as part of the owner’s evaluation process prior to
selecting an inspection firm.
SSPC began offering an administrative certification pro-
gram to QP 5, in 2001.

8-3