I don't trust DrJ. This report is just one example of why. I have questioned their reports in the past.
First, O-C lists it as a "certification." It's not -- it's a report.
Within the report, under definitions, DrJ has the following:
3.3 An approved agency is "approved" when it is ANAB ISO/IEC 17065 accredited. DrJ Engineering, LLC (DrJ) is accredited and listed in the ANAB directory.
That's just outright B.S. The ICC IBC definition of "approved agency" is:
APPROVED AGENCY. An established and recognized
agency that is regularly engaged in conducting tests, furnishing
inspection services or furnishing product certification where
such agency has been approved by the building official.
Their definition of "approved source" is likewise a complete fabrication that bears no resemblance to the ICC IBC definition:
APPROVED SOURCE. An independent person, firm or
corporation, approved by the building official, who is competent
and experienced in the application of engineering
principles to materials, methods or systems analyses
The boilerplate of this report is filled with verbiage designed and intended (in my opinion) to make building officials think they have to accept the material because DrJ issued a report saying the material is good s**t. That's not the case. We don't have to accept DrJ as an approved agency. Their verbiage about approved sources talks about licensed PEs, but their report isn't signed or sealed by a PE -- from any state. Bottom line -- DrJ is not "approved" unless you approve them. Their saying they are an "approved agency" according to their made-up definition doesn't change that.
I have reservations about this material. The bottom line is that it's plastic -- it's polyethylene plus fiberglass. HDPE is generally regarded as being resistant to UV degradation, but they don't include any testing for weathering, UV degradation, or long-term strength compared to wood.
It can be difficult -- legally -- to challenge a big group such as DrJ. I'm not sure I would want to take them on. Do your homework and see if you feel comfortable accepting this material. Despite the potential legal issues, I did recently reject a large-ish regional testing laboratory chain for service as special inspector on a project in town. They resisted, but I had state statute on my side. We have a statute requiring that certain testing must be done by labs or agencies with NVLAP accreditation. The lab in question did not -- they proudly proclaimed that all their technicians were "certified" by their own, in-house training program.
Nope -- not interested.
