16 2018 | TECH those weighing in on installation issues can provide fairer assessments by making a point to include known biases. For example, they can list information and relevant vari- ables that have not been factored in. This is the case for any tile-related issue being assessed but is especially rel- evant to hollow-sounding tile and tile with less-than-ideal mortar coverage. The ease of “sounding” a floor to find hollow sounds or photographing tiles with poor mortar coverage makes these issues popular subjects of reports that inaccurately paint the picture that only the tilework is subpar. Mitigating factors In addition to more field information, what about looking into compressed schedules and decisions made in the course of construction? An NTCA bulletin (https://bit.ly/2N7G76H) makes the point that sometimes the practice of spot bonding is less about unskilled install- ers than it is about designs that require flat substrates and reasonable schedules that – when the time comes – aren’t provided. For example, general contractors often refuse to pay to flatten an out-of-tolerance substrate. Is it reasonable then, when substrate requirements are actively disregarded, to expect the various workmanship standards predicated on substrate flatness to be met? There can be many answers and approaches to such philosophical questions with no single right answer. “What went wrong?” is a less subjective question. But the answer is only accurate when conclusion bias is spe- cifically avoided by seeking out and including all relevant information. Be part of the discussion For those searching on “hollow sounding floors” or “spot bonding,” hopefully this article provides a height- ened understanding of the complexities around two top- ics that are often oversimplified. With regard to spot bonding in particular, tile con- tractors cannot routinely absorb costs to provide installation conditions they need and expect, based on project documents. However, the legal/contractual issues, safety considerations, and workmanship stan- dards don’t dissolve just because proper conditions aren’t provided, including when there is abject refusal to provide them. In fact, because spot bonding intro- duces just as many (or more) issues than it fixes, NTCA workshops and other educational efforts focus heavily on mortar coverage requirements and the many rea- sons spot bonding is never recommended and is in no way condoned by NTCA. While industry standards and association resources can relay unambiguously various “do’s and don’ts,” they cannot so easily prescribe the best path for tile contrac- tors confronted with perfect-world versus real-world issues. What works well for one company or project may not work at all for another. That’s why a core benefit of NTCA membership is the opportunity to dia- log with and learn from other members when it comes to the many unavoidable gray areas and business decisions that must be made. NTCA members: What do you or other con- tractors you know do in this scenario? Or what should tile contrac- tors do? What works and what doesn’t? Can the issue be better addressed by industry standards? Share your experiences and ideas on the “NTCA Members Only” Facebook group. TECHNICAL FEATURE (continued) NTCA’s Mark Heinlein demonstrating troweling and coverage as part of NTCA’s nationwide workshop pro- gram. Here he’s checking to ensure minimum required mortar coverage.