UL Alternatives / MET Labs

[Bootz]

Hi -

I'm interested in hearing from any sign companies that have researched heavily or actually made the switch from UL to MET or some other alternative testing lab. Any information on this subject would be appreciated. I'd like to hear any pros and cons concerning switching from UL to an alternative testing lab.

Thanks for your help.

[imanut]

Hi -

I'm interested in hearing from any sign companies that have researched heavily or actually made the switch from UL to MET or some other alternative testing lab. Any information on this subject would be appreciated. I'd like to hear any pros and cons concerning switching from UL to an alternative testing lab.

Thanks for your help.

Welcome. If you look in the forums you'll find a pretty lengthy topic on Met, and we've got one of the leaders of Met that can answer questions............

And tell Jeff Bootz that Gary Nutting says "hi".

gn

[Erik Sine]

Here's one of them

http://www.thesignsyndicate.com/forums/ind...?showtopic=3199

[Bootz]

Thanks for the quick responses. I've already gone though the strings related to MET and cannot find one post from a sign company that has actually made a switch from UL to an alternative listing lab. I'd like to hear from some sign companies that have actually made this switch and what their experiences are.

Incidentally "Phil" does not work for MET any longer. I've been talking with "Karen" at MET.

Any coments on this subject are appreciated, thanks again.

PS - Hey Gary, you know me too...it's Brent and Jeff says Hi...

[vernwooten]

Thanks for the quick responses. I've already gone though the strings related to MET and cannot find one post from a sign company that has actually made a switch from UL to an alternative listing lab. I'd like to hear from some sign companies that have actually made this switch and what their experiences are.

Incidentally "Phil" does not work for MET any longer. I've been talking with "Karen" at MET.

Any coments on this subject are appreciated, thanks again.

PS - Hey Gary, you know me too...it's Brent and Jeff says Hi...

Many municipalities require UL approval and some even go as far as requiring the actual UL number before a permit is issued.

That's something that bears keeping in mind.

[Erik Sine]

Many municipalities require UL approval and some even go as far as requiring the actual UL number before a permit is issued.

That's something that bears keeping in mind.

All municipalities must accept ALL listing laboratories. UL is just more of a household name.

[Bootz]

All municipalities must accept ALL listing laboratories. UL is just more of a household name.

Good point...Thanks for the information...I've talked with the Phoenix inspector and it sounds like they do not require UL labels. But I'm not sure about all the other municipalities in Arizona we do work in.

I think some of these smaller municipalities would have to be "educated" and that may be more of pain than it is worth....?

Edited October 12, 2009 by Bootz

[Erik Sine]

This is true, but I have had to educate field inspectors and building planners from time to time. Some are heavily trained in other areas and show up scratching their heads looking at signs.

All listing labs have to follow the same rules in the NEC and OSHA agenda. Usually if you hit a bump you can talk to their supervisor or director, a lot of these various Listers are used in other fields than just signs and their names are recognized & remembered. It's just when it comes to signs most only know UL.

BTW- you probably won't hear from most people making the change until next year when everyones annual fees will start back up ending and starting a new contract.

[UFB Fabrication]

I know this is a old thread but any updates ???

[Bootz]

I know this is a old thread but any updates ???

We were very close to converting over to MET, but at the last minute decided to hold off. The deal breaker really boiled down to the cost of the labels. UL provides labels at pennies on the dollar compared to MET. Even if you outsource your labels locally, the cost is far greater than what UL charges per label. The first year would actually have cost us more with MET. Subsequent years would have been close to a wash. All other aspects of the program seemed to be fine. If they could get the cost of their labels down close to what UL charges, it would be a good deal.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Bootz

[HansonSigns]

Bootz, we had a similar issue between UL and MET, so that's the only reason we stuck with UL.

[Erik Sine]

I know this is a old thread but any updates ???

We were very close to converting over to MET, but at the last minute decided to hold off. The deal breaker really boiled down to the cost of the labels. UL provides labels at pennies on the dollar compared to MET. Even if you outsource your labels locally, the cost is far greater than what UL charges per label. The first year would actually have cost us more with MET. Subsequent years would have been close to a wash. All other aspects of the program seemed to be fine. If they could get the cost of their labels down close to what UL charges, it would be a good deal.

Bootz, we had a similar issue between UL and MET, so that's the only reason we stuck with UL.

x2