An article by John Paul Viveiros

This article was written by Mr. Viveiros.  Mr. Viveiros is a valued member of our Guild's Peer Reviewed Consultants and Inspectors. He has the Right and some would say, Duty, to express his Personal and Professional Opinions. The Guild recognizes and supports this Right and Duty; just as any person reading this article has the Right and Duty, if so inclined, to respond. This is not a forum for such responses, click here to post your responses and opinions. Differing opinions are always welcome at the Guild, we do not restrict expressions of,  nor punish persons, with different opinions. We believe fully in Freedom of Speech. We believe in Original and True American Ideals. 

Introduction

Credibility and impartiality should be the foundation of our work. Yet today, the lines between independent flooring inspection and manufacturer influence are increasingly blurred—and that's deeply disturbing. 

I've spent more than five decades in this industry—as a subcontracted installer, retailer, commercial floor contractor/workroom, and now a certified floor covering inspector and consultant. 

My experience extends back to a time when manufacturers were grateful for you to take on their product displays to sell their flooring—today, retailers pay manufacturers for the displays to promote and sell their products. 

Interestingly, the current CEO of the World Floor Covering Association was once a special sales representative who personally sold me on the Aligned Dealer program from one of the major carpet manufacturers. This connection highlights how closely intertwined leadership and manufacturer influence can raise serious questions about the impartiality of organizations that now claim to support independent inspections. My perspective isn't theoretical; it comes directly from decades of witnessing industry shifts firsthand.

Today, I feel compelled to speak out—not to start a fight or alienate the organizations involved, but to shed light on what I believe is a serious and growing concern. Having been in this industry for decades, I know that raising these issues may not be received kindly, but they must be discussed. 

The recent video presentation by WFCA / FCITS leadership, along with an earlier email from the executive director of FCITS, confirms what many of us have experienced silently: the certification and education system meant to support independent inspectors is increasingly being used to influence not only the inspectors themselves, but also the outcome of claims. Inspectors are often expected to conform to standardized templates and procedures that reflect manufacturer preferences, rather than exercising unbiased professional judgment. 

This reality raises important questions about whether such assessments can truly be considered independent—and whether consumers are receiving the impartial evaluations they are being told they are getting and deserve.

A System Designed to Direct, Not Empower

This school promotes its inspection certification as a symbol of professionalism and independence. However, the system is designed to guide—or even dictate—how inspectors observe, interpret, and report. This school and two major manufacturers use their own proprietary report-writing systems. 

For example, one manufacturer I had worked with for over 10 years require inspectors to join a specific website and use a rigid reporting template with dropdown lists and standardized language. Before transitioning to that system, they had already implemented a policy requiring reports to contain no conclusions—reserving the final judgment for themselves. This shift in approach conflicted with the integrity and standards of independence I believe in, and as a result, I chose to end my inspection relationship with them, despite our long-standing history.

These report-writing systems are not neutral. These templated forms guide inspectors through what to observe and how to document findings. While this might seem helpful, it significantly compromises the independence of the inspection process. When organizations dictate precisely what inspectors must observe and how they must report it, they are not looking for independent unbiased inspections, they are looking for manufacturing compliant ones.

It is important to note, however, that not all manufacturers follow this model. Some still respect the inspector's role as an independent professional and do not impose restrictive or biased reporting systems. These exceptions reflect the kind of integrity and alignment with professional standards I believe in, and they should be acknowledged, supported, and encouraged within the industry.

Manufacturer Oversight: A Dangerous Conflict of Interest

A recent email sent out to inspectors certified by this school confirms that the school now has scheduled meetings with manufacturers’ claims departments to discuss “concerns with inspector reports.” The director of the school writes that she's been asked to address report content, timeliness, and even field test methods that don’t align with manufacturer expectations.

While it may be framed as collaboration, this level of involvement can easily shift into oversight that erodes objectivity. It places inspectors in a position where we must ask ourselves: "Am I writing this report to reflect the truth—or to avoid potential pushback?"

When manufacturers have a say in how reports should be written and which methods are acceptable, the door to bias is not just opened—it’s torn off the hinges.

Certification as a Control Mechanism

In both the video and email, the executive director makes it clear: FCITS certifications can be revoked if a manufacturer is unhappy with your work. No formal peer reviews. No transparent appeals process. No independent oversight.

That’s a concerning dynamic. While accountability is important, it should come from a fair, transparent review process—not from whether our findings meet a manufacturer’s expectations.

I've experienced this firsthand. One particular manufacturer, whom I had supported for over 30 years, shipped adhesive in a plastic bag inside a cardboard box for a job I had personally sold. I wasn't informed beforehand that the recommended adhesive would arrive this way and was shocked by its impracticality. My installation team was forced to leave job site and purchase plastic buckets simply to transfer the adhesive into a usable form for spreading adhesive. When I publicly criticized this method on Facebook, I was promptly contacted and warned that my comment could jeopardize my standing with this manufacturer. Indeed, I never received another inspection request from them again. Whether this was coincidence or not is open to interpretation—but it illustrates how fragile professional opportunities can become when independence and transparency are questioned.

You Shouldn’t Make Money Sending in Samples

In the same email it is stated that inspectors shouldn’t profit from sending in samples, and that manufacturers are concerned some inspectors are charging “too much” for their services.

Let’s be clear: sending in samples correctly takes time and material. Proper packaging, labeling, protection, documentation—it’s not free. And if you value your work, neither should your time be.

This type of language reflects a fundamental misunderstanding or dismissal of how independent businesses operate. I'm not a salaried employee. I run a business. I've done it since the 1970s. I've run crews, managed commercial accounts, owned and operated as a workroom, and operated two retail locations. I understand all sides of this industry. And what I see here is a system trying to squeeze independent professionals into a manufacturer-controlled mold. More concerning is this newly acquired school has already suggested controlling pricing guidelines for inspections—raising even more questions about the influence manufacturers may now exert over what once independent standards and business practices were.

The Bigger Picture: Who Does This Serve?

This recent merger between the inspection school and the World Floor Covering Association, an organization I have supported for years, creates a troubling conflict of interest. When warranties specify inspections by independent inspectors to determine claim validity, one must question whether the assessments remain truly unbiased. The current model does not benefit inspectors, retailers or consumers; instead, it caters primarily to manufacturer interests, undermining the credibility of our profession.

We, as inspectors, must be free to follow the facts—wherever they lead. That means performing inspections based on physical evidence, sound methodology, and professional experience—not based on fear of certification loss or retaliation from manufacturers.

Independence isn’t a label you slap on a certificate; It’s a principle. And if we lose that—if we allow certification bodies and manufacturers to shape the story instead of the facts—we’ve lost the very thing that gives our work meaning.