FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: kurnal on January 07, 2008, 03:40:15 PM
-
Clause 45.3 on page 106 of the BS recommends that the period between successive inspection and servicing visits should be based upon a risk assessment taking into account the type of system installed, the environment in which it operates and other factors that may affect the long term operation of the system.
The recommended period between successive inspection and servicing visits should not exceed six months.
Who should carry out this risk assessment and where would it be recorded? Whilst the system designer is well placed to make a recommendation on a new system, on existing pre 2002 systems it does not appear to be straightforward.
One of my clients with a chain of shops uses a well respected alarm company who appear unilaterally to have decided that quarterly visits are now required at all shops and the contract price has doubled, which seems unreasonable bearing in mind the overall annual workload for them ( clause 45.4) has not doubled. Are they trying it on do you think?
I would appreciate your advice before I go in with guns blazing.
-
The "competant person" as defined in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order should do the risk assessment (not the fire alarm contractor).
-
Do you think this was the intention of BS5839 Chris? Its just that the BS has its own definition of a competent person and predates the RRO (but not the workplace Regs of course) I am not sure that as a fire risk assessor I would be competent to make a judgement on "the environment in which it operates and other factors that may affect the long term operation of the system"- whatever they are???.
-
Problem is the "client" tends to rely on the integrity of the service company.
Although we wouldn't document it as an assessment, surely we (the service company) are making an assessment when we quote for two or four visits?
Personally I think 2 visits is sufficient for the vast majority of systems, we only suggest 4 visits if a system has a history of faults, is particularly old, or is that large that you couldn't comfortably get round 50% in a day.
-
The "competant person" as defined in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order should do the risk assessment (not the fire alarm contractor).
Chris, I agree with Professor K on this and on who might be the competent person in the case of periods between periodic inspections. The BS mentions a risk assessment and not the fire risk assessment. I feel that the fire risk assessor is unlikely to have the knowledge of the specific equipment installed and the experience of the effect of different environments on such equipment to make a definitive judgment. Is it not more likely that a system designer and/or service contractor has the required experience and knowledge? In all cases of service interval assessment, the equipment manufacturer should be the first point of call to establish minimum service interval recommendations for each item of equipment and then, if necessary, adjust these downwards in respect of environmental and operational considerations. Finally, check that none of the established intervals exceed any specific BS recommendations.
-
Do you think this was the intention of BS5839 Chris?
I hadn't thought about it, to be honest. But to me at least the law is clear that responsibilities for fire safety issues is that of the employer or who ever has control over the premises, not contractors.
-
and they are the ones who don't want to make that decision.
-
Hi Kurnal
I work closely with 2 fire alarm companies that deal with all fire alarm and emergency lighting issues resulting from the fire risk assessments that we have conducted, one operates in the North West and the other UK wide. Predominantly both companies advocate that the 2 visits per year in accordance with the BS is fine (unless, age faults etc as mentioned above is an issue) However I have come across a lot of other alarm companies (I have to say large national ones) that seem to push the 4 visits per year regardless.
In my opinion a risk assessment shouldn’t only advise on meeting the legal requirements of the FSO and current fire safety guidance but also offer cost effective solutions to a range of fire safety issues. I have a particular bee in my bonnet on this one as I see many situations where the alarm company cherry picks from BS 5839 and often designs a fire alarm system that goes over and above what the client requires or has asked for. Lets remember that BS 5839 states “ The need for a fire alarm system in any specific building will normally be determined by the authority responsible for enforcing fire safety legislation in that building and/or by a fire risk assessment carried out by the owner, landlord, occupier(s) or employer(s), as appropriate”( Commentary 4.1) In my view the FRA should be the starting point when designing the system when often it is never taken into consideration during the fire alarm design stage but produced afterwards sometimes highlighting deficiencies, much to the clients confusion and frustration.
Over the past 2 years I have developed a system where when the FRA has been conducted and identified fire alarm deficiencies we work with the fire alarm company to provide a cost effective solution for the client. The FRA’s differentiate between what category alarm system is required for life safety only or for additional property protection. The tendency at the beginning was the alarm company would throw L1 at everything and were very reluctant to design and commission L5 systems to meet a specific fire a safety objective, until the benefits were explained.
I realise I am going on a bit now but in short to your question I feel that SOME companies do try it on with the 4 visits when the 2 will do. If you need any more info I can provide you with a contact at one of the alarm companies and you can discuss further if you feel that would be of help.
-
I couldn't agree more William. Trouble is once its in and paid for theres little chance of turning the clock back, the client ends up with a legacy of expensive maintenance to support a system he didn't need in the first place but has already paid for. And Architects are amongst the worst culprits in over speccing. Theres still such a widespread culture and misunderstanding amongst architects and surveyors - they still believe that they are responsible for specifying the system and even the locations of counders and detectors rather than the fire alarm system designer under BS5839. For industries that pride themselves on accreditation and CPD its a disgrace. Same goes for escape lighting and fire extinguishers.
-
As david mentioned,i would only recommend 4 visits on very old,problematic and large sites.
trying to cover large sites over two visits is not always possible
-
As much as it sometimes confuses and contains things that we might personally disagree with, surely BS 5839 Part 1 2002 is the definitive reference that we should all follow. Those who still follow the recommendations of previous versions are either taking advantage of the customers lack of knowledge or might disagree with the latest recommendations. If the latest recommendations are based on the combined knowledge and experience of people who should 'know best' then who is brave enough to argue against them?
There were times, in the past, when 4 inspections a year was 'over the top' on some systems, but we had to explain to the customer that it was a recommendation of BS. Surely, as an 'honest' service provider, we would now reduce this to two visits where applicable?
-
Wiz
All my sites are on 2 visits except for a Halls of Residence which would take two whole days,not working days to do over 2 visits.It balances itself out over 4.
I do agree that the previous 4 visits were ott in most cases with the smaller systems etc .
I have large sites that were previously on 4 but went to 2 and i am there most of the day doing a half site test.
-
Wiz
All my sites are on 2 visits except for a Halls of Residence which would take two whole days,not working days to do over 2 visits.It balances itself out over 4.
I do agree that the previous 4 visits were ott in most cases with the smaller systems etc .
I have large sites that were previously on 4 but went to 2 and i am there most of the day doing a half site test.
I fully understand your point that where a single visit would take 2 days to complete, then the two (minimum required) visits are spread out over 4 visists. This is probably better than 2 visits (since certain items will be tested on each visit) and at no real extra cost to the customer.
Excellent Graeme. Honest and practical. Wouldn't have expected anything less from you.
-
Thanks to all for your replies. All is now clear, armed and ready.
-
Wiz
All my sites are on 2 visits except for a Halls of Residence which would take two whole days,not working days to do over 2 visits.It balances itself out over 4.
I do agree that the previous 4 visits were ott in most cases with the smaller systems etc .
I have large sites that were previously on 4 but went to 2 and i am there most of the day doing a half site test.
I fully understand your point that where a single visit would take 2 days to complete, then the two (minimum required) visits are spread out over 4 visists. This is probably better than 2 visits (since certain items will be tested on each visit) and at no real extra cost to the customer.
Excellent Graeme. Honest and practical. Wouldn't have expected anything less from you.
always a pleasure kind Sir
-
Emergency lighting is another area where maintainers overdo it.
Several still do two visits a year conveniently forgetting (or in some cases not knowing themselves) that only an annual duration test is required on top of the monthly flick tests and some do four a year with the fire alarm.
I agree on a lot of fire systems 2 visits is adequate.
Whenever I uncover excess service visits I always find the occupier was going on the companies info as oppose deciding based on a combination of risk/complexity/BS requirements
What's the comparative cost differences between conventional & addressable systems? I sometimes find straightforward simple smaller premises have had an all singing all dancing addressable system put in despite there being little real benefit for the particular area compared to a conventional system