FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: CivvyFSO on April 18, 2011, 11:24:49 AM
-
Would it be fair for an enforcing authority to point out where a quote for an alarm system is way over the mark? (To the tune of at least 100% over what might be expected)
My view is: Yes, for the following reasons:
I think it is quite blatantly 'fair' that we point this out.
I think it is our responsiblity to ensure that the burden on businesses is minimal where possible. (Hampton Principles)
Our priority is protecting members of the public, not ensuring that installers make a profit.
Under the Fire Services Act we have a duty to give 'goodwill advice' and I think this falls within that remit.
This is the sort of thing that gives fire safety a bad name.
Feel free to disgree, but most of all if there is any legal/commercial viewpoint I would be interested to hear it.
-
Yes - but don't do it in writing!
-
No. For one thing if quote from company A is £X and quote from company B is £X x 2, how do you know that quote B is to a better or the correct specification than quote A is?
If I quoted £400 for a fire risk assessment and someone else quoted £200, how do you know I am not giving a better quailty assessment? Or put it another way, why would you say that the £200 quote is better valve for money when it just be a meaningless tick box type?
-
Would it be fair for an enforcing authority to point out where a quote for an alarm system is way over the mark? (To the tune of at least 100% over what might be expected)
My view is: Yes, for the following reasons:
I think it is quite blatantly 'fair' that we point this out.
I think it is our responsiblity to ensure that the burden on businesses is minimal where possible. (Hampton Principles)
Our priority is protecting members of the public, not ensuring that installers make a profit.
Under the Fire Services Act we have a duty to give 'goodwill advice' and I think this falls within that remit.
This is the sort of thing that gives fire safety a bad name.
Feel free to disgree, but most of all if there is any legal/commercial viewpoint I would be interested to hear it.
I think it is quite blatantly 'fair' that we point this out-moral issue, don't think this falls within an enforcement remit (officially).
I think it is our responsiblity to ensure that the burden on businesses is minimal where possible. (Hampton Principles)- I read the principles to apply as to the burden imposed by the enforcement agency on a business is minimal where possible.
Our priority is protecting members of the public, not ensuring that installers make a profit-stepping outside enforcement boundaries imo. Is it up to you to decide how much profit a company should make? i don't think they are breaking the law as they are being upfront on how much they would charge (and this is not the public sector). By commissioning the work on this basis i don't think they can complain. For instance i have seen smoke seals sold anywhere between £2-£20 for the same thing.
This is the sort of thing that gives fire safety a bad name-agreed.
I would suggest that they get a few quotes. Seems a bit strange that they are not already doing this (as a business). they would need to ensure like for like. Again this would be a commissioners responsiblity not the enforcement body.
NT not sure about the FRA analogy. Afterall there are british standards associated with alarm systems. Not to say that i couldn't spec for an L1 system where L5 is sufficient.
-
No: Surely goodwill advice is about fire safety measures not how much it will cost. It is up to the business in question to obtain the best possible price for what measures are necessary. What profit the installers are making is no business of the FA.
-
There is nothing wrong with an inspector stating that in his or her opinion that a quotation seems excessive.
The inspector should make it clear however that they may be wrong, and that they are not suggesting the company providing the quote is being underhand.
The inspector should advise the punter to get three, or even four, like-for-like quotes to get a true comparison.
There are no legal or commerical problems with that UNLESS you state something like "Don't go with Joe Bloggs Ltd, they are a bunch of money grabbing cowboys"
I do however agree with NT that it is a difficult issue. If I want a new tyre for my car I can shop around for the cheapest available - knowing that so long as it is the correct size it will do the job. It is a fixed product, the only variables being quality and price.
With something like fire risk assessments, its much more complex to gauge or quantify the service or product on offer, as one risk assessor may be on the face of it charging an extortionate amount, but may deliver a much more comprehensive assessment and do a much better job than the assessor who came in the cheapest.
-
As this has split from another thread I'd have to say that,in general,it makes no sense just to get one quote anyway BUT I'd agree with the theory that NT has put forward that cheaper does not mean better.However,if you get 3 quotes and 2 are around the same and the third is either scarily more expensive or appears ridiculously cheaper I'd be asking questions.
Advise them that it would be good practice to get a second/third quote as there can be marked variations in price.
-
Unfortunately, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' is seldom applicable nowadays and we see that in today's financially problematic times, prices will be inflated more and more- for many reasons, overheads, fuel prices, etc... But I would encourage that research is the key, along with word of mouth referrals where possible and of course ensuring suitable qualifications and reliable products.
As far as enforcing authorities questioning what is not VFM, not a good idea UNLESS all the facts are known about the higher priced, company, it's reputation and the quality (manufacturer) of the parts quoted - and what it can be measured against assuming all things being equal. Even then caution when commenting should be observed.
On the other side of the coin it is not nice to see people being duped (in some cases) into paying higher prices (so they can sleep at night) for something equally as good that with a bit of savvy could cost less and fulfill the same purpose.
-
No: Surely goodwill advice is about fire safety measures not how much it will cost. It is up to the business in question to obtain the best possible price for what measures are necessary. What profit the installers are making is no business of the FA.
The problem I have here is that Business X, who have got the quote, do not really care about the cost as they will directly pass this on through the service charge. They always use company Y for all their maintenance issues. Company Y have given the quote, but are utilising a 3rd party for design and install. I think it is company Y who have given themselves a nice tidy profit for no work whatsoever. As you say, this is essentially not a concern of the Fire Authority.
That in mind, if you are an owner occupier within this building, you get no say in the cost of an alarm that is being put in essentially to service YOU as an RP, which you are going to have to pay for quite directly.
The official answer from my superiors is that I would be overstepping the mark to bring this up with the owner/occupiers, as we should not be giving details of quotes out. It could potentially be a breach of data protection law. I would however be quite within my remit to suggest that the tenants get themselves together and get another quote, with no mention of the price.
-
Would it be fair for an enforcing authority to point out where a quote for an alarm system is way over the mark? (To the tune of at least 100% over what might be expected)
My view is: Yes, for the following reasons:
I think it is quite blatantly 'fair' that we point this out.
I think it is our responsiblity to ensure that the burden on businesses is minimal where possible. (Hampton Principles)
Our priority is protecting members of the public, not ensuring that installers make a profit.
Under the Fire Services Act we have a duty to give 'goodwill advice' and I think this falls within that remit.
This is the sort of thing that gives fire safety a bad name.
Feel free to disgree, but most of all if there is any legal/commercial viewpoint I would be interested to hear it.
OK Civvy I have no problem with that. But it should be educated advice by someone who has a good understanding of what is involved and what might be reasonable. I go back to my original point as reiterated by Wiz- are all the panels capable of operating in this way? And confirm the functionality of the system. What if one unit has bells and another sirens if all are to operate in concert? How will they be reset? Will we need 1 keyholder or 25?
Extending your point, what would be your opinion if you received plans for Building Regulations consultation that were totally way over the top in terms of provision? The architect has spent thousands of pounds of the clients money unnecessarily because they cant be bothered to read or learn the codes? WShould you recommend the BCO to advise the client to shop round for a different architect?
-
Good point K and you have jogged my memory of the time when I assessed BC and designer's submissions.
My Service certainly did not have an over provision policy in place and was told off by HMI many moons ago for not having one.
-
I do advise getting at least three quotes, however as i've never had to buy a system in my life I couldn't genuinely comment on what is fair price beyond that obvious advice. Surely caveat emptor applies?
-
There is nothing wrong with an inspector stating that in his or her opinion that a quotation seems excessive.
The inspector should make it clear however that they may be wrong, and that they are not suggesting the company providing the quote is being underhand.
The inspector should advise the punter to get three, or even four, like-for-like quotes to get a true comparison.
There are no legal or commerical problems with that UNLESS you state something like "Don't go with Joe Bloggs Ltd, they are a bunch of money grabbing cowboys"
I do however agree with NT that it is a difficult issue. If I want a new tyre for my car I can shop around for the cheapest available - knowing that so long as it is the correct size it will do the job. It is a fixed product, the only variables being quality and price.
With something like fire risk assessments, its much more complex to gauge or quantify the service or product on offer, as one risk assessor may be on the face of it charging an extortionate amount, but may deliver a much more comprehensive assessment and do a much better job than the assessor who came in the cheapest.
Totally agree; provided that the Inspector makes it clear that he is suggesting only that they might be able to obtain the works to an acceptable standard but at significantly less cost then what's the problem? Good public service, I'd say!
-
Extending your point, what would be your opinion if you received plans for Building Regulations consultation that were totally way over the top in terms of provision? The architect has spent thousands of pounds of the clients money unnecessarily because they cant be bothered to read or learn the codes? WShould you recommend the BCO to advise the client to shop round for a different architect?
Good point.
Dunno. I have yet to see an architect go overboard with safety though, but I will tell you if it ever happens. :)
On a similar note, many AI's seem to insist on L2 detection regardless of the occupancy, and I have never yet contradicted them. To contradict that would be potentially reducing the level of safety at the same time as reducing costs, which is slightly different to the case being discussed. But it might show where certain people's limits lie, i.e I would not suggest for one minute that someone overstepped the mark if they decided to inform the client that an L2 system might not be an actuakl requirement as such in order to save a punter some cash. Also, it is the AI stipulating it which is yet again slightly different to your version of a rubbish architect costing someone money.
-
On a similar note, many AI's seem to insist on L2 detection regardless of the occupancy, and I have never yet contradicted them. To contradict that would be potentially reducing the level of safety at the same time as reducing costs, which is slightly different to the case being discussed.
When I used to check Building Regs submissions for a FRS, whenever I saw potential overprovision, such as the blanket recommendation for L2 mentioned by Civvy, I would very clearly and conspicuously ask precisely why it was being proposed in my formal response. I would not give a hint in my wording that it might be overprovision but the prominence I gave the query (for passing on to the developer (yes, I know that didn't always happen)) was designed to make it clear to the developer (not the AI - who should have known better anyway) that the fire service might accept a different (lower) level of provision.
I never got a response to this query, I never expected one. Many building control bodies do not complete the consultation process satisfactorily.
But in that way, I never recommended a lower standard than was being proposed but the fact that the FRS were asking why the proposer thought these fire safety provisions were necessary was designed to encourage the people with the purse strings to think about what they really needed.
It was not common for the overprovision to be at the recommendation of the building control body. If it was then my query should have raised some healthy discussion between the developer and the AI/building control body.
Hopefully I saved someone some money somewhere along the line. A FRS is a public service after all.
Stu
-
Often have seen an architect over bear on AFD. Why would you want an L1 system in a building 10 x 30 m where the only enclosed space is a toilet? And, the building is so remote , no-one would ever hear it going off when un-occupied. I told the client shouting would suffice or even a manual system if pushing the boat out. But, they took the 9 yards and are now stuck with long term maintenance, inspection etc. By the way, some of places are only used once a week for a few hours.
I understand that some architects work on job cost basis - price for plans/drawings & getting them through BC/Planning and, a percentage of final works costs. So, you can easily see how that could work.
-
Way I see it folks is that this is a matter between the architect and his client. It may be over provision or it may be how the client wants it. What does it have to do with the enforcement authority when it should only concern itself with the minimum requirment.
When I take my car for an MOT test I don't get a list of unnecessary gagets and gismos which can be ripped out as they are not a necessary safety feature required to ensure compliance with legislation.
-
Thats fair comment Nearlythere, and you are right it really isn't any of the enforcing authority's business to concern itself with over provision.
But that said enforcing authorities dont just enforce, they give advice too. So I don't see any harm in an inspector giving goodwill advice or a "heads up"
How many times have we all come across the over provision of fire extinguishers in buildings? Only last week I pointed out over provision of extinguishers to a punter. As a result they will end up saving a substantial amount in servicing and maintenance costs, which they would have otherwise continued to pay.
So particularly in the current climate, where people need to tighten their belts things like this play their part. Infact I think you will find theyare welcomed by the average punter. They aren't technically knowledgeable in the field of fire safety and thus cannot be sure when someone is pulling the wool over their eyes.
-
Often a little bit of friendly advice/steer earns brownie points for the FRS, word gets around, eh ::)
davo
-
Often have seen an architect over bear on AFD. Why would you want an L1 system in a building 10 x 30 m where the only enclosed space is a toilet? And, the building is so remote , no-one would ever hear it going off when un-occupied. I told the client shouting would suffice or even a manual system if pushing the boat out. But, they took the 9 yards and are now stuck with long term maintenance, inspection etc. By the way, some of places are only used once a week for a few hours.
I understand that some architects work on job cost basis - price for plans/drawings & getting them through BC/Planning and, a percentage of final works costs. So, you can easily see how that could work.
Apart from the extra fees, the Architect just about covers his *rse totally by specifying an L1 system!!!!
-
I have always considered that to be the case Wiz. Most architects haven't a clue so if everything is put in everythere it is bound to be right.
Fire doors, emergency lighting and fire alarm systems galore.
-
Often a little bit of friendly advice/steer earns brownie points for the FRS, word gets around, eh ::)
davo
Its not just that Davo, the fire service has a duty to offer friendly advice and steer people in the right direction whenever they can.
-
Would it be fair for an enforcing authority to point out where a quote for an alarm system is way over the mark? (To the tune of at least 100% over what might be expected)
My view is: Yes, for the following reasons:
I think it is quite blatantly 'fair' that we point this out.
I think it is our responsiblity to ensure that the burden on businesses is minimal where possible. (Hampton Principles)
Our priority is protecting members of the public, not ensuring that installers make a profit.
Under the Fire Services Act we have a duty to give 'goodwill advice' and I think this falls within that remit.
This is the sort of thing that gives fire safety a bad name.
Feel free to disgree, but most of all if there is any legal/commercial viewpoint I would be interested to hear it.
I absolutely agree. this is NOT over stepping authority? In my view its our duty.
I have suffered this very scenario. I was discraced to see a Risk assessor had recommended x y & z. and happily quoted £££thousands for it.
I pointed out to the occupier that all of his recomendations were not required to comply with the FSO. 'I will stress i did point out that his Insurance co. would look favourabley on them'.
In short, i received a call from the Risk Assessor saying 'i had no right to undermine his recommendations' He said that my role as 'enforcing authority' was to judge compliance and nothing else. And that I had no right to say anything other to the RP.
I told him under the FSO maybe! But not under the Fire Services Act Its our duty to provide 'impartial advice'. And i will do just that. And if you think i'm wrong. challenge me!!
-
In short, i received a call from the Risk Assessor saying 'i had no right to undermine his recommendations' He said that my role as 'enforcing authority' was to judge compliance and nothing else. And that I had no right to say anything other to the RP.
I told him under the FSO maybe! But not under the Fire Services Act Its our duty to provide 'impartial advice'. And i will do just that. And if you think i'm wrong. challenge me!!
Or explain to the risk assessor that you could quite easily issue an enforcement notice to bring the premises up to compliance, and that notice would NOT include half of the things he mentioned as a notice should only detail the minimum required in order to comply, and upon compying with the notice the RP would then be complying with the RRFSO.