FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on March 10, 2012, 10:12:31 PM
-
The BAFE SP 205 document, and associated requirements for certification bodies, is now completed. The scheme will be subject to a formal launch quite soon. NSI have now made it clear they will be running the scheme, subject to UKAS accreditation, before the Summer. They will even accept expressions of interest from FRA companies now. No doubt, other CBs will follow.
This scheme will do wonders to improve standards of FRAs and clean up the profession as people keep wanting.
-
So, in your opinion, it's got the potential to be a good scheme?
I may well suggest it to my gaffers!
-
There are a couple of improvements I would like to see to the scheme as it doesn’t use the competence standard and it has a very limited test of competence for the assessors.
I am not sure but I think that NSI will need to get some experts in to do the office audits and onsite competence assessment of the manager.
Colin, are you and your chaps doing the expert consultancy on this?
Apart from a few issues I have with the depth of assessment, it will assist in giving the RP some much needed focus as to what will protect them form the less diligent firms trading in the market place.
-
There are a couple of improvements I would like to see to the scheme as it doesn’t use the competence standard and it has a very limited test of competence for the assessors.
I am not sure but I think that NSI will need to get some experts in to do the office audits and onsite competence assessment of the manager.
Colin, are you and your chaps doing the expert consultancy on this?
Apart from a few issues I have with the depth of assessment, it will assist in giving the RP some much needed focus as to what will protect them form the less diligent firms trading in the market place.
preceding content deleted by Kurnal to support anonymity rule I'm not surprised you have a few issues with it!!
-
Sorry to raise this one again but I can’t believe that it seems we have all these differing views and routes to a competency level that the responsible person can rely upon AND understand. It’s very frustrating and confusing for those of us in the industry that are supposed to know what we are talking about. I’m afraid this has the makings of an embarrassing mess to the fire industry if we don’t arrive at some clarity and common ground. It seems to me that there are organisations that are trying to make a name for themselves or to be the first to score points and make a few quid in the process.
I really don’t understand why the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council was formed and the Competency Document produced if ALL interested bodies/schemes are not going to use it as a competency benchmark for assessors. This really doesn’t make any sense? If this is the case there is nothing to stop any person/organisation forming their own competency document and scheme. What is to stop another organisation in a few months coming out with their competency standard and route? Surely that is what we have now with the IFE, IFSM, IFPO risk assessor registers, with all having their own processes and criteria to gain acceptance on to their registers? We seem to be going backwards not forwards?
In my view any scheme needs to be UKAS accredited to be worth anything and if the differing schemes out there achieve this then that will be something. But surely we can agree on a common competency standard that we can all work to as a starting point if only to avoid one scheme saying it is better than the other? Rant over.
-
There are a couple of improvements I would like to see to the scheme as it doesn’t use the competence standard and it has a very limited test of competence for the assessors.
I am not sure but I think that NSI will need to get some experts in to do the office audits and onsite competence assessment of the manager.
Colin, are you and your chaps doing the expert consultancy on this?
Apart from a few issues I have with the depth of assessment, it will assist in giving the RP some much needed focus as to what will protect them form the less diligent firms trading in the market place.
preceding content deleted by Kurnel to support anonymity rule I'm not surprised you have a few issues with it!!
Nothing I haven't said to BAFE directly, so why you should try and put on a negative spin is very very strange.
It's just an opinion which is shared by others but hey we must all be wrong. Piglet please just let me comment and if you can argue against it without trying to dirty things with personal attacks then do it ........please!
-
Tony, it will be a cracking scheme. It will be run by several certification bodies, ensuring that the price will not be ludicrous as there is no monopoly but free competition amongst CBs. The scheme has been developed by key stakeholders in the profession so it is a consensus standard.
Willie, I did not understand your rant. Why do you believe, other than by rumour or innuendo, that the CBs will not take account of the competence standard. I would suggest that the reverse is true.
Thomas, are you upsetting that awfully nice man again. What am I to do with you! I know for a fact that you have never been in the fire service so where do you get this talent for harassment.!!!
-
Willie, I did not understand your rant. Why do you believe, other than by rumour or innuendo, that the CBs will not take account of the competence standard. I would suggest that the reverse is true.
What I meant was is that any scheme existing or new should use the Competency Standard recently produced as their competency benchmark and not their own. If the SP 205 scheme does this then fine, I have no issue with that. I wait with excitement (you don't get much in fire safety you know) to see the published version. :-\
-
Hi William
I spoke at length with the guy from Bafe today; he is very willing to listen and wants me to email him with my thoughts so he can take it back to committee. “It’s a scheme in progress”, I dare say they all are!
Including IFC; who are apparently adding to the mix with their own scheme, according to the FIA today.
The competence standard is definitely not implicit or guaranteed in 205; that’s clear to anyone who reads it. It is published now and you can get a copy from the Bafe or info4fire websites.
The IFE had a meeting on Monday of their fire risk assessment council I wonder what the result of that meeting was in light of the activity from the other two register holders. I see IFPO have made a couple of minor changes to their registration scheme in response to the release of the competence standard.
I think you are correct that the competence standard must be at the heart of all schemes as this is a bench mark, especially as there appears that there will be three to choose from. I dare say that once all three schemes are in place there will be some differences in price but it’s ludicrous to make statements about price until the other two schemes declare their prices. I also hope that those who intend to go for a scheme do a genuine comparison and look at value for money and not just concentrate on price; heaven forbid those in the industry should make the same mistake as many RPs make when appointing risk assessors.
-
Thanks, I will be looking into both FRACS (Warrington) and the SP 205 scheme. On the face of it both look similar in terms of the process; my main point was that any scheme should have UKAS accreditation which both will. They also seem to be based around the Competency Standard.
-
The links on the BAFE and Info4fire websites no longer work. Does anybody have access to a final copy of the SP205 scheme? I only have a draft and am keen to see any changes made following the consultation.
I believe there is a very significant difference between SP205 and FRACS but before posting about it would like to confirm my facts. Well theres a first time for everything you know.
-
Kurnal the FRACS scheme doc has been updated but it has to be approved by the stakeholder sector panel before it can be released. The two main changes are insurance requirements and the inclusion of assessment against the competence standard.
Hope this helps.
-
I believe there is a very significant difference between SP205 and FRACS but before posting about it would like to confirm my facts. Well theres a first time for everything you know.
I'd be interested to know the major differences, I looked at the draft SP205 ages ago when it came out but haven't seen the final version.
-
Kelsall, do you know if the SP205 scheme includes the individual assessment of all fire risk assessment practitioners used by the company against the competence standard or does it limit such scrutiny to the management team backed up by a quality management system.
Many of the biggest companies in the fire risk assessment field (and nonprofitmaking fire protection organisations as well) use a network of associates of variable quality, and some do not appear to enforce any requirements to prove individual competence and currency. For this reason many of the largest players in the field did not make it onto the FIA register of member companies offering the fire risk assessment services.
I wondered how the final version of SP2 05 deals with this.
-
Remember Kurnal that a reason why the larger companies are not on the FIA risk assessors list is due to cost. To accredit every one of their consultants would cost thousands and thousands of pounds. All this for something that is (in my experience) never asked for by clients and barely known about outside of the fire trade.
It is a mistake to think that just because they do not have a third party accreditation that they are any less of a consultant. Third Party Accreditation is about proof not education.
-
thats true piglet. and as accreditation is not compulsory and can be corrupt flawed expensive and acting in its own intrest or intrests of its senior members i think alot of consultants will steer clear
-
Willie, I would wait and see what the prices are likely to be, as you will have plenty of choice. And as that awfully wise Eli used to say (whatever happened to him........) UKAS accreditation is where it should all be. So, given that no one can run SP 205 without UKAS accreditation, you can take it that SP 205 is SP 205 is SP 205 and then see who is cheapest or most amenable.
As I have tried to say, the competence standard is fine but does not push back any frontiers. It is simply a list of things that anyone doing fire risk assessments should know, and most do. It is not an examination or anything, so you can take it that everyone in the business (whether IFE or a BAFE SP 205 CB or those awfully nice Warrington chaps that Eli used to go on about...whatever happened to him.......) will use it as a basis.
Kelsall, if you should happen to run across that nice Eli chap, will you give him my best wishes and tell him we all miss him (though I dont suppose you are likely to meet him in your travels).
-
Clevey, Clevey, Clevey, what a man you are. Could you enlighten us as to how accreditation (by which I think you might mean third party certification, but you might mean professional body registration ) can be corrupt, flawed, expensive and acting in its own interest or the interest of senior members?
Could you also clarify whether this applies to professional body registration or to third party certification or both.
-
It means both Colin. Please don't assume Im silly enough to name names in a public forum. I speak to fellow professionals regularly who have little faith in both third party schemes and professional body registration full stop. I know what I know, you know what you know. Lets leave it at that. If not then message me and we will continue the discussion in private.
-
Clevey, as a supporter of 3rd party certification and one involved in all sorts of fora and activities to make it work, I am intrigued. Please feel free to email me with your views at colin.todd@cstodd.co.uk. I am always interested in the views of FRS people even when they are misguided (which you may or may not be).
-
Firstly Colly Im not an FRS person. But never mind. Im self employed in the private sector as one of those fire risk-a-guesser types. Just like you actually. If you can come up with a decent 3rd party scheme I will support it. I support the notion of 3rd party schemes as they can be a good thing I just dont like how some are operated. I would be extremely suprised suspicious sceptical and a bit worried if you told me you havent heard about the pitfalls of some existing schemes. Im a busy guy Col why dont you message me if you are really that intrested. im forever happy to enlighten the misguided (which you may or not be)
-
I have now looked in to and got quotes for both the FRACS and SP205 BAFE scheme via NSI.
• Both seem similar in terms of the process and required competencies
• The fee to have “lead assessors” under SP205 scheme is higher than the FRACS
• The overall cost compared to the “Silver” level of SP205 to FRACS was about £300 (SP205 being the most expensive)
• The Silver level involves the company being assessed to provide a documented quality management system (DMS)
• There is a Gold level that requires the assessed Company to provide a DMS to meet the requirements of BS EN ISO 9001:2008
• There is a significant difference in the Gold and silver level fees and on going cost
• The FRACS just has one level
• Both will be UKAS accredited but the FRACs seems to be further down the line that SP205
The most significant difference that I can see is that the SP205 scheme are proposing to charge an additional £10 per certificate of compliance with each FRA produced that they say can “just be passed on to the client”. Problem is these will need to be paid for in advance and I assume in batches and considering we did around 700 fire risk assessments last year this is a significant outlay.
The FRACS also provides a certificate with each FRA but this is inclusive of the scheme overall fees.
I hope that brings a little more info for those looking at a 3rd party scheme and I’d be interested in any views.
-
Thanks William.
If you go down the SP205 line and the client will not stand the extra £10 (most of mine are still expecting sub 2005 prices) then it could be a pretty major hit on the bottom line. There is no option to offer FRAs outside the scheme because according to the document every life safety assessment conducted by the certified company must be provided with a certificate.
When you say the certificate fee has to be paid up front I guess its paid in advance along with the subscription?
We do a lot of work for other companies, with their badges and graphics. I wonder where this fits into the equation.
Do you have to fund the accommodation and travel for the assessors in addition to the fee?
Will the SP205 assessors be looking just at systems or will they be competent and accredited fire risk assessors themselves?
I heard that one of the companies offering SP205 was having to train people up in how to carry out a fire risk assessment. This may be malicious rumour and I wouldbe happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.
-
Thanks William.
If you go down the SP205 line and the client will not stand the extra £10 (most of mine are still expecting sub 2005 prices) is there an option to offer FRAs outside the scheme?
When you say it has to be paid up front I guess its paid in advance along with the subscription?
Do you have to fund the accommodation and travel for the assessors in addition to the fee?
Will the SP205 assessors be looking just at systems or will they be competent and accredited fire risk assessors themselves? I heard that one of the companies offering SP205 was having to train people up in how to carry out a fire risk assessment. This may be malicious rumour and I wouldbe happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.
I can't see a reason why you couldn't offer a non 3rd party assessment fee at a cheaper rate but I would probably not give the client that option.
With FRACS they are very clear and want to see evidence that any FRA NOT done by an accredited assessor is clearly stated to the client at that the FRA is outside of the FRACS scheme.
Not sure about how payment for the certificates would work, I was just thinking practically that you would need a 100 or so in stock so another £1000 on top!
Our assessors get an inclusive fee of travel, on site FRA and completion of documentation. Too messy any other way.
It is the Company that is accredited NOT the individual. Any FRA produced by an assessor that has been included under the SP205 or FRACS process i.e. had 2 of their FRAs evaluated and completed various verbal, desk top and written assessments is included. They would not be 3rd party accredited if they completed an FRA in their own write. The majority of our consultants only do work for us but work on a sub contract basis. Those that have their own companies have gone through or will consider being 3rd party accredited in their own rights.
-
Thanks William.
If you go down the SP205 line and the client will not stand the extra £10 (most of mine are still expecting sub 2005 prices) is there an option to offer FRAs outside the scheme?
When you say it has to be paid up front I guess its paid in advance along with the subscription?
Do you have to fund the accommodation and travel for the assessors in addition to the fee?
Will the SP205 assessors be looking just at systems or will they be competent and accredited fire risk assessors themselves? I heard that one of the companies offering SP205 was having to train people up in how to carry out a fire risk assessment. This may be malicious rumour and I wouldbe happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.
It is the Company that is accredited NOT the individual.
And that is a real problem. I know of a company which gained its 3rd party accreditation through a former employee, lets call him Bill. Bill left the company about a year ago but it continues to flag his accreditation banner.
Before he left the company employed a Fire Risk Assessor who asked Bill what at a Category 1 FA system meant.
-
I can't see a reason why you couldn't offer a non 3rd party assessment fee at a cheaper rate but I would probably not give the client that option.
With FRACS they are very clear and want to see evidence that any FRA NOT done by an accredited assessor is clearly stated to the client at that the FRA is outside of the FRACS scheme.
Not sure about how payment for the certificates would work, I was just thinking practically that you would need a 100 or so in stock so another £1000 on top!
Our assessors get an inclusive fee of travel, on site FRA and completion of documentation. Too messy any other way.
It is the Company that is accredited NOT the individual. Any FRA produced by an assessor that has been included under the SP205 or FRACS process i.e. had 2 of their FRAs evaluated and completed various verbal, desk top and written assessments is included. They would not be 3rd party accredited if they completed an FRA in their own write. The majority of our consultants only do work for us but work on a sub contract basis. Those that have their own companies have gone through or will consider being 3rd party accredited in their own rights.
[/quote]
William, you have confussed me slightly.
You have got quotes from two UKAS schemes, The SP205 is a company scheme you didn't say if the quote you got from Warrington was the person scheme or company scheme.
I looked at the company scheme from Warrington a while a go and they were massive, much more than the chap from NSI told me about at firex.
Sorry its just some detail thats lacking. I just want to make sure we are comparing the same schemes.
SP205 - Company accreditation
FRACS - COMPANY accreditation
Can I ask actually what costs you were quoted for each?
-
So Fracs is
Stage 1 £350
Stage 2 £300
Yearly subscription £250 (4 years)
So for a team of 5 thats £7000+vat over 4 years.
http://www.warringtoncertification.com/content/attachments/fracs-scheme-document.pdf
-
Piglet
The Individual FRACS scheme is aimed at sole traders, very small companies or subcontractors. For a team of 5 you would be looking at the company scheme which would be around a 20 - 30% saving on putting everyone through the individual route.
-
So Fracs is
Stage 1 £350
Stage 2 £300
Yearly subscription £250 (4 years)
So for a team of 5 thats £7000+vat over 4 years.
http://www.warringtoncertification.com/content/attachments/fracs-scheme-document.pdf
The figures above are nothing like what we have been quoted? We have 40% discount for IFSM membership
-
William, you have confussed me slightly.
You have got quotes from two UKAS schemes, The SP205 is a company scheme you didn't say if the quote you got from Warrington was the person scheme or company scheme.
SP205 - Company accreditation
FRACS - COMPANY accreditation
Can I ask actually what costs you were quoted for each?
Both quotes are for Company schemes for between 1 and 2 lead ("sign off assessors/managers) plus 7 other assessors.
Happy to discuss the quotes if you inbox me but perhaps not on a public forum.
-
William, you have confussed me slightly.
You have got quotes from two UKAS schemes, The SP205 is a company scheme you didn't say if the quote you got from Warrington was the person scheme or company scheme.
SP205 - Company accreditation
FRACS - COMPANY accreditation
Can I ask actually what costs you were quoted for each?
Both quotes are for Company schemes for between 1 and 2 lead ("sign off assessors/managers) plus 7 other assessors.
Happy to discuss the quotes if you inbox me but perhaps not on a public forum.
Thanks William.
-
William you talk about FRAs being carried out outside the FRACS scheme by a FRACS company. Is it the case that this is possible. Any reputable certifcation scheme surely ensures that all work carried out by the certificated firm falls within the scope of the scheme. Otherwise, a company could get itself badged up and able to advertise its certification status, trade on that basis and then simply tell every client that they can have a cheapo FRA carried out by an incompetent person -outside of the scheme. I am surprised if Warrington would allow that to happen. I dont think it will be possible under the BAFE scheme. Could you please clarify that for us, as it seems very important to me.
I wish old Eli were around to help-whatever happened to him. Has he metamorphised again.
-
William you talk about FRAs being carried out outside the FRACS scheme by a FRACS company. Is it the case that this is possible. Any reputable certifcation scheme surely ensures that all work carried out by the certificated firm falls within the scope of the scheme. Otherwise, a company could get itself badged up and able to advertise its certification status, trade on that basis and then simply tell every client that they can have a cheapo FRA carried out by an incompetent person -outside of the scheme. I am surprised if Warrington would allow that to happen. I dont think it will be possible under the BAFE scheme. Could you please clarify that for us, as it seems very important to me.
Colin, it is my understanding that you could produce an FRA for a client without a FRACS certificate that would have been completed by a competent person that may not yet have been through the FRACS process. Surely with the number of consultants you use and when taking on new ones you would have a similar issue? What FRACS are saying is that it must be clearly stated to the client that the FRA has not been completed by a FRACS accredited assessor, particularly if the Company is marketed as a FRACS accredited Company.
It would not be my choice to operate to levels of FRAs but they may be a short transition period where this would happen. Any new consultants coming on board would be informed that they will be required to go through FRACS. They would need to submit at least 2 FRAs to go through the process that obviously wouldn’t have FRACs accreditation so I don’t see how that could be avoided under FRACS or SP205. I still haven’t decided on which scheme to go for but I think the £10 charge for the BAFE cert is an unnecessary money spinner.
-
I wonder whether the £10 certificate fee is unique to NSI - maybe if more certification bodies come along and offer BAFE SP205 they may offer less or no certificate fees?
I shall hang fire and wait to see what happens.
-
Willie, Are you saying that, to get certification under the Warrington company scheme, all the assessors need to be certificated by Warrington. Surely this is a massive hidden cost. Then, you also get the problem you highlighted of non-scheme FRAs by a certificated firm. That sounds awful to me. I am wondering if you have got this right.
The same cannot happen under the BAFE scheme, as the certificated firm is not tied to using a single source of certification or registration for every assessor in order to get certificated. So, to answer your question, when we seek certification under BAFE SP 205 (which we will), there will be no interim problem when we take on someone new, and we will be able to issue a certificate for every FRA. Indeed, I thought that it was a requirement of the scheme.
Otherwise, it would be like a fire alarm comany saying, "ere guv, do you want a fire alarm system with a BAFE certificate, or -wink wink- we could do you a dodgy one without a certificate.
Oh dear me. I wish Eli were still around to explain all this, as I am at a loss to see how that can be. Whatever happened to him? I am sure he could have helped us with this. Maybe that new chap who was asking for assessors for Warrington could help.
I once got some work done by a company, and he said now do you want a VAT invoice or a non-VAT invoice. I reported him to HMRC, who took promised to take action, saying that they hated amateurs at doing them out of money-they at least had some respect for the professionals.
-
The latest news! Several companies have now approached BAFE for agreement to operate the SP 205 scheme. The formal launch by BAFe is scheduled for 30 May.
-
William
The BAFE SP 205 scheme allows a certificated company to set its own competence standards for the employees and subcontractors who work for them. There is an office check that the certificated company has a system in place for assuring competence of their employees but there is no 'independent’ test that the company’s system works. Therefore Colin is correct an SP 205 company can use anyone as long as their system has been given the OK during the office audit. It borders on self certification in my opinion. It is assumed that the company will use existing registers as an indication of competence but they don’t have to do that. They could have their own system in place and as long as the CB agrees it should do the job of assuring competence then they can use anyone who passes their own assessment and certificate the job. Can someone please tell me how that is different from what happens now? (Apart from the certificate bit)
The FRACS scheme and I believe the IFCC scheme will independently assess the employees for competence against the competence standard requirements. i.e. they will put the company’s system to the test. Should an employee fail it would be ridiculous to not use the assessor, if they were a full time employee. I would suspect subcontractors would not be used if they failed. The company will be given time to address the employees training needs but their work will not be certificated and if the company fails to make the distinction they will be suspended from the scheme. I think that is reasonable.
No one will be found lacking under the BAFE scheme; if they were, I assume certification could not be issued.
I know that a FRACS certificated company can use any assessor who has been through a 17024 assessment for competence by an accredited CB.
I am a firm believer in quality assurance schemes but they must have enough checks and balances in place to assure quality and that includes competence of employees. I don’t believe that SP 205 has enough checks and balances in place (I have told them so), neither do IFCC; I met with them recently so unless they have changed their mind I think can speak for them on this.
Colin may tell you I know nothing and I have a vested and commercial interest so I would say that, and piglet may tell you my name and who I work for and Kurnal may or may not slap their wrists. But you can read the scheme details for yourself and make up your own mind and so can the RP.
The RP guidance document is lacking in my opinion; it should guide the RP to the scheme first, in order to check if it is indeed robust enough in their opinion to assure quality and competence. Once the level of assurance has been established they can then rely on the certification. They can of course run their own checks and balances and do not have to rely on third party certification, as there are some very good companies who don’t want and will not get certificated by SP 205 FRACS or the IFCCs offering. That is clear in the RP guidance document.
-
SP205 is super smashing great 8)
-
Note to all - please dont let this become a personalised argument once again. There is much to be gained by a full discussion of the merits, strengths and weaknesses of the various schemes on offer.
I have been a supporter of third party accreditaton from the outset and sat, if I recall, alongside you Piglet on the FIA group that put together the first draft of what has become the BAFE SP205. You will probably recall the dilemmas that were much discussed as to how we can put together a scheme that meets the requirements of the Responsible Person and is flexible enough to reflect the range of businesses, from very small to very large.
Whilst we always recognised that the small businesses may run effectively outside a Company scheme such as BAFE SP205 or FRACS, with personal individual third party accreditiation of all assessors be they employees or associates, the diverse personal accreditation scemes and their widely differing standards does not really work for the Responsible Person.
Larger corporate clients will demand membership of a UKAS accredited scheme and I believe it will become a prerequisite in time. We appear to have three schemes on the table, FRACS, BAFE SP205 and apparently a scheme run by IFC.
Personally, although I claim some ownership of the SP205 I am a natural cynic ( you may have noticed) and I will be watching very closely in the future as to how the UKAS accredited schems are policed and enforced. I hold a rather prejudiced view that in terms of QA, very often what big companies say and what they do are very different.
Our industry remains a little unusual in that most big companies run on identical lines to most small companies- very few fire risk assessors out there are directly employed. Most big companies (and other providers such as the FPA) rely on a network of associates. Many pay scant regard to the quality and content of the reports, and the currency and competence of their associates. As they are not employees there is no direct duty to train them. I fear that the organisations who go on to offer the third party certification under the SP 205 will have to be extremely diligent if they are not to have the wool pulled over their eyes in respect of competence of individual assessors. A rigorous system of document control under a QA scheme such as ISO9001 may help but this is not a mandatory component of SP205.
Thats my personal view based on my current level of knowledge and if its twaddle no doubt someone will correct me.
-
I hope you are not giving away identity Kurnal ;)
-
Whilst we always recognised that the small businesses may run effectively outside a Company scheme such as BAFE SP205 or FRACS, with personal individual third party accreditiation of all assessors be they employees or associates, the diverse personal accreditation scemes and their widely differing standards does not really work for the Responsible Person.
Absolutely Kurnal that's the area we will improve things for the RP we may soon have the "Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors" and hopefully have a common standard for all registration schemes.
-
Willie, Are you saying that, to get certification under the Warrington company scheme, all the assessors need to be certificated by Warrington. Surely this is a massive hidden cost. Then, you also get the problem you highlighted of non-scheme FRAs by a certificated firm. That sounds awful to me. I am wondering if you have got this right.
The same cannot happen under the BAFE scheme, as the certificated firm is not tied to using a single source of certification or registration for every assessor in order to get certificated. So, to answer your question, when we seek certification under BAFE SP 205 (which we will), there will be no interim problem when we take on someone new, and we will be able to issue a certificate for every FRA. Indeed, I thought that it was a requirement of the scheme.
Otherwise, it would be like a fire alarm comany saying, "ere guv, do you want a fire alarm system with a BAFE certificate, or -wink wink- we could do you a dodgy one without a certificate.
Oh dear me. I wish Eli were still around to explain all this, as I am at a loss to see how that can be. Whatever happened to him? I am sure he could have helped us with this. Maybe that new chap who was asking for assessors for Warrington could help.
I once got some work done by a company, and he said now do you want a VAT invoice or a non-VAT invoice. I reported him to HMRC, who took promised to take action, saying that they hated amateurs at doing them out of money-they at least had some respect for the professionals.
I am afraid you have lost me here Colin and you'll have to explain what you mean? Put simply I understand under FRACS the Company goes through the accreditation process detailing the consultants they wish to be included in the process. These consultants are each assessed by submitting FRAs and sitting an exam. The lead assessor/manager goes through a more rigorous process.
My point was what happens to consultants taken on after they have been through FRACS or SP205. From what you are saying under SP205 you as the company could self certify any new consultants?? I think this is all getting quite confusing and I thought I had a good angle on both schemes having spoken to both parties at length and had quotes……….perhaps not?
???
-
Willie, new consultants will need to satisfy the criteria that the compnay sets, and will be picked up during surveillance. There will be greater attention to the person who signs off the FRAs.
Tam, you are behind the times maybe. The competence criteria was published in December, if it is that document to which you refer.
Kurnal, while what you say about many practices that use only "associates", which is often a euphimism for someone dragged off the streets and not properly examined or monitored, could I please dissociate our practice from this. Our guys are on PAYE, and their CPD is controlled and monitored as is the quality of their work. WE once employed a guy who had previously worked for a very large purveyor of FRAS who used associates. He found it less worrying to work for us, because as an "associate", he said that all that was checked was the typing, but there were not technical checks that he was doing the job properly or that the policies and approach he adopted were in the least consistent with the other "associates".
Thomas, you forgot to add the accolade brilliantly written and well supported by an excellent Part 2, which sets out requirements for the certification bodies, so that any old CB cannot set themselves up as capable.
-
I did have the final document on file, unfortunately I hadn't deleted the previous draft document which confused me.(very easy to do these days :-\) However is there a link to the brilliantly written and excellent Part 2, I have tried to find it on the net but to no avail for the moment.
-
Thomas, you forgot to add the accolade brilliantly written and well supported by an excellent Part 2, which sets out requirements for the certification bodies, so that any old CB cannot set themselves up as capable.
I don’t think that LPCB are running with SP 205. (But I will check) WCL and IFCC are not running with it.
So why are the 3 main fire certification companies not interested in it?
At the end of the day certification is always a bit of a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise. However it does give a measure of assurance to the RP and there is some come back if it does go wrong.
The RP just needs to work out which stamp bounces the least; just like the CBs have.
-
Maybe because you are making sod all money from your scheme they don't want to invest just yet?
Sit back and see what the take up is then decide.
-
Maybe because you are making sod all money from your scheme they don't want to invest just yet?
Sit back and see what the take up is then decide.
I have no doubt the take up will be high and NSI will make lots of money from it. That’s not the point is it? £10 a cert is a good earner.
Would you sell a cheapy crappy door closer because you made loads of money on it?
Probably not, but that’s your business and you need to make a decision based on your reputation.
I had several meetings with BAFE about running the scheme/seeking equivalence and it always came down to quality not how much money the CB could make by running it. Commercially it made real sense to operate it or seek equivalence. I suppose it is about standards at the end of the day; with some companies, it’s all about the money. With some fire risk assessment companies it will be all about the path of least resistance.
Sadly I fear the whole third party issue will be judged by the lowest standard. The whole thing is a mess and shows no signs of improving in the near future.
Standardise, Simplify and Signpost.
The RP needs it; CLG want it; the industry can’t agree on it.
-
2 awards at the British Engineering Excellence awards and the Passive Protection Product of the year award 8)
But I won't harp on about our success story.
As you refer to price though can anyone actually tell me what the clear prices are for SP205. We know what Warringtons are but can anyone actually get a firm quote from the NSI and if this business with the certificates is true?
Would be interesting to see what happens with the prices when the other bodies offer it too.
-
As you refer to price though can anyone actually tell me what the clear prices are for SP205. We know what Warringtons are but can anyone actually get a firm quote from the NSI and if this business with the certificates is true?
Would be interesting to see what happens with the prices when the other bodies offer it too.
Yes we got some idea of prices from NSI - equates to about £800 per day for an assessor to 'assess' you i.e. go out on site with you, then spend some time in the office. Per person. And that was for the Bronze level....
-
Kelsall, who appointed your very good friends Warrington, with whom you seem to enjoy a close association ( a bit like yon chap Eli did- whatever happened to him?) and IFCC as the "main" certification bodies? No doubt they have their own reasons for not wishing to run BAFE SP 205, but I very much doubt that it is anything as altrusitic as worry about the standard of the scheme!!!!! Get real.
As far the industry not being able to agree, they HAVE agreed on BAFE SP 205. It was drafted by the FIA-lest you be unaware that stands for fire INDUSTRY association. It represents about 500 firms in the fire INDUSTRY. You will also be aware that BAFE Council comprises CFOA, BRE, FIA, IFEDA, BFC, NSI, SSAIB, ECA and NICEIC (apologies to any ohter good and honourable people I have missed). I think that represents more of an industry consensus than those certification bodies that, for whatever reason, you seem to have some sort of allegiance. As far as NSI making a lot of money as you allege, they are non profit making and have no private shareholders to keep happy. I think that this demonstrates an overwhleming indusry consensus. Whether 3 CBs choose to run it or not is up to them. There will be plenty of CBs who do run it, and plenty of FRA companies who want certification under it.
Tam, SP 203-2 is on the BAFE website, so I imagine that, when SP 205-1 goes on so will SP 205-2.
-
One of the several CBs that intend to run SP 205 is looking for suitable auditors, preferably with no conflict of interest in carrying out FRAs themselves on a major scale. Does anyone know of any suitable people?
-
"No doubt they have their own reasons for not wishing to run BAFE SP 205, but I very much doubt that it is anything as altrusitic as worry about the standard of the scheme!!!!! Get real"
The meetings I have had and emails suggest that quality of the scheme is an issue for several of the major fire safety certification bodies!!! WISE UP!!
-
"It was drafted by the FIA-lest you be unaware that stands for fire INDUSTRY association".
It’s been written by the industry for the industry/members and BAFE have confirmed it will be set at a level to include all the industry.
That's a recipe for robustness!
The path of least resistance; standards will rocket watch this space. WISE UP!
(content deleted by Kurnal)
your company wouldn't do a crap job just because it made you cash. Would it?
Hey, we are all entitled to our own opinion and some agree with me honest they do! But as old Eli says don't bother disagreeing with Todd he is always right.
He told me the other day you phoned him and wanted FRACS certification on the cheap!
-
Kelsall/ Colin if you two want a personal row please use the telephone and not this forum. Thank you.
There are differences between the company schemes available and advantages and disadvantages of each, I think it is important for us all to understand the differences and make valid informed choices. So please keep objective.
-
Sorry Kurnal ::)
Sorry Colin :-*
Sorry All ;)
-
Opinion deleted by MOD
:-X
-
Its true, I phoned Eli to find out how to contact the Warrington passive people because the website is useless. While on the phone I did offer Eli £5 for person certification and £10 for company certification. He told me if I applied I would get the certificates by return of post.
-
I thought it worthwhile mentioning that before people get carried away with prices and certificate costs, no costs has been decided yet.
There may not even be a cost for the certificates and I was assured if there ever is it will NOT be £10. FACT
-
Hi Piglet
Thanks for giving a dose of perspective.
I hope you are right but have you seen William 29s posting above (reply 21 in this thread)? He says he had a quote from NSI?
-
Hi Piglet
Thanks for giving a dose of perspective.
I hope you are right but have you seen William 29s posting above? He says he had a quote from NSI?
He will not have a quote, he will have been given a guide price. I can assure you of this. That guide price, whoever gave it to him, and when is incorrect.
Anyone is free to ring them and confirm what I have said.
-
Hi Piglet
Thanks for giving a dose of perspective.
I hope you are right but have you seen William 29s posting above? He says he had a quote from NSI?
He will not have a quote, he will have been given a guide price. I can assure you of this. That guide price, whoever gave it to him, and when is incorrect.
Anyone is free to ring them and confirm what I have said.
Piglet, I hate to correct you but here is an extract of the email from NSI.........looks like a quote to me? (emphasis added)
This first quote is for our Silver Scheme which requires a documented management system (DMS) but this does not have to meet the requirements of BS EN ISO 9001:2008. It can be an informal document.
The Assessment Costs are as follows;
Head Office Audit + the witnessed audit of one named assessor - £XXX (This includes the audit of your DMS on site without NSI carrying out a prior desk top audit)
Witnessed audit of the 2nd named assessor + 3 desk top audits - £XXX (This includes three desk top audits of three other assessors work who are listed on a Recognised Register)
Witnessed audit of the 3rd named assessor + 2 desk top audits
and one interview - £XXX (This will cover the reamaining two 'Registered Assessors and the one unregistered Assessor)
Total - £XXX
The Annual Surveillance Costs are as follows
First year (covers 2 visits per year) - £XXX
Second year (covers 2 visits per year) - £XXX
Third year (providing track record is good - one visit per year) - £XXX
Note
1. All costs will be + VAT
2. NSI will commence a Pilot Phase at the end of May. Once that phase is complete the Scheme Requirements may well be changed - hopefully not significantly. As such costs may change.
3. All new initial fire risk assessments must be issued with a BAFE/NSI Certificate of Compliance and the cost to you, we believe, will be set around £10 per certifcate. This cost can be passed on to your client.
A Quote for an NSI Gold Scheme (with the DMS written to meet the requirements of BS EN ISO 9001:2008) is as follows;
The Assessment Costs are as follows
Add one additional day for NSI to desktop review your Documented Quality Management System prior to the first assessment visit.
Therefore the total cost will be £XXX (As for Silver above) plus £XXX - £XXX
The Annual Surveillance Cost are as follows
First year (Covers 2 visits) - £XXX
Second year (Covers 2 visir) - £XXX
Third Year (only one visit if previous track record is good) - £XXX
Note
1. Certificates of Compliance again to be set around £10 for the Gold Scheme
2. The BAFE Scheme Document requires the Certificated Organization to receive 2 surveillance visits for the first two years and providing the track record is good it can be reduced to one per year.
3. The notes regarding the pilot phase and VAT above apply again.
4. Whilst we do not make a charge for auditor hotel accommodation and travel the location of your fire risk assessors may have to be a consideration.
Sorry William I have had to amend your posting- I think Competition Law would prevent us from disclosing prices in a Public forum. Kurnal
-
Sorry William I have had to amend your posting- I think Competition Law would prevent us from disclosing prices in a Public forum. Kurnal
[/quote]
Fair enough Kurnal, my apologies
-
William Apologies I was not trying to ruffle your feathers, I simply mean that the scheme is not available yet, I think they were perhaps silly in giving you costings yet particularly as they don't know what the exact costings will be yet.
Its likely that the scheme costings are correct but as it says in your email in relation to the certificates is "the cost to you, we believe, will be set around £10 per certifcate."
"We believe" is not a quotation. I think its just a likely costs, a quotation you can sign and book, the scheme is not available yet, they haven't even sorted out their pilot companies.
So once they have started their beta company trials they will get a better understanding of what it will take, time allowed and therefore attribute costs.
This won't be for at least a couple of months.
I can state that the costs of certificates is not £10 NSI told me this morning "It is likely there will be no cost whatsoever for the certificate"
I think you're probably right about the costs its just the cost of the certificate I was questioning so I rang them to confirm it.
-
Thanks Piglet for clarifying this and for the news about certificates. To be honest I admit I have been getting myself in a premature lather about this and it might be best to hang fire for a few weeks.
But just maybe the kerfuffle over certificate fees might have prompted a rethink, or perhaps I flatter myself and firenet for thinking that?
-
Yup , as always you are right. You flatter yourself thinking you and firenet had anything whatsoever to do with discussions on this matter.
You are right about getting into a lather about nothing though. Now off you go and send in your expression of interest for certification under the scheme.
-
For avoidance of doubt, NSI will be raising no fees whatsoever for certificates raised.