FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on April 20, 2012, 11:48:14 AM
-
As noted in the fire alarm system section of the Board, BAFE SP 203 is now available from a fifth CB (ECA Certification).
The relevance to those of us in fire safety is that the more CBs that offer SP 203 the more certificated firms there will be. The more certificated firms there are, the more it is possible, reasonable, prudent and advisable for users to specify certificated firms. As acknowledged in Government guidance, the use of such firms may constitute a due dillgence defence for anyone against whom there are proceedings under legislation because of the inadequate design, installation, commissioning or maintenance of a fire alarm system.
It also creates a level playing field as it means that, when a 3PC is a pre-requisite for tendering for work, all tenderers will have the same 3PC overhead.
-
TPC is a good thing in principle but to be effective in driving out the cowboys it needs to be both publicised and enforced.
As the fire risk assessment sector of the industry moves forward towards TPC can we learn anything from the alarms and extinguisher sectors? Is there any information available in the public domain to show how effective the certification bodies are in terms of enforcement? How many companies are expelled following complaints and audits?
Is SP203 publicised sufficiently to ensure that most clients make it a mandatory requirement at the tender stage?
-
Is the universe really expanding...... Will LFB ever be accepted back into the folds of CFOA...... Who shot Kennedy. The imponderables are endless..... What did Billie Jo Macallister chuck into the river. Why is she called Queen Elizabeth the second when the UK never had a QE1. Who is Kelsall... What happened to Eli-has he been kidnapped by BAFE special agents contracted from Israeli intelligence... Is there intelligent life in LFEPA? Will the retained station at Matlock Bath survive the next round of cuts.
Sometimes, Big Al it is easier to ask questions than provide answers. We can all be negative.
-
Yes Colin but there is more opportunity to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of other schemes right at the beginning and in a uniquely buyers market to drive through the best deal. Theres always a number of critics of SP203 within the alarms sector, nows the time to know whether there is substance behind the complaints we so often hear. Its odd that you never hear from what I assume is the silent majority- those who think SP203 has been a Good Thing for their business. Come on lets hear from you!
I wonder if there is any mileage in the professional institutions and trade associations supporting their member companies towards tpc by comparing what is on offer and negotiating preferential deals for members? Like a best buy guide?
-
SP 203 is fine. It is just that those without certification like to carp----"I been down Peckham yesterday and I done a service on a fire alarm system. I never seen crap like it. Cor stone the crows guv----and all done by an SP 203 firm" Well, I myself have also been down Peckham and virtually all corners of this wee island and seen attocious work (and good work) carried out by non cert. firms. What does that prove.
3pc does not mean perfection and CBs can only sample. But the RP is best advised to use 3pc firms as evidence of due dilligence. For that purpose it may not matter all that much which scheme he uses. Of course a certification or registration body might not look too clever if it goes wrong. Some FRA registers have NEVER even seen a sample of the registered persons' work!!!!!
-
Most of the carping I hear comes from those with SP203 certification concerned at the use of the scheme as a cash cow for the CB and the standards of some of the companies admitted to the scheme. A number of readers of this forum have emailed me rather than posting on the forum. As an example heres an extract from an email I received one very diligent SP203 fire alarm company:
"Fire alarm companies thought SP203 would regulate the industry infact it has had quite the opposite effect.
SSAIB, NSI and now the ECA are marketing SP203 as a revenue stream, it's quite ironic that the scourge of the industry " the sparky" is now going to start dishing out BAFE Certs.
In 20 years of business I have rarely come across any electrical contractor with the competence or experience to repair , maintain , design or commission a FA system. It will become a disaster and unfortunately will take a few years before it is sorted and realise what a mistake BAFE have made."
I suppose in response to this view one must assume that if they have achieved UKAS accreditation ECA must be diligent and will measure each applicant against the criteria. Other emails conversely point out that if you set the bar too high the scheme will never take off and if the CB is too vigorous in enforcing standards again it will put companies off applying. All are valid opinions and worthy of consideration.
In view of this I have quashed my own unease over companies being able to self certify their own assessors (and who the CB will never meet) and I accept that as a consequence it will be business as usual with a new flashy badge for some of the big players who will appoint anybody as an associate and provide little or no supervision in full knowledge that they will get away with it through a lack of enforcement and/or the odds arising from the numbers involved.
However accepting this it then makes my hackles rise when I hear of the certificate fee. Why do we need a fancy certificate? The Law requires a fire risk assessment not a fancy certificate. I could put the BAFE logo and a serial number on my risk assessment. Gold plating the legislation is what we are doing. Cash cow for the CBs comes to mind.
Even for a small company like mine completing say 12 risk assessments per week this is a significant cost. In the competitive market we operate it is most unlikely that we will be able to pass this cost on to the end user. We had a taste of this previously when exploring the viability of running accredited H&S courses, the CB charged a fee per student certificate. The competitive nature of the market meant that they were making twice as much out of the certificates as we were making out of every course. So we knocked that on the head.
I still think SP205 has potential to be a great thing for our industry but will test the market very thoroughly before joining any scheme.
-
Kurnal, why do you think the CBs wont meet any fire risk assessors????? And I have no doubt you will apply for certification -but budget for 3 days of auditors time, two of which they will spend hearing you rant and rave about third party certification, with a further day to meet you and the lads.
-
Nice one Colin ;D
-
In view of this I have quashed my own unease over companies being able to self certify their own assessors (and who the CB will never meet) and I accept that as a consequence it will be business as usual with a new flashy badge for some of the big players who will appoint anybody as an associate and provide little or no supervision in full knowledge that they will get away with it through a lack of enforcement and/or the odds arising from the numbers involved.
However accepting this it then makes my hackles rise when I hear of the certificate fee. Why do we need a fancy certificate? The Law requires a fire risk assessment not a fancy certificate. I could put the BAFE logo and a serial number on my risk assessment. Gold plating the legislation is what we are doing. Cash cow for the CBs comes to mind.
Even for a small company like mine completing say 12 risk assessments per week this is a significant cost. In the competitive market we operate it is most unlikely that we will be able to pass this cost on to the end user. We had a taste of this previously when exploring the viability of running accredited H&S courses, the CB charged a fee per student certificate. The competitive nature of the market meant that they were making twice as much out of the certificates as we were making out of every course. So we knocked that on the head.
I still think SP205 has potential to be a great thing for our industry but will test the market very thoroughly before joining any scheme.
Kurnal, you make some valid points here but had to smile about Colin's 3 day audit! I think I have concluded that the 3rd party scheme that we go for matters not at this stage, too early to tell and all getting very muddled. I think go for a UKAS scheme based on all the evidence now and the fees. Let the dust settle and then review, you can always change schemes. Will the RP REALLY know the difference in the pros and cons of each scheme and there could be more schemes to come yet?!
Agreed about the £10 cert fee I can’t see the point and loses SP205 some credibility in my view.
-
Will the RP REALLY know the difference in the pros and cons of each scheme and there could be more schemes to come yet?!
I agree William The RP only wants to know if the FP assessor he is proposing to employ is competent. I would suggest the answer is a national database of all the registration schemes that meet a certain standard and could be approved by the government. All the RP would have to do is check up on the database to see if he/she was listed. New entrants to the profession could also get on the database as, in training, with a proviso that all his work has to be supervised by a competent assessor.
-
Will the RP REALLY know the difference in the pros and cons of each scheme and there could be more schemes to come yet?!
I agree William The RP only wants to know if the FP assessor he is proposing to employ is competent. I would suggest the answer is a national database of all the registration schemes that meet a certain standard and could be approved by the government. All the RP would have to do is check up on the database to see if he/she was listed. New entrants to the profession could also get on the database as, in training, with a proviso that all his work has to be supervised by a competent assessor.
The IFSM have gone some way in this direction with NAFRAR their own "national" register. Although they promote FRACS any assessor that has gone through a UKAS scheme can apply to go on their register. See http://www.ifsm.org.uk/register.html
-
Willie, I think you are being a little naive about this self-acclaimed "national register". If you read the blurb, you have to be a corporate member of the IFSM!!! So its national IFSM people, who, by the way, are as rare as a right winger in the FBU.
Then you have to be registered on any UKAS accredited person (not company) certification scheme they recognise. There is only one such scheme, though I believe a second may be coming along.
But person certification is not the end game really. It is Company certification that should be the ultimate goal. There is one company scheme at persent with only a couple of companies. Soon thanks to SP 205 there will be a multitude.
-
But person certification is not the end game really. It is Company certification that should be the ultimate goal.
Maybe not for you but it would be for the RP who wants to know if his assessor or supervisor conducting his FRA is competent and I do not think section 5 COMPETENCIES OF FIRE RISK ASSESSORS address this fully. For instance it refers to "Listing on a recognised register of fire risk assessors" which are those as all use differing standards?
-
The fact that the RP is using a BAFE accredited company should be all the proof the RP needs and gives evidence of his due diligence. After all Tom if you have to go into hospital for an operation you do not ask to see the GMC registration of all the individual doctors who treat you!
There will still be a role for the individual person registers so that the RP using an individual consultant, who does not trade as part of a company can check on their competence.
-
Point taken Kurnal but what about section five which states "Listing on a recognised register of fire risk assessors" when the TPCB is considering the competency of an applicant, which register would they use, as they all have different standards?
On reflection why would I need to check up because by law they cannot practice without being on the register and if they had fallen below the acceptable standard they would be struct off.
-
Kurnal, If you go privately, rather than NHS, you most certainly do check out your consultant, so your analogy is not perfect.
Thomas, a register is only part of the checks under SP 205, because the work will be checked by the CB, and there is none of this "would you like the work done in the scheme or outside" that Willie reported to us under the FRACS scheme.
Kurnal, as you are aware, a one man band sole trader IS a company and can get company certification under BAFE SP 205, so I repeat that company certifcation should be seen as the end game, and person certification is a component of that but not all of it.
-
To practice as a doctor the minimum you must have is a General Medical Certificate. Simple as that. There is only one accepted qualification to demonstrate competency in their field as a minimum. Compare that to the fire safety industry.
What Tom is saying is there isn't just one measure of competency or accreditation out there for fire safety professionals. There are loads, and at best its bloomin' confusing for RPs. From what I understand and I am happy to be corrected the different CBs don't ask for the same competencies necessarily. In other words the accreditation schemes are not all the same, or offer equivalent levels of competency.
For elf and safety pros there is the NEBOSH Cert - almost universally accepted as the minimum bench mark qual for elf and safety practioners. I know this isn't an accreditation standard, its a qualification. So lets take the Gas Safe Register then.
The Gas Safe Register represents the single port of call for punters to select a competent gas engineer. The register vets engineers and will only 'rubber stamp them' when theyre satisfied they are competent. There is no risk to the punter, the hard work is done for them. If the engineer turns out to be a rogue trader the RP has exercised due dilligence.
So why can't the fire safety industry have a NEBOSH equivalent, why cant we have a Gas Safe style accreditation system instea.
-
Disagree Midland about the NEBOSH general cert. Its very broad ranging but too basic a qualification for H&S professionals- if you want proof look at the fire sections! IMO the diploma level is the minimum equivalent level from which we should compare skill levels for fire risk assessors.
The ABBE has already got their NVQ level 3 and soon the level 4 programs for fire risk assessors set up, there is the CFPA Europe diploma. But its still not enough and the FIA has just set up a working group to try and establish and evaluate routes of entry and progression within the profession for new blood, as the pool of retired fire officers is rapidly drying up,
-
5 COMPETENCIES OF FIRE RISK ASSESSORS
Commentary
It is essential that the person(s) carrying out the fire risk assessments or who are responsible for signing off fire risk assessments are competent. It is not the purpose of this scheme to assess the competence of the individuals involved. This is the responsibility of the certificated organizations.
5.3 The process by which the certificated organization ensures the competence of the certificated organizations fire risk assessors shall be audited by the TPCB.
Guidance Note for Clause 5.3
For Fire Risk Assessors evidence of competence should include:
1. Training records;
2. Listing on a recognised register of fire risk assessors; or completion of a recognised training course and evidence of successful application of knowledge such as an NVQ; and
3. Documented continual professional development;
4. TPCBs may set additional requirements
I have no problems with 1, 3 & 4, but part of 2, what is a recognised register what is the recognised training course and NVQ or are they the ones Kurnal spoke of?
-
Disagree Midland about the NEBOSH general cert.
You totally miss my point Kurnal. I am certainly not saying that we should have a Nebosh Cert for fire safety - I'm saying that the NEBOSH cert in the health and safety world is the minimum employers and professionals look for to be classed as competent. Its become the default "benchmark" qualification.I know of no other quals that are accepted as THE MINIMUM for professional health and safety officers. Look back at what I was saying about doctors. There is one intial route for them to gain competency.
In the fire safety world we have Joe Bloggs offering one qualification or accreditation scheme over here, whilst Tom Cobley offers another over there, with no real appreciation of what they mean in the big wide world. Which one is best, how do they tie up? which one best demonstrates competency? Is it a mickey mouse qualification or is it respected in the industry?
And if we don't know the answer to those questions how on earth does your RP pick a competent fire risk assessor or consultant. What Im saying is simple - we need one series of qualifications (with various levels of competencies catered for within it ) and one Certifiing body (like Gas Safe)
That way punters know where to go. I'll keep saying this til im blue in the face. There is nothing stopping me operating as "Midland Fire's Fire Safety Training" and offering my own "Diploma in Fire Safety"
Bit of a joke really isn't it?
-
I neede a builder so I looked for a local one on the 3rd party accrditation site the Federation of Master Builders. The first person I spoke to was a plumber!
The point being is that a plumber can join if that person pays the money and is sector competent. It did not help me and after speaking to the insurance company later they told me they would not accept anyone from FMB as it was a sham operation.
So, should any accreditation scheme be sector competent in that if you want to risk assess a care premises then you put your hat in that ring, (be thoughtful). If you want to do residential blocks then do so. Some people may be good enogh to do all the different premises types but how do you choose if you are an RP of a chemical works, the cheapest, the most expensive, the one with the big advertising budget or the one who is local to you or the one who has sector competence.
-
The Gas Safe Register represents the single port of call for punters to select a competent gas engineer.
why cant we have a Gas Safe style accreditation system instead.
IMO this would require legislation and I think anything that requires legislation would be a non starter.
I would pin my hopes on that august body the FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT COMPETENCY COUNCIL, who have produced the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessor which I believe is a landmark document and based on that document, produce a CoP for FR Assessors register providers. Also if the government could be persuaded to have a national database of all those approved FR Assessors registers, will be about as good as it gets until legislation catches up.
Being a little cheeky if only they could also produce a list of approved qualifications, training courses, NVQ,s etc that would assist new entrants into the Fire Safety profession to enable them to get onto an approved register.
-
Being a little cheeky if only they could also produce a list of approved qualifications, training courses, NVQ,s etc that would assist new entrants into the Fire Safety profession to enable them to get onto an approved register.
The FIA risk assessment council is having a special meeting on 1 June to try and start putting something like that together. If anyone has any ideas please share them with us.
-
The FIA risk assessment council is having a special meeting on 1 June to try and start putting something like that together. If anyone has any ideas please share them with us.
Sounds like a positive step in the right direction, and sort of follows what I was harking on about. A national set of competencies with a CoP to risk assessment providers is, as Tom says, perhaps the best we are going to get without some form of legislation.
If this leads to a "universal" system where any accreditation schemes, or qualifications, as a minimum, hit those national set of competencies, then happy days.