FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: GeoffR on October 25, 2012, 12:53:43 PM
-
Dear Firenet members
You will all be aware of the ever-increasing interest in fire risk assessment. SSAIB is pleased to announce the immediate launch of the SSAIB BAFE SP205 UKAS-accredited certification scheme for firms or individuals offering fire risk assessment services. Achievement of this certification will entitle the holder to display the SSAIB/UKAS certification mark (including the “crown and tick” logo).
SSAIB is an independent, not-for-profit certification body, supervised by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).
If you would like further information, please contact SSAIB via its website www.ssaib.org/contact/ or telephone 0191 296 3242
Kind regards
Geoff Rendall
Certification Manager
SSAIB
-
Old Kelsall must be very pleased. He is always saying you need UKAS accredited schemes. It is so nice to see my good friend Geoffrey actually coming up with the goods.
-
Welcome to the new players in the field and I understand the ECA are hot on the heels of the SSAIB and the NSI and are likely to launch their scheme imminently. From 1 to 4 players in the field in one fell swoop.
Is it sustainable? Can all 4 survive in what is a limited market and if they dont what will happen to those companies who back the wrong horse?
From speaking to people it would seem that achieving UKAS accreditation is very expensive and their daily rates are very significant- who accredits and audits UKAS?
-
Kurnal:
Yes it is sustainable. This is going to be the largest fire scheme ever eventually. Even if a CB had very few takers, it would not drop the scheme, so I think that the wrong horse question is a non question.
UKAS are recognized by Government as the UK national accreditation body, and there can only be one such body. I believe that their overseas equivalents can audit them as a peer review., but you would need to ask UKAS about the details of that.
-
Hello Kernal
Just thought I would reinforce Colin's point that NSI would maintain a scheme with a limited number of certificated organizations. However, it will not be the case with regard to BAFE SP205 for Life Safety Fire Risk Assessment because of the keen interest and activity already underway.
Today NSI certificated three fire safety organizations to the BAFE Scheme SP205 that have completed their initial certification assessments. There are more organizations undertaking assessment and they are part way through the initial process. The initial interest in the NSI/BAFE Scheme has been strong and NSI expects additional interest to be shown when the UKAS Accreditation of NSI and SSAIB reaches a wider audience.
For those Fire Net Members and Observers who would like more information regarding the NSI/BAFE SP205 FRA Scheme then please contact directly the NSI Scheme Managers;
John Davidson ..................... john.davidson@nsi.org.uk ...................... Mob 07917 630086
Pat Baldwin ......................... pat.baldwin@nsi.org.uk ......................... Mob 07771 956071
-
I will be seeking proposals from each of the certification bodies FRACS, SSAIB, NSI and as soon as their scheme is announced the ECA. I wish to be one of the first companies to achieve accreditation under FRACS or under SP205.
One aspect that concerns me is this. How can I be sure that the person who comes to assess my company has full competence to understand and appreciate the technical aspects of fire risk assessment? As far as I am aware the UKAS accreditation that each provider must achieve is essentially a systems and quality management audit but cannot measure the CBs technical understanding of the subject.
It has taken me 39 years in the industry with continuing study and research to achieve my current level of incompetence.
How can I be sure that the SP205 assessor will have sufficient experience and knowledge to understand the issues rather than hugging the codes?
I guess it comes down to this.
Are the SP205 assessors experienced fire risk assessors who have been trained in audit or are they auditors who have been trained in fire risk assessment?
And are all SP205 Certification Bodies the same in this respect?
-
Kurnal:
UKAS are recognized by Government as the UK national accreditation body, and there can only be one such body. I believe that their overseas equivalents can audit them as a peer review., but you would need to ask UKAS about the details of that.
Why can we only have one accreditation body? Sounds like a case to refer to the monopolies commision. ;) Come to that why is there only one.....
On looking into the UKAS fees and daily rates it appears that some competition may be healthy!
-
Hi Kurnal, I was a guinea pig for one of the CBs above and hope to receive my
accreditation certificate when the CB in question imminently gets its UKAS accreditation. My assessor was a well qualified and practising fire risk assessor with a FS degree background so his background was in technical fire safety, his assessor from UKAS on the day was accompanied by someone senior in the FPA so the 'sector competence' aspects of the process were very well covered and there were quite a few technical questions as well during the site visits to recent FRAs. I have confidence in the process that I experienced and would hope that this rigorous approach will be replicated with all who apply to give the scheme some long term credibility. I can assure you that the sites visited had a few issues that were not code compliant however the case I put forward was discussed and there were no problems - damn those brass hinges ;D
The systems and quality audit was quite painful thorough - but to be honest has helped my company realise a few (minor) quality management issues that needed addressing and I'm better for the experience. Now awaiting my accreditation certificate so that I can convince any prospective customers that its the 'mutts nuts' of accreditation company certification schemes and they shouldn't employ anyone without one 8).
Still waiting for my IFE application to come through after six months!
Edit due to incorrect use of terminology (again) and admonishment below and thankfully after 5 minutes of training I'm also now competent in the use of the words 'certificate' and 'accreditation' - its so amazing what a short focused course can achieve!
-
Big Al, as is often your downfall, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is rubbish to say that UKAS audits are only about QMS and this is a daft statement you may wish to withdraw. If it were, why would they have taken an industry sector guy to audit Platinum when he got his assessment from the CB. I am sure that the sector expert knows as much about QMS as you do, so why would a UKAS auditor who knows as much as there is to know about QMS take someone with them. DUH!!!!!!Much as like you, Al, you do talk some complete tosh sometimes, thereby spreading total misinformation.
-
Only asking questions Colin - and probably similar questions that are in the mind of many others who are looking to embark on this process and dont have the benefit of your insight.
No I dont see the need to withdraw my question sorry if it makes you angry but you could always educate us rather than just giving out a rollicking whenever someone happens to put their head over the battlements and ask. Not that I mind a rollicking as I am no stranger to them but an explanation as well really makes it all worthwhile.
My dear Colin I sometimes think you are so used to operating at such a high level in the ether you have completely forgotten what its like for us at grond level.
-
Big Al, I have no problem with you asking questions because, God knows, you need education, and I always do my best to see that you get it. I did not even ask you to withdraw the question, though why you need to ask it here when I gave you the answer at a meeting several months ago when you asked exactly the same question I do not know- I suppose the nice thing about Altzheimers is that you never see repeats on TV and you are always meeting new people.
I suggested that you withdraw the misinformation that UKAS audits only address QMS. This was because your so called understanding was a total and complete misunderstanding of what UKAS does, but you talk so pompously that people are apt to believe you know what you are talking about and will go off and repeat the same misinformation.
I know you mean well, Big Al, and accordingly, if you have any more questions, however daft they are, I, and I am sure people from the CBs here, will be pleased to try tp help you in your time of confusion.
Lots of luv, etc. Your very good friend.
-
Thanks Colin.
I am aware that UKAS when assessing the CBs have taken along an industry expert with them from the FPA as their fire industry adviser. It all seems to me like a chicken and egg situation-though that is inevitable.
UKAS had to start somewhere so in assessing the proposed CBs for their competence in assessing risk assessment companies they had no choice but to select a non accredited industry expert in order to act as their adviser to start the ball rolling and set a benchmark standard. They could have chosen one of many. (In their shoes I probably would have asked an existing UKAS accredited CB such as Warrington or perhaps a fire consultant from the Surrey area ;) ).
Anyway I do know that at least one of the prosepective CBs has appointed competent fire risk assessors and trained them as auditors whereas others have appointed competent auditors and trained them in fire risk assessment. I really am curious to know if there is any effective difference betweenthe two approaches.
Sorry if this remains a stupid question.
-
Al, you are all confused again. You are rabbiting on about non-accredited. A-C-C-R-E-D-I-T-AT-I-O-N, BIG< AL, refers to recognition of a CB by the Government recognised national accreditation body. Thats UKAS, Al. UKAS-are you following? The term accredited is vitually protected by Government in this respect , so try to use it correctly. They dont accredit industry sector experts (well, not for the purpose of this discussion), they ACCREDIT CBs. So, they wont take along a company that is certificated if thats what you mean, nor a rival CB to accredit a CB (which is total cloud cuckoo land). They would possibly take along a technical expert (to use their terminology), to deal with the industry specific technical issues. It would seem from Plantinum that they took someone from the Family Planning Association, who is probably on one of the registers as a competent fire risk assessor himself, to check that the CB assessors are also competent in fire risk assessment.
Is this getting any clearer for you, Al. If not, just pay your money like a good chap and get your COMPANY certificated, thats CERTIFICATED, Al , not ACCREDITED. But you cant be the first as you hope, as Patrick has just told you 3 people are already being certificated.
-
Dont want to be the first. But will be up there with the front runners once I have seen what each has to offer.
As for accreditation and certification ok. Sorry.
In mitigation its easy to get confused with terminology when I have a certificate from the IFSM that says I am already an accredited fire risk assessor but as you say my company can only be certificated. Too complicated for my simple brain. Roger. Over and out.
Must I go to bed without supper tonight?
-
We are due to go through the BAFE SP205 Company certification process with NSI over the next few weeks. Kurnal, I don't mind sharing the experience with you and others if it helps in clarifying anything? Watch this space......... :-\
-
There will be much more emphasis placed by UKAS on assessing the competence of employees used by CBs in the very near future. It’s an issue they have not dealt with too well in the past and that includes other accreditation bodies in Europe; hence the new focus by UKAS.
There is in reality not that many FRA guys out there with the competence to complete this type of work for CBs and investment will need to be made in training. As these newly accredited CBs will no doubt have done.
However as accredited schemes try to be objective and not subjective it is about gathering evidence not opinion. Set performance criteria for the company along with quality management procedures of the company form the basis of the office audits along with competence assessment of the individuals from the company; this differs between schemes but all CBs should be working hard on indentifying that individuals meet the industries own competence requirements.
I don't think that anyone should be worried about assessment as there is added value in it for your company; a fresh pair of eyes looking at your systems, procedures and technical content of FRAs will normally be of benefit. There are hoops to jump through yes but those hoops are what make your company an identified ‘quality assured’ company.
The value of that identification is something that the industry will need to work on and I dare say that those with certification will do their part as will trade associations and CBs. The more people talk about it the more it will be asked for and thus the cowboys will get less work. Which I think, was the intention years ago when issues were identified.
Just a small disclaimer; third party certification is not mandatory there is no requirement for it and if you don’t have it, that doesn’t mean you are less capable of delivering a good service. It’s just that demonstrating your ability won’t be as easy as those with certification. It needs to be commercially viable for companies to have it and that pull will become stronger and stronger the more certificated firms there are.
-
Thats a useful insight Kelsall many thanks.
-
Kel, this is probably the most sense you have written in all the time it has been your honour to know me!! Well done.
-
Col, when you are bored waiting for the 'industry' to get its act together; you have to amuse yourself somehow. Now there is activity and multiple providers the brakes should come off and things will start to move. Still a bit concerned about the RP document but we will have to wait and see on that one.
I think you are a ‘shoe in’ for the info4fire top 40 influencers in the fire sector; if you send me a copy of your own self nomination, I’ll paraphrase it and send one in too! ;)
-
We now have a least two TPCB’s when they certify an organisation they will ensure the principle FR assessor will be competent with the power to sign off a FRA. Also he/she will also have to have in place procedures, training and retraining to ensure his minions FR assessors are competent but they will not be certified, only the organisation. Therefore nothing has changed for the individual FR assessor to confirm their competence other than to be on a FRA register and maybe be able to say I am a member of a certificated organisation.
How does the individual FR assessor have documented proof of their competence?
-
SP205 is purely and simply a company scheme. It is not intended to apply to individuals except in respect of their contribution to the competence of the company. Under the SP205 scheme the principal risk assessor responsible for signing off assessments and a number of employees and associates are sampled - the SP205 process will include desk top assessments and accompanying one or more other employees whilst carrying out an assessment. They will sample the square root of the the total number of employees or assessors. If I employ 4 associates 2 will be reviewed.
The existing registers for individual assessors will continue. The IFSM register now requires all candidates to go through the FRACS system for individuals.
-
The existing registers for individual assessors will continue. The IFSM register now requires all candidates to go through the FRACS system for individuals.
Hi Kurnal, it is my undertanding that individuals that work for or that are sub contracted via an SP205 certificated Company will be able to apply to go on the IFSM new NAFRAR risk assessors register. As it states below from their site the individual needs to demonstate they have been through a scheme with UKAS approval. It states "applicant" which implies an individual when as you correctly say SP205 is a company scheme and not for individuals which is slightly confusing. I have been informed that if a company gains SP205 certification then any individuals that company uses and have been through the company's approved SP205 internal audit process can apply to go on the NAFRAR register.
http://www.ifsm.org.uk/nafrar/nafrar%20guidance%20notes%20-%20Nov%202011.pdf
Recognition of Appropriate Accreditation and Certification Schemes
The Institute will recognise, for the purposes of entering applicants onto its NAFRAR, any scheme that carries UKAS approval and / or which follows BS EN ISO 17024 and also BS EN 45011. .....
-
I should have added to the above that in the situation I have described although the individuals name will be listed on NAFRAR it will be clear that they are linked to the BAFE SP205 certificated company in question and not a sole trader.
-
SP205 is purely and simply a company scheme. It is not intended to apply to individuals except in respect of their contribution to the competence of the company. Under the SP205 scheme the principal risk assessor responsible for signing off assessments and a number of employees and associates are sampled - the SP205 process will include desk top assessments and accompanying one or more other employees whilst carrying out an assessment. They will sample the square root of the the total number of employees or assessors. If I employ 4 associates 2 will be reviewed.
The existing registers for individual assessors will continue. The IFSM register now requires all candidates to go through the FRACS system for individuals.
Hi Kurnal
I can't see that formula in the SP 205 standard. “Square route of the total number”
I thought it was at the discretion of the CB and some will use the appearance on existing registers as a grandfather clause. i.e. if you are on the IFE, IFPO or IFSM register you are deemed competent and no additional assessment is made. I think there will be variation from each CB and that’s a concern for me. But if they are accredited to 45011 the scheme will stand up and you will technically be getting the same assessment from each CB.
I would be interested to hear if anyone has had multiple quotes for SP205 was there variation in the assessment requirements from the CBs. I may be wrong in my assumptions so I would genuinely like to know if CBs are operating differently under this scheme.
-
I was told that personally by one of the CBs but I dont know if it is the same for all.
-
Thanks kurnal for your confirmation that it is a company scheme I assume similar to SP101 and SP 203 and have they proved successful?
As for the individual FR assessor they will still have to rely on the FRA registers and do we know which registers use the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors as a syllabus to select for inclusion in their register.
-
Thanks kurnal for your confirmation that it is a company scheme I assume similar to SP101 and SP 203 and have they proved successful?
As for the individual FR assessor they will still have to rely on the FRA registers and do we know which registers use the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors as a syllabus to select for inclusion in their register.
FRACS and it is UKAS accredited against ISO 17024
-
As I’m sure you are all aware ECA Certification Ltd were part of the pilot scheme for BAFE SP205
I am pleased to announce that ECA Certification Ltd has received its UKAS Accreditation for BAFE SP205
This brings the list of CB’s offering SP205 to Three
If you would like further information, please contact ECA Certification Ltd via email certification@eca.co.uk or telephone 0333 321 8220
Will Lloyd
BAFE Scheme Manager
ECA Certification Ltd
-
FRACS and it is UKAS accredited against ISO 17024
I was thinking of a new SP 205 - x that produces registration boards, using the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors as a syllabus and certify individual fire risk assessors which are then placed on a certified register.
-
I will be seeking proposals from each of the certification bodies FRACS, SSAIB, NSI and as soon as their scheme is announced the ECA. I wish to be one of the first companies to achieve accreditation under FRACS or under SP205.
One aspect that concerns me is this. How can I be sure that the person who comes to assess my company has full competence to understand and appreciate the technical aspects of fire risk assessment? As far as I am aware the UKAS accreditation that each provider must achieve is essentially a systems and quality management audit but cannot measure the CBs technical understanding of the subject.
It has taken me 39 years in the industry with continuing study and research to achieve my current level of incompetence.
How can I be sure that the SP205 assessor will have sufficient experience and knowledge to understand the issues rather than hugging the codes?
I guess it comes down to this.
Are the SP205 assessors experienced fire risk assessors who have been trained in audit or are they auditors who have been trained in fire risk assessment?
And are all SP205 Certification Bodies the same in this respect?
The ECA Assessors are experienced fire risk assessors trained to assess to the scheme and our standards not the other way round
its ECA Certification policy to take good competent people and train them to assess what they do. This gives us a real world point view and gives our clients the confidence in our assessments be it FRA, fire alarms, MCS, Part P or Electrical.
-
SP205 is purely and simply a company scheme. It is not intended to apply to individuals except in respect of their contribution to the competence of the company. Under the SP205 scheme the principal risk assessor responsible for signing off assessments and a number of employees and associates are sampled - the SP205 process will include desk top assessments and accompanying one or more other employees whilst carrying out an assessment. They will sample the square root of the the total number of employees or assessors. If I employ 4 associates 2 will be reviewed.
The existing registers for individual assessors will continue. The IFSM register now requires all candidates to go through the FRACS system for individuals.
Hi Kurnal
I can't see that formula in the SP 205 standard. “Square route of the total number”
I thought it was at the discretion of the CB and some will use the appearance on existing registers as a grandfather clause. i.e. if you are on the IFE, IFPO or IFSM register you are deemed competent and no additional assessment is made. I think there will be variation from each CB and that’s a concern for me. But if they are accredited to 45011 the scheme will stand up and you will technically be getting the same assessment from each CB.
I would be interested to hear if anyone has had multiple quotes for SP205 was there variation in the assessment requirements from the CBs. I may be wrong in my assumptions so I would genuinely like to know if CBs are operating differently under this scheme.
The formula is in the SP 205-2 “Square route of the total number” which is the rules for CB's we have our own requirements that we have to follow and these are in SP 205-2
as for "a grandfather clause" well if you on one of the registers you will probably be picked last as we would look at non register risk assessors first
I can say that knowing the other two CB's that they will apply the scheme in the same manner that we do.
so its all equal for everybody
-
Thanks Will I will dust off my copy of SP205-2
-
We have been informed this week that we are the 4th company in the UK to be awarded the BAFE SP205-1 certification via NSI. ;D
It was a taxing 2 days of on site building and office audits. Overall I was very impressed with the whole process and it has raised several points in how we operate and how our systems can be enhanced and improved. There were also observations on our FRA template which we have taken on board and will review in due course.
There were some healthy "debates" over interpretation of some of the Articles in the RRFSO, which has given me food for thought and will be fed back and discussed with others within the company.
I am just hoping that this has been a worthwhile process in terms of the business out there being aware of the 3rd party certification process be in SP205 or FRACS. I haven’t heard much re the SP205 competency document that was being produced for the business sector? Does anyone know where this is up to? However what was interesting is that on the day we achieved certification we had a call from a large UK wide hotel chain that had searched the BAFE site for an SP205 company, so that was a positive start….time will tell.
If anyone is going through SP205 and would like further info about the process then inbox me.
-
Congratlations William 29 and I would be interested in a chat and any tips on bringing the admin system up to speed! We have already changed a great deal over the last couple of years in order to comply with FIA requirements but I am all too aware that we arent there yet.
Can you allude to the issues over interpretation of the articles- I thought that generally matters of interpretation had settled down?
-
Congratlations William 29 and I would be interested in a chat and any tips on bringing the admin system up to speed! We have already changed a great deal over the last couple of years in order to comply with FIA requirements but I am all too aware that we arent there yet.
Can you allude to the issues over interpretation of the articles- I thought that generally matters of interpretation had settled down?
No problems Kurnal re the chat. One of the audits that were done was a church and we debated the RP in terms of the Articles 3, 5(3) and 11. It was noted that in churches the RP can be difficult to determine.
It was also pointed out that a specific question needs to be worded in respect of Article 18 (Safety Assistance) to establish if a) the RP has suitable fire safety advice/support within the organisation or b) access to external advice.
Re Article 18 as I understand it the external assistance does not relate to the conducting of the FRA but advice regarding implementing the general fire precautions?
-
[It was also pointed out that a specific question needs to be worded in respect of Article 18 (Safety Assistance) to establish if a) the RP has suitable fire safety advice/support within the organisation or b) access to external advice.
Re Article 18 as I understand it the external assistance does not relate to the conducting of the FRA but advice regarding implementing the general fire precautions?
Ho hum.
I suppose we should make sure we seek evidence from the RP as to all the competent person(s) he or she has nominated to to assist them in undertaking the measures they need to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions of the Order.
In practical terms this will include competent advisors such as fire alarm engineers, extinguisher technicians and fire engineers etc. The RP has a duty to play a co-ordinating role between his competent advisors. But then if you need to appoint people to advise because you dont have access to the skills you how can you be expected to forsee the implications of any interactions betwen them.
Are we making hard work of this? ;)
-
Yes Al, you are. It is the same requirement as occurs under the Management Regs and relates to advice to the RP re the requirements of the Order.