FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: AnthonyB on October 13, 2014, 11:43:53 AM
-
Certsure (ELECSA/ECA)have pulled out of BAFE SP205 and will no longer be carrying out third party accreditation of life safety fire risk assessment providers.NOTE BY MODERATOR-SEE COLIN TODDS LATER POST
This leaves just NSI & SSAIB and the inconvenience and expense of moving across to a new certification body for those who used Certsure.
The discussion topic therefore is:
- Is BAFE SP205 a long term entity worth sticking with, or is it going to be a minority scheme with a limited future?
-
Just heard this from another source who are now in the position of having to find an new certification body - I'm not surprised to be honest as they were never really committed in my opinion (I was registered with them for a while) and they have other sources of income. I really don't think that the assessor pool is big enough to sustain the 205 and will be limited to a few big companies who will then sub-contract assessors from other registers such as IFE to ensure their own quality assurance under the BAFE scheme.
-
There aren't many of the big companies signed up to SP205 yet though Golden. I have spoken to a couple who think they have sufficient standing in the marketplace not to need it. In respect of the ECA / Certsure I wager that when Mick Clifford emigrated that left them with a problem, Mick was their competent fire assessor and an all round good egg. They may have made the judgement that the market for SP205 is too weak to justify recruiting and training a replacement. Pure speculation on my part of course.
-
Oh dear............ Be not despondent Silver. SP 205 still rocks and I would recommend it to anyone. As the Old Boy says, it is far from a big boys scheme. It is for all and sundry and take up has been good amongst a number of small firms. From this month FIA member companies who want to be listed for fire risk assessment need to have applied for 3pc from a UKAS accredited CB, which means SP 205, IFC or FRACS. Speaking on behalf of my own company, we firmly believe in SP 205. NSI and SSAIB are both well-committed to the scheme.
-
We used NSI, we are not a massive firm, around 12 subcontracted assessors. From speaking to NSI over the last 2 years or so they are committed to SP205 and have invested too much time and money into the scheme for it to be a flash in the pan.
3rd party UKAS accreditation is the way to go for our industry in my view and as I have said many times on this forum I can't understand the problem!? We have been moaning about the cowboys out there doing ?50 FRAs and taking away our business but we aren't prepared to back and support our own industry standards?
-
Can I set the record straight on behalf of Certsure. It is NOT the case that they are pulling out of SP 205. As Kurnal said, Mick Clifford has emigrated, which leaves a short term resource problem for Certsure, which they are currently working to resolve. Existing certificated firms will continue to be serviced in the future, and, in due course, Certsure will be in a position to accept new applications, which they will welcome in order to build the scheme alongside their other schemes including SP 203.
Perhaps the moderator would like to consider taking out or amending the existing title of the thread, as, for those who do not open the thread, they will read a factual error, namely that Cersture are pulling out of the scheme.
-
Fair comment Colin have amended the first post in the thread
-
I'm not despondent ct .. in fact I was very happy at getting rid of the 205 and building a client base using the IFE registration is much more effective in my experience for small company. The IFE assessment was also much more rigorous with respect to fire safety and didn't just involve producing documents that mean very little to the customer but a real test of fire safety/risk assessment knowledge and understanding.
I'm afraid my opinion on many of the TPA schemes is that they're there to keep outsiders at arms length and maintain profit margins of the larger companies - William although 12 subcontracted assessors is not a massive firm its a decent size and I'm sure you've got some support staff to help you out but my thoughts above are for one man bands and small companies where the cost and time demands of 205 significantly outweigh the benefits.
G .... soon to be employed (on a sub-contract basis) by a SP205_1 registered company ;D ;D ;)
-
I stand corrected Colin, but they told us they were quote "no longer be offering the BAFE SP205-1 Fire Risk Assessment certification", that we had to transfer to SSAIB or NSI and that they would maintain registration until certified with one of those two. They did originally just put things on hold for our re-registration when MC left with the intention of keeping it going, but categorically told us later by email that they were not offering it and that everyone would be withdrawn as soon as they have re-registered elsewhere.
Hence the pulling out comment!
We are sticking with it by the way!
-
Tony, no criticism of your understanding, but the situation as I expressed it above comes from the highest level in Certsure, so you can take is as Gospel (new testament, not old).
Golden, I am disappointed at your somewhat distorted view of the intent of 3pc. I chaired the FIA Council that produced the first draft of the scheme. We tested every clause one by one to make sure it could be satisfied by a one man company. Not a two man company, 12 man company or a giant multi national, but a one man company. Indeed I would argue that, if anything, it is actually biased TOWARDS small firms, and indeed that is the view of some of the largest players.
I am pleased that you find the IFE Register so good, as I chair the panel responsible for it, but the IFE have no quarrel with the principle that the ultimate end game for the reassurance of the end user is company certification, not just person certification, though the latter is very important and always will be.
No CB has any intent of creating profits for large companies. Many CBs themselves are non profit making. UKAS require an accredited CB to maintain an impartiality committee. BAFE are non profit making and have a Council that represent all relevant stakeholders, including the men with pointy heads.
-
Colin its a distorted view in your opinion but its my actual experience that I'm relating, I've got no problems with company TPC and would support any suitable scheme but for a one man band the BAFE process is too costly in time and money for very little return. It can be satisfied by a small company but at what cost as every day that is lost to the accreditation process is a day's work lost - other silly issues occur like the numbered certificates which are a pain in the butt however is 'required' to maintain the registration. In my opinion the assessment is more geared towards record keeping and administration than fire safety knowledge and understanding which is what is required by the RP served by a small company. In a business environment where we are getting squeezed out by companies bidding low then hiring inexperienced and cheap 'risk assessors' to complete the contract (via Reed Employment in one interesting phone conversation that I had) TPC is irrelevant and it is cost and customer service that keep the clients interested and coming back. So I admire your and the FIA efforts in making it accessible but the reality is that, for me at least, its not the case.
I am toying with the other company scheme and am getting some user feedback from some friends on the scheme to see if this is more suited to my company needs so any opinions from Firenet users will be most welcome.
-
Currently working on a tender for 54 schools see section below from the tender:
5.4 Quality Assurance / Accreditations
State whether your company has attained ISO9000 status, and the areas in which it has been achieved. Copy of certificate to be included with you tender return
Define in outline your documented quality system. If no documented system exists, define how conformance to customer requirements is assured.
The company must be a member of a UKAS Accredited body. A copy of both your membership and the accredited body UKAS accreditation must be provided with your tender return.
-
William do they ask for TP certification for fire or just for QM/QA?
And the certificate is normally only a short cut to filling out all of the other paperwork. As a small company these sort of contracts are out of my reach due to other criteria in the tender requirements such as financial criteria. I'm sure the company recruiting their risk assessors (very poor day rate and no expenses) through Reed probably had a significant collection of quality management badges at the bottom of their webpage too. Most of the building companies that condone shocking work on fire safety (loads of pictures from yesterday if you need any) have a plethora of badges and awards that would make your average boy scout sick.
I'm not belittling TPC but just saying its not for small companies and one man bands; I may have to conform at some point when I'm bullied into it but by that time I'll be fighting for anybody to be registered to have a degree level or equivalent qualification in fire engineering or a related subject to ensure that suitable standards are maintained.
P.S. as a SME I wish you luck with your tender application.
-
Sadly the effort hasn't been made by all concerned to make third party commercially viable and no matter what Colin says all the company schemes have a real price advantage for larger companies. There is certainly an economy of scale when you compare a sole trader with a company of 4 upwards.
I think there is a lot of work to be done by the FSF, CLG the CBs and the trade and professional bodies to make the demand for third party the norm. If the end users are not demanding it in sufficient numbers it becomes an unnecessary expense. I believe there will be some work carried out on this by the competence council who have parked themselves in the FSF. Possibly at the fire sector summit there will be some good suggestions in the certification workshop.
-
Silver, I hear what you say, but most firms certificated under SP 205 are small. So it cant be biased towards large organizations. It is a fact of life that large organisations pay less pro rata for services. This will be true of your accountant, who will not charge ?50 to you and ?500 to British Aerospace for his day rate. He will be paying for his professional body membership, which takes more from his bottom line pro rata than PKF. The CBs running SP 205 are non profit making, so you are just paying for the true cost of the service, not for the profits of shareholders. The auditors carrying out the work will be paid no more I would wager than you charge clients. The small clients you work for will be paying more pro rata their profit for their FRAs than British Aerospace. That is life.
None of this makes TPC a rip off, biased towards big boys or inappropriate. Gradually, large buyers of FRAs see the benefits of schemes such as the IFE Register and SP 205. For those who don't want to use TPC, it is their choice. I never use an electrical contractor to work in my house unless he is NICEIC. The fact that some contractors do not choose to seek NICEIC certification is their choice. My grandfather was one the first certificated electrical contractors in Edinburgh. As far as I am aware he was never heard to bleet about the cost (though the post war recession folded his business as he would not lay staff off).
-
The CBs running SP 205 are non profit making, so you are just paying for the true cost of the service, not for the profits of shareholders.
Colin I suggest that this statement may not represent the full picture. True you are not paying for shareholders dividends but most not for profit organisations seek to generate a surplus that they use to support their "Good Works".
The FPA, for example, who are used by UKAS as advisors when they audit the CBs, are fairly clear that they use income streams as "Cash Cows" to fund their other activities. Those words were used by one of their directors in explaining their business model to me. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and none of it makes the service a rip off, but for the end user there is little difference in terms of value for money between a not for profit organisation and an independent company.
Indeed in some such organisations overheads may be way above the norm of private industry. I receive a tangible reminder of this whenever I buy a new British Standard.
-
Colin, I never said it was a rip off - its just not cost effective for me based on the time and financial cost of jumping through the hoops for registration. I'm only trying to give, in my opinion and experience, is a balanced view of the scheme to those that may be considering applying particularly those who don't bid for the bigger contracts but want some accreditation to demonstrate their competence which was my reason for signing up originally.
What really got under my skin was the re-registration after 6 months as a small company this was quite ridiculous as an individual that I'd have to jump through the very same hoops when I'd not even had a phone call from the register and none of my clients were interested in receiving a bit of paper to certify that their building had been risk assessed by a registered assessor. These bits of paper were particularly annoying as according to the rules of the scheme I'd have to send one of these out for each FRA - I was assessing lots of social housing and they only issued 10 individual certificate numbers at a time when I was assessing up to 20 properties a week this was becoming a pain in the backside - a larger company could afford to pay somebody minimum wage to process all this but for me it was a couple of hours unnecessary paperwork a week.
-
Kurnal, with all due respect you are waffling again with an irrelevant analogy. The FPA are only sub contractors to a CB. It is not the FPA who are levelling the charges to the certificated firm and using profit to fund other things; their position is no different from that of Mick Clifford to whom you referred in a posting.
With regard to surpluses, private industry need those AS WELL AS HAND OUTS TO SHAREHOLDERS. There are strict limits to the surpluses of non profit making CBs. They are not used to fund all sorts of other activities for the alleged benefits of mankind. In the past, when one particular non profit making CB made too much money they handed it back to the certificated firms. Not something a commercial body CB would do. Moreover, the good thing about BAFE schemes is that they promote competition amongst CBs to keep the cost down. You would be paid much less by a CB as a sub contract auditor than you charge clients to fund your skyscraper office block at Bathmat Lock and your trips to the Bathmat gentlemen's club.
-
Silver, on a point of accuracy, there is no re registration going through the same hoops. There is surveillance after 6 months, which is an entirely different thing and is a necessity otherwise there is no guarantee to the public of your continuing standard. Moreover, the frequency would have gone down to annual if you had stuck with it. It is only through TPC that the public can be protected against con men.
Happily this is becoming widely recognised. FRAs for care homes in Northern Ireland are required by the RQIA to be carried out by those on a register or preferably TPC COMPANIES. The FIA are about to delist, from their published list of members who carry out FRAs, any companies that have not now applied for TPC.
-
Colon, my surveillance visit would have consisted of "one day with the morning being a office visit and the afternoon spent on site. The cost of a surveillance visit is ?xxx+ Vat " ( as per the email from the certifying body) - exactly the same as my initial assessment so I was thinking this was jumping through the same hoops and not "an entirely different thing".
On a similar point of accuracy it is not "only through TPC" that the public can be protected from con men; I can assure you that TPC is not the holy grail having carried out FRAs on a number of new buildings that have been constructed by companies with a wealth of TPC - who in turn sub out to other companies with similar certification who are equally as incompetent. The public can be protected against con men by a variety of other methods of they could be bothered to check (like checking whether you have insurance cover which most don't) - I've known of TPC companies using unqualified assessors and in many cases companies advertise on websites such as LinkedIn when they need additional assessors without quoting the requisite qualifications for the tasks.
I have already stated that I'm not anti TPC but that my point is I believe they're not suited to small companies and organisations that refuse to recognise other accreditation are doing so to protect the business interests of their most influential members and not necessarily in the best interests of the public.
-
Am I right in believing when a company is assessed under SP205 not all FR assessors employed by them are assessed, therefore if I use that company, I could get a FR assessor who competence has not been tested by a third party and then should I have to check that he/she is on one of the approved registers?
-
The margins for all CBs on fire risk assessors schemes are minimal they are very time orientated and if you calculate the input from the CB it's easy to work out who is charging the highest day rate and just like fire risk assessment the headline figure isn't always an indication of value for money. It actually is the non for profit CBs who are charging the highest day rate (I know I have done the calculations)
There is plenty of competition for the certification of companies however there is little to suggest that the buy in is increasing, indeed the FIA have just lost a shed full of members as they have not taken up UKAS accredited certification despite much effort and encouragement from their fire risk assessment council. The IFSM are due to go through the same process at the end of this year too and will lose around 100 assessors off their register. I dare say IFPO may get inundated with applications as their assessment process will be the least onerous and cheapest option available and that in reality is the issue.
Which is why I have set up the RSCFRA register, just bung me 50 pounds along with your CV and a promise on a scrap piece of paper, to always work within your capabilities and never make a mistake, and you are on the list. 5 working days from application (sorry cheque clearing) to certification; guaranteed! (50 pounds annual subscription there after, no additional fees, no monthly payment plan; your fire risk assessment career is not in jeopardy if you do not maintain certification)
Kelsall CEO of Rubber Stamp Certification Limited ::)
-
Kelsall what is your point? The debate around TPC is serious and the issues should be aired and as you point out many of the trade associations are making a stand and losing membership as a consequence; why have you chosen to dumb down the discussion?
-
Tom the scheme rules that I signed up to included a condition that assessors employed by the company should fulfill the competency council criteria with sufficient qualifications, skills or knowledge to carry out the risk assessments. Unfortunately there are a few companies out there who employ the cheapest options - particularly if they have a heavy workload.
-
We weren't allowed to claim accreditation until all our staff had been assessed, I don't know what others may have experienced from their CBs
-
Sorry Golden but when you have seen what I have seen, listened to what I have listened to and crashed up against the old guard as many times as I have for as many years as I have on this subject, you would feel like I do; a little bit sad, a little bit cynical and sadly a little bit smug. To make a real difference things needed to be done differently at the time but I was a lone voice in a big room. I would suggest that third party certification for fire risk assessors was hamstrung at the start and has not been well supported during its infancy; the result is we are still having the same debate years later.
Without some serious remedial actions by all concerned it is never going to be the assurance it was intended to be and it won?t be taken up in sufficient numbers to make a difference; yes the big clients may specify it but the landscape of fire risk assessment is changing and the big clients are starting to bring things in house. I would suggest that is because of some significant let downs from external providers in several instances. I think certification is at times useful to have but commercially it won?t be worth it for many; because those without certification are not being marginalised they are still working and indeed the good the bad and the ugly fire risk assessors are all still making a living for now.
What is the answer? Is there even a problem? Does it just need more time?
-
Time wont do it Kelsall. It needs driving - forces for change would include legislation, education and enforcement. We need more prosecutions taken against the cowboys- trouble is none of us ever thinks they are a cowboy because none of us ever know what we dont know.
I am one of those who is to be expelled (on next years renewal) as a member of the FIA because I am not taking up TPC at this time. I admire and respect the FIA and have no complaint against this- the membership criteria have always been transparent. But I am very sad about it.
I am also sad that the argument is so polarised, between those who support TPC warts and all and those who are wrong. When the schemes are not taking off then there must be a reason, is it the scheme, the timing, the economic, legal or political environment that is the problem? Or is it just that all who have not joined are too lazy, too frightened, too avaricious, too ignorant, too mercenary to care.
-
In answer to Tom Sutton here are extracts from the SP205 document relative to your enquiry
At the time of developing this scheme there were no nationally recognised and accepted qualifications for fire risk assessors. This Scheme (BAFE SP205) therefore requires that Certificated Organizations have systems in place to ensure that the competency of their fire risk assessor(s) knowledge and skill is appropriate to the work being undertaken.
The Certificated Organization should identify the competency requirements of their fire risk assessor(s) and be able to demonstrate that it has individually assessed all fire risk assessors against these requirements. A competent fire risk assessor will demonstrate an enthusiasm for the subject and endeavour to make regular advancement in their professional vocation.
The fire risk assessor should have obtained specialist training where appropriate, receive ongoing refresher training and engage in suitable continual professional development. The Certificated Organization should be supporting such training and development needs.
TPCB Note: The TPCB should confirm that the Certificated Organization has identified the competency requirements of fire risk assessors, the competency requirements of the Validators and that the Certificated Organization carries out suitable assessments of the competency of their fire risk assessors.
5.1 The Certificated Organization shall demonstrate that it employs fire risk assessors who are competent to operate within the framework of national fire safety legislation of the country in question.
5.2 The fire risk assessor shall be competent and shall understand the requirements of the Specification. The responsibility for the effectiveness of the fire risk assessor rests with the Certificated Organization.
The Certificated Organization shall establish a person specification for the fire risk assessor that identifies the knowledge and skills required. The person specification shall identify the minimum competency requirements and any additional competency requirements appropriate to the fire risk assessments being undertaken.
The Certificated Organization shall establish a person specification for the fire risk assessor that identifies the knowledge and skills required. The person specification shall identify the minimum competency requirements and any additional competency requirements appropriate to the fire risk assessments being undertaken.
The guidance to the above goes on to say that it would be expected that a competent risk assessor would be on one of the registers, but this is not mandatory.
-
The argument goes round in circles again.
The major point is always is there any advantage to having TPC? Until there is a positive advantage and not just a warm cosy feeling it will struggle.
There are a number of drivers.
Legislation to make it compulsory to have TPC to carry out FRAs, the government with its drive to reduce regulation won't take this path.
The insurers requiring FRAs to be carried out by TPC bodies?
The Fire Authorities challenging FRAs which is another old argument.
The crunch is that in general it is the finance people who make the decision on who to use and usually TPC is well down their list, (if on it at all)
-
Kelsall I can understand your frustrations but you have to understand that many of us are frustrated too; as Kurnal has pointed out he's about to be thrown out of the FIA and that must be a little frustrating for him too. Unfortunately I personally believe the bar has been set too low - the questioning and tests for the 205 registration were quite simple and there was no real checking of prior learning and experience apart from a few selected (by me) examples of the work I had been carrying out. A further flaw was that the meeting was at my office, whereas most of my work is carried out in London and an hour or so away - the criteria for work examples was that it had to be within 30 minutes from the office which left me with a choice of six blocks of low rise purpose built flats or a garden centre!! This hardly reflected the work that would be expected of a 'competent' fire risk assessor in my opinion.
Kurnal also points to the 'polarisation' and I too find this a bit sad - SP205 is one size fits all - but it doesn't and you agree that its not always cost beneficial. You have pointed out that many organisations have taken fire risk assessments in house and that this is due to being let down; I'd partially agree but mainly its based on cost - but how many of these in house assessors have any TPC as individuals they are probably chosen by application/interview processes based on their knowledge and experience. The environment changes constantly and a good assessor/company will look outwards to the business environment and adapt as necessary - my belief is that there is a need for better regulation/control of the fire safety sector but trying to marginalise good assessors just because they don't have TPC is the wrong path to tread.
-
There will be no more regulation or control, the government said to the industry; sort your own act out!
If you don't marginalise those without certification there is no point in having certification. The aim of this whole exercise was to get rid of the poor assessors, or minimise opportunity for the poor assessor to get work. i.e. the very individuals or firms who are unable to get through a reasonably difficult competence assessment process and gain certification.
What we have now is those who can get through an assessment to gain certification, are not bothering; which levels the playing field, sadly at the lowest level possible. If it were any lower it would be a swamp!
There has been very little in the way of change in the fire risk assessment landscape as far as I am aware, in fact there appears to be a continued lowering of standards; many of the really good guys are now refusing to compete on price as the quotes are so low, they are losing out to cowboys on price as that is the only criteria specified. In a competitive and unregulated market the cowboy can thrive and survive.
It isn?t too late in my opinion but there has to be a change in tack.
-
To be fair Golden my choice of the word expelled is a little harsh as is your phrase being thrown out . To put the record straight the FIA has clear membership criteria intended to improve the professionalism of the british fire industry, and in any sector of the industry where a choice of 2 UKAS accredited TPC schemes exist then only companies that have or are working towards certification are accepted as members. Until this last year schemes for fire risk assessment companies have not been in place so the FIA professional standards working group was set up and a scheme, which later became BAFE SP205 was born. I was a member of that group of 4 that drafted SP205. Then FRACS and IFC also offered schemes and therefore, from next renewal, any FIA member company who has not applied for TPC will not be invited to renew their membership. Its not a surprise, its always been the clear objective and one that I would support had TPC taken off as I had hoped and expected. Sadly it has not taken off, there is no market imperative to join a scheme and a number of aspects of the implementation of TPC by the CBs have left me dissapointed and disillusioned.
-
I agree totally with Kelsall but am not convinced that SP205 is hitting the problem where it matters- the person doing the assessment. I have recently come across two examples that have left me very concerned. And if the assessor has not recognised the presence of smoke ventilation in a fire engineered building with an atrium let alone the fact that the control panels in the plant room were open, disconnected and the batteries missing then how will the person authorised to sign it off pick up on it?
-
Kurnal my apologies for going for dramatic effect - I have previously seen the FIA changes. I also knew that you were on the committees there as I did look into the association and to be honest membership of the FIA is another expense that I don't feel necessary; my opinion of trade bodies is poor in general. I'm not really sure of what the complete answer is but for my money I believe every assessor should have to have a pertinent qualification at a suitable level to start as a risk assessor; as you point out with your example such issues cannot be found by an inexperienced assessor nor taught on a few days/one week course.
Kelsall WRT to the marginalisation and the point of certification I think the answer to your point is being given by the industry - unfortunately in my experience the assessment process is not particularly difficult - the level is already quite low.
-
The whole TPC frustrates me as well but from the perspective that I can't believe we are debating this in our industry!?
Firstly SP205, FRACS etc was very poorly advertised in my view, BAFE made some noises but the FA's could have done more and should be pointing RP's towards companies/individuals that have TPC.
Golden, I have read your comments re SP205 several times and I feel you paint a very distorted view. We went through the same process and had to choose a range of differing buildings over 2 days of auditing. Yes there is no exam with SP205 like FRACS or the IFE. But the competencies of the assessors are scrutinised as are the validators that sign off the FRAs. You can have the head knowledge to pass an exam, but some assessors can't put this is to a risk based FRA document.
SP205 also looks at the company/individual business operation, complaints, document control, FRA template, CPD records, audit process and access to current fire safety BS's and guidance.
Also the SP205 process is based on nationally recognised competency criteria for fire risk assessors, such as that
of the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors, which is produced by the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council.
For me if there is a bench mark in our industry then we should be aiming for it, if we don't support TPC then who will? It doesn't mean there will be no bad assessors I have seen good and bad examples from some TPC individuals. What it does do is give the RP a fighting chance of getting a suitable and sufficient FRA.
What gets my goat is some ex fire officer with MIFireE, IFPO etc after his name that has ridden a fire engine for 30 years setting himself up as a fire safety consultant charging ?150 for FRAs. The RP just ends up paying twice for a S&S FRA.
-
Good points well expressed William. You have quite a number of associate assessors - were they all audited or just a percentage ?
-
William - I don't mean to paint a distorted picture but to give some balance to the debate using my own experience of the system and I am only saying it as it was for me; at times its been painful to point this out but I feel it has to be said. I don't believe this is airing the dirty laundry as the system obviously needs fixing - there is no point in just going down the route of marginalising those assessors who don't have SP 205 as that reminds me of the emperor's new clothes and RPs will be no better off than before. I've always stated the reasons why that its unsuitable for me as a small business. As a profession we are one of the youngest having only been around for 15 years or so and it is important to get this right and I don't feel that this system is badly broken but it needs a tweak or two and as the enforcers aren't prepared to do much then it will have to be up to the profession to fix itself.
The business operation and process aspects were very beneficial to me but I thought the technical examination was poor. I also agree that people who pass an exam may be unable to carry out a risk based assessment but there is an element of a competency standard in passing the exam that the RP can point towards as due diligence in selecting an assessor - or could if this was included in the list.
Yes the ex-30 year guys with no FS experience get my goat too but there are also examples of people with surveying, fire extinguisher/alarm technicians, 1 day FRA courses, NEBOSH and the like setting themselves up so its not only ex fire brigade who haven't a clue. I cannot believe on the LinkedIn FS forums that some people are giving advice where the poster is clearly way out of their depth. At one of the CPD sessions I attended last year a senior person in building control circles told us (with a straight face) that they were going to give up assessing building works and take on FRAs as it was easier!!
-
Good points well expressed William. You have quite a number of associate assessors - were they all audited or just a percentage ?
Hi Kurnal, the first year 2 assessors had an on site "witnessed audit" and 2 had a desk top audit, they assessed a selection of their FRAs. They also did an audit of my audit on the 2 witnessed site visits. 6 months later we had another surveillance visit as per the BAFE scheme and I had 2 more assessors go through a site witness audit.
12 months after that we had the 2nd visit and again 2 more went through the same process. They are with you for the full day and you get charged a day rate, so as long as the premises are close together it can work to your advantage.
When we have taken new assessors on they must have an on site audit by me (SP 205 validator) of their first FRA for us or one of my other validators. Each assessor must have a site audit at least once in every 12 month period, this is checked when NSI audit. My intention over time is to get all assessors to be validators as they can then apply and go on the NAFRAR. I think we have 2/3 on there at the moment.
Once you are a validator under the scheme you can sign off your own FRA i.e. sign the BAFE Cert however each of ours is audited by me or a different validator before going out to the client.
In my view its a great scheme, it works for us and it's what we should be doing anyway in providing a professional service we are getting paid good money for.
-
Thanks William. I wonder how the SP205 system could work for the really big companies that have a large network of assessors with national coverage? Like for example the FPA or some of the big name nationals, almost all of whom work with remote associates on an occasional basis rather than employing people on PAYE.
-
Good point, not sure really it could work though but I know one of the big nationals wasn't going for any TPC.
-
They would if they missed out on more contracts as a result of not having it.
What is the tipping point for schemes to work? Financial gain or financial loss!
Out of 10 enquiries how many times would you need to be asked for certification before you would think about getting it?
3 out of 10 as a guess
How many times are you asked for it now?
-
I have never yet been asked. I often tell clients about the scheme but none has so far made it a requirement, those who have used us in the past say they are well aware of our cometence. As we do no marketing new clients come to us through recommendations of others.
-
The tipping point is also likely to be the size of the contract. Single jobs would require a fair number before it is viable whereas a ?400,000 contract for a number of sites would make it worthwhile.
The basic argument would be will gaining TPC and the running costs of it, be out weighed by the profits from the work obtained? If an individual or company can only see that it will cost money for no advantage, why do it?
The real question is what's in it for me? This covers both the providers and the clients.
-
To make a real difference things needed to be done differently at the time but I was a lone voice in a big room.
I am reminded of the proud parents who went to watch the passing out parade for their wee Jimmy at Sandhurst. So dad says to mum " It makes you proud to watch wee Jimmy because the whole of the regiment is out of step except him".
But hey, I am fully prepared to accept the whole of the FIA fire risk assessment council, the IFE, IFPO IFSM and around 30 other stakeholders were all out of step except Kelsall. How did we ever miss the opportunity to listen to him. All 30 odd stakeholders in the room must have gone deaf or mad momentarily.
Wullie, glad you find TPC to BAFE SP 205 works so well for you. It certainly works well for us. For those who don't want it , like Silver, it is a free country and a free market. For those who don't want to support the aims and objectives of a trade association, by honouring an agreement to which they signed up, that is up to them. No biggie. There are very reputable one man bands certificated for extinguisher maintenance, under SP 101, necessitating full ISO 9001. There are one man bands who don't bother. Caveat emptor.
-
Has what the OLD GUARD did made a difference? No!
Actually Yes!
They have succeeded in reducing massively the number of fire risk assessment companies in the FIA, it is down to around 13 now, my memory isn't good but I think they had around the 45 mark before certification. RESULT! Voting with their feet is a remarkable achievement.
They will have reduced the number of IFSM registered assessors by around 100 very shortly. RESULT! By committing to the change and trying to support third party certification the IFSM made a very positive move. But quite rightly their registered assessors looked sideways at the IFE and IFPO and said why aren't they doing the same? The way it was set up by Colin and his crew was to protect the existing IFE register. (This is my opinion from the observations at the time and from conversations with an IFE member) It would have been financial suicide for that register to go. Colin has SP 205 why does he need to be on the IFE register and pay out twice for the same thing? Granted he can afford it but why? What purpose does it achieve? In the spirit of third party certification he has two different levels of certification; both supposedly covering the same thing?
The result is we now have several different levels of certification UKAS accredited company certification which is supposed to be the best assurance, we have individual UKAS accredited certification and non-accredited certification with the professional bodies, we have those on the OSHCR register doing fire risk assessments as self-certified professionals and then the vast majority of other fire risk assessors with nothing at all. RESULT! What a brilliant way to address the problem of poor fire risk assessors; by very effectively just adding in another layer to the mix they have created a marketing tool for companies like Colins' without really addressing the issues in the industry.
It works well for Colin because he helped write it so it would work for Colin. I am alright jack and it's a free market so stop your bleating seems to sum up his last post.
As chair of NAN (National Association of Narcissists) he will never admit he is wrong, but he is. Perhaps protecting the RP was never the intent of this process perhaps it was something else entirely! Regardless of what the majority came up with it hasn't worked; I believed at the time there was a different approach that would have worked I still believe it would work now. If you want to make a difference you have to do something different! Perhaps I will take some advice from Socrates
The secret of change is to focus your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new.
-
The ASFP introduced a requirement for members to be TPC'd many years ago.
Lots of members left, some joined. now they are even bigger than before they started.
It takes a concerted effort from lots of people and a fair bit of time to turn an industry around.
-
Poor poor Kelsall, what a bitter twisted CB salesman he has become. I feel so sorry for him. As usual, however, you are talking garbage in your normal vitriolic way, so lets count all the errors in the posting. I will number them beginning Error 1 and so on so you can follow.
E1. The number of FIA members listed for fire risk assessment is to be 18 not 13. No doubt Kurnal and others can speak for themselves as to why they don't want to support TPC any more. However, we have seen all this before with requirements for TPC. The FIA have the courage of their convictions. We went through all this with SP 203 which is now very successful as BAFE SP 205 will be.
E2. Why are IFSM reducing their number of fire risk assessors by 100. What is the point you are making.
E3. Why would IFE and IFPO reduce the number of registered assessors by 100? IFPO don't even have 100, bless them but they are a nice bunch of people who have been constantly raising the bar of their scrutiny. More power to their elbow.
E4. How on earth can it be said that TPC is there to protect the IFE register? And with regard to my part in the process, at no stage did I represent the IFE in the room in which no one would listen to you. It was represented by 2 others, including the Chief Exec, and another chap who was doing fire risk surveys when you were in nappies.
E5. It would not be financial suicide for the IFE register to go as it makes no money for the ife , SO THIS IS MORE TOTAL RUBBISH YOU ARE SPOUTING.
E6. It is actually none of your business why we choose to support the IFE Register and BAFE SP 205, but as it happens we are contractually bound by a large client to have both so we could not cease either. We would anyway because both are worth supporting. And more and more we find new business that has come from person registration by IFE and company certification by NSI, so it pays for itself.
E7.IFE registration and BAFE registration do not cover the same thing. Even you should know the difference between personnel certification/registration and company certification. It is for one thing QMS.The IFE support company certification, but see a benefit to the public in person certification.
E8. Having been in the business for 5 minutes and believing you know everything about it and the other 35 organisations have all got it wrong, you would not be aware that the IFE register was the brainchild of |a long gone professional development officer of the IFE, who predicted that fire risk assessors would come out of the woodwork and hoodwink the public so proposed the register as a way of attempting to pre-empt it somewhat, which is why you don't even need to be an IFE member to go on the register.
Sorry to undermine your misinformed rant with the facts, which I know should never get in the way of the spin of a salesman, with limited experience and technical knowledge.
-
My first error was probably to call you a narcissist it has obviously wound you up so much you have posted an error report full of errors.
Your error number 1
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/our-members/fire-risk-assessors/fire-risk-assessors-register.cfm
Count them - 15 you either can't count or you are assuming I am psychic and know of those waiting to be added. Actually you counted the 2 extra BB7 offices.
Your error number 2
You don't read and you certainly don't comprehend and that combined with your inability to count means that errors 1, 2. 3. 4, 6, 7 and 8 you have listed are not errors at all: actually some of them are just statements by you. Errors on the errors!
Item 5 the word suicide may have been a bit strong so granted that may have been an error but when you look at annual subscriptions alone for the register it adds up to a significant amount of regular income with no out goings. I haven't done the sums on that recently but I can if needed. I was also paraphrasing an IFE member who was privy to conversations at the time about the financial impact of losing that register. I appreciate you will say that person was a liar or misinformed but he was a "technical person with many years of experience" so by your own criteria he must have been correct.
Regardless of what you say Colin the introduction of UKAS accredited certification has not had any impact on the poor fire risk assessor and RPs are still paying for poor assessments; wasting their money and potentially putting the building occupants at risk and the RP at risk of prosecution. Granted there are good ones out there without certification but they are not easily identifiable.
It may have been a nice little earner for CS TODD but surely you didn't need it to confirm you are good at what you do? Isn't it just a rubber stamp for those who have it at the moment i.e. all the 'good' providers? It certainly is a commercial tool the way you describe it, but in reality many of those small firms even with certification couldn't get through procurement for the big work as they don't meet the other criteria.
Sorry Colin but in my opinion you are wrong, get over it! It happens, no biggie!
-
I wasn't going to post any more on this thread but I'd like to put the record straight. I do support the raising of standards in the fire industry and TPC - but SP205 is not for me/my company and I believe it could be tweaked to make it more acceptable for the one man bands/smaller companies.
I really don't want to become a member of all of the institutes/associations so not being on their list doesn't really bother me too much and I'm not really a fan of just being on a list and not having anything to do with the organisation.
-
In accordance with your instructions, oh great salesman in the North, I have counted. I make it 17 including your very good friend (and mine) Benjamin Bradford and his various offices. I see he has one in Warrington. Maybe they could give you a job if you ever want to leave Warrington Domestic Appliances, now that the bottom has dropped out of the TV market; another firm will be added soon.
Many others are in the process of seeking certification in accordance with their agreement with FIA and will appear in the list as soon as they receive it. The number who will ultimately end up as not being FIA members as a result of not going for TPC is actually quite small.
Feel free to add up the income of the IFE; your lack of success in selling other schemes means that working out the income of those schemes wont take up much of your time. You do not address any of the other childish and vitriolic rubbish you were spouting, such as why would IFPO lose 100 registered fire risk assessors when they don't have 100 at the moment, and how does IFSM losing assessors from their register make the world a better place. And why would IFPO, who are doing a good job in raising the bar, abandon their register and throw in their lot with someone else.
Dear dear dear. As you probably wrote in your long abandoned teaching days, must try harder. It always amuses me that you attribute all the alleged problems to me personally, as though I run the world of certification and registration by your (much more successful) competitors, who don't even need salesmen to run successful schemes . It is of course right that you hold me in high regard, but sometimes you attribute developments to me that are not within my gift. However, the publicity you give to BAFE, me, CS Todd and Associates is always much appreciated. You do as much for us as you do for your employer, and its all free.
Many thanks again.
-
I really do get to you don't I :-*
I give up you are correct it is all a huge success; it has really addressed the issue of poor assessors and changed the whole sector. I know nothing I am just a poor salesman who thinks you are the evil narcissistic enemy of everything. I am not worthy to even comment on the subject. I am childish vitriolic and wrong. I appreciate that anyone who has a different opinion to you is also wrong and they will be corrected by you with added put downs and digs but that they should accept it as they deserve it.
Once again an apology to all on the forum what was a reasonable debate has gone downhill rapidly I take full responsibility for having a different opinion than Colin?. how very dare I.
Just one question does anyone else think that Colin deflects, detracts, discredits, and disrespects a bit too much for there to be nothing in what I say? ;D
Sorry for the last jibe there Colin plese please don't have a go again I am sorry :'(
-
Well done, Kel, you have got it at last. No need to apologise. I forgive you for you know not what you do.
-
Will TPC create a generation of fire risk assessors who will hug the codes and not be able to recommend sensible pragmatic solutions for fear of their TPC? I recently queried an extinguisher supplier as to why they had sold a client two 6 litre foam extinguishers and fixed them side by side in a single small store room measuring 4m x 3m that comprised the entire first floor in a sports centre. Here is their response received today-
"Unfortunately as we work to the current BS 5306-8 and it is part of the third party certification process for all extinguisher engineers , they will always look to comply to the standard. I agree that the 2012 amendment has some spurious additions , that in some circumstances make no sense."
Will TPC push the fire risk assessment sector down the same road effectively taking away skill, experience and judgement?
-
It was unfortunate that BS 5306-8 introduced the rec for a minimum of 2 extinguishers on every floor however small it might be, rather than the previous single extinguisher. I can see that a company might receive a n/c for not conforming. However, fire risk assessors should be less prescriptive. Moreover, while prescription sometimes results in people doing silly things by recommending measures that are not necessary, it rarely leaves buildings unsafe, which is the current major worry. This is where registration and TPC come in Big Al. The IFE registration scheme (beware all imitations) , in sampling of FRAs, considers whether people go over the top, as well as considering whether they are competent to ensure adequate fire safety.
-
There is no significant skill required to be a fire risk assessor. There is no minimum qualification. It is open to just about anyone who might see a buck in it. There is however, great skill, experience and knowledge required to be a good fire risk assessor. Therein lies the problem. Normally TPA bodies, charitable or otherwise will have a tick box entry qualification. All that happens is that some imperative drives the need to be accredited and eventually everyone, good and just about towing the line gain entry. Any bad ones found out are given ten years to put their house in order. That is what has happened in the electrical contracting industry. Membership of NICEIC meant that clear blue water separated good contractors from bad. Now however, if you are a farmer with a phases tester and you have a spare ? 400 well, welcome to the club!