Special Service

[Graeme]

With regards to taking over an existing system under contract to the original installers.

All paper work in place for design,install and commission certificates so is it necessary then to carry out a in depth service with regards to checking the installation for workmanship and variations etc or can you go on the basis of going forward with a routine service as the previous company has put their signature to it saying all is well?

Of course checking all the devices operate as per any other service but also as above with sound levels?


Thanks

[Allen Higginson]

Morning Guv,the following are seen as reportable major non-compliances and should be reported to the client but after that it's up to them what you do with your recommendations (file under "B" being the usual response!)

"1) an inadequate number of call points to comply with the recommendations of 20.2;
2) inadequate provision of fire detection to comply with the recommendations of this standard for the
Category of system that the system was designed to meet;
3) sound pressure levels that fail to comply with the recommendations of 16.2;
4) standby power supplies that fail to comply with the recommendations of 25.4. The absence of any standby power supply should be highlighted to the responsible person, as systems that incorporate no standby supply breach the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 [1];
5) cabling with fire resistance that fails to comply with the recommendations of 26.2c);
6) monitoring of circuits that fail to comply with the recommendations of 12.2.1;
7) standards of electrical safety such that the recommendations of Clause 29 are not satisfied;
exposure to, or experience of, false alarms, such as to preclude compliance with Section 3;
9) changes in the use, layout and construction of the protected premises that may impact on the
effectiveness of the system.
Serious shortcomings in cable support that could result in collapse of a significant length of cable in the event of fire might also be regarded as a major non-compliance."
To fully take the above on board you would need all documentation to be in place but this may not be the case (existing documentation as per clause 40 should be studied "where availabe")

[Graeme]

Morning Sir

Thank you for that but as mentioned all the paper work is in place from installer and commissioner to say that you have listed is all ok,so does it all need to be done again?

Is the company who signed it all not still liable?  I would not question the service if taking over an old system or system with no documentation but this site is only 4 years old .

obvious exception would be to do a inspection of site to make sure no structural chamges have taken place since it was installed and check log book for false alarms etc.

[Allen Higginson]

I suppose any serious variations to the category of the system would be obvious and you could highlight to the customer - up to them to go back and "ask" the original installer put it right.
In fact (light goes on in head!) we done a takeover and one of the sites had a couple of areas with no detection and exits with no MCP's,despite being down as an L!.They took our report back to the original installer who told them to pass the bill on to them to put it right.
Again,it's up to you to highlight it but after that......

[Graeme]

like you say anything really obvious that does not involve a fine tooth comb i would bring to attention.

[Wiz]

Graeme, my opinion is that if you are awarded a service contract on a system that was designed/installed/commissioned by others, then you should carry out an in-depth inspection of the system as the very earliest opportunity.

If you don't do this, any 'problem' with the design or installation that you may find at a later date always elicits the complaint 'why didn't you notice this sooner?' from the customer. You would be in a no win situation even though the problem wasn't really your responsibility.

How the cost for this in-depth inspection is covered is the main problem.

[Graeme]

That's the big stumbling block Wiz.

Who pays for the special service. In competitive tendering i bet that all concerned will unlikely be adding a days labour onto their quote to cover it and the customer wont entertain it as they have all the paper work they need to say that their system is complaint and the buck stops with the guy who signed it.

Why not put a small note into the contract that anything that is found during a routine service that is not to BS will be flagged up for their attention even though they have the certificates to say that they do not have any variations etc?

or a recommendation with the tender that a special service is strongly recommended and could then be agreed on if tender won. Then if the customer does not want one or pay for one then at least he has been made aware that it should really be done.

If it was me and i have just forked out thousands on a radio system that i did not want in the first place,got all the paper work to keep me clear then i would not be too happy if someone wanted more money from me a couple of years later to check it all again to make sure the original install was done right.

what then would the situation be if this system was verified by a third party? would a special service still be needed? as in theory thats what i would be doing this time round is verifying the original. (if you see what i mean?)

[Wiz]

Yes Graeme, I am 100% with you regarding all the problems this issue raises.

Following the sort of lines you are proposing, I would suggest that a service contract fully explains what the customer is getting for their money. But this explanation should also include details of what they are not getting for their money i.e. a full inspection of the system and the premises for complete compliance with BS.

If the customer fully understands that the service engineer is just testing what has been installed, rather than looking for something that might not have been installed, or checking if what has been installed was installed incorrectly, then there should be no confusion !!!!