Commission dilema's

[Graeme]

Since the pinch has really started to bite,more and more electrical contractors are now insisting on doing the installation works. Jobs from scratch are increasingly turning into supply and commissioning.

As you would expect-the install is thrown in and we find ourselves having to commission a job which you do not want to look too closely at but faced with the no win situation of trying to keep them happy as we are sub contracted to them.

If you slate the job then it gets nasty and no one at the momement can afford to loose money.

In an ideal world that the installer accepts all responsibilty for the installation and issues a certificate to say so. ( pigs-fly etc)
and it should really just be a test of system,check to the drawings etc without lifting ceiling tiles etc to look at the installation for the commission engineer.


I know the Commission certificate states  Installation work is, as far as can reasonably be ascertained, of an acceptable standard.

How far is reasonably ?

I would like to see alot more onus put upon the installers without the commissioning engineer having to take the flak.

[Wiz]

Graeme, the way I look at it is that the commissioning engineer's responsibility is mostly clearly defined by the recommendations in BS5839-1. These include absolving him from worrying too much about if the system design is correct (designers responsibility) and if the installation is correct (installers responsibility). However the commissioning engineer does need to check that everything works and that any installed equipment is in the right location, standby battery capacity and sound levels are sufficient, no obvious causes of unwanted alarms and that there is nothing obviously wrong with the standard of installation. Mr C.T., in his book, suggests only a 'sample' of what is actually visible of the installation needs to be checked for compliance with the code.

In practice, everyone else involved in the project believes they can devolve all responsibility for any aspect of the project onto the commissioning engineer, but this is not so. The system designer, the system installer and the system commissioner each has his own responsibilities and just because the commissioner is the last man in the chain, doesn't mean he is ultimately responsible for everything.

Of course, the problem comes when you do find anything wrong. Firstly you get the denial of non-compliance with BS and then after you prove it (why do we have to give free training to others when having to do this?), you get the sulking and the threats that they 'will never use you again'!


A commissioning engineer leads a lonely life. Much like a traffic warden (without the benefit of a uniform and the daily exercise!)

[Graeme]

Thanks Wiz
I'm all for what you mention regards a very general installation inspection. But then you go on an FIA course (unit 6 advanced commissioning) I think it was, and they tell you that you need to check all of the installation, which I totally disagree with.
If that's the case we may as well do away with design and installation certificates as it all falls on the commissioning guy in their eyes.

The ideal world in the standards from BSI, NSI, BAFE, FIA etc is unfortunately a fairy tale as it never happens the way they intend.
Most jobs only look for the commissioning certificate.

Typical example of a commissioning job.
You turn up and find the panel in a mess with loads of faults.
You cannot find the faults as there are no cable routes recorded.
You eventually get the system ready to commission. (After having to get the Installer to agree to cover your extra work costs involved-which he thought was all part of the price)
You find numerous non compliances in the installation.
Half the detectors are already contaminated with dust.
You are not bestowed with the design and install certificates.
You never get a certificate for the 240v supply.
You list all non compliances to design –some Consultant then hits the roof and tells you that you are talking sh1t.
The Company you did the Commission for get the hump as the retaining fee is withheld until the client gets a “blank” commission certificate. (I.e. no faults listed etc)
The list is huge as the install is usually crap. Typical of most of the electrical contracted jobs I have ever worked on.
You get totally hassled for the Commission certificate. (Nice complementary one)
The client never insists that the Designer or Installer is certified to do so.
Why is the intruder alarm world far better policed than fire? Is it because the big installers are not interested in intruder as there more money in fire???
An the ones who bother get hammered in charges to call themselves Accredited which in reality does not stop the cowboys or get more work through it. The accredited ones continue to lose jobs to the ones who are not spending hours in an office to do the work to keep the Accreditation Company happy.
Can you tell I’m fed up with the real world Fire industry?

[Wiz]

Graeme, I can tell you that I have gone throuch the scenario you describe so many times.

If the FIA course believes that you should check all the installation, then apart from this being very difficult, it is also likely to be very expensive and also includes more than the BS recommends.

I'm all for raising standards, but people such as the FIA should try to understand how the real world of fire alarm systems actually operates.

I've never been impressed by third-party acredition organisations and similar. Whilst they purport to be raising standards, they invariably set unrealistic targets and add extra costs to the whole project. Are these extra costs worthwhile when there are other non-accredited service suppliers who don't need to add all the costs and can win more jobs. And as we all know, even accredited companies don't do everything right, every time anyway.

My view is that everyone would be better without BSI, NSI, BAFE, FIA etc. etc. If anyone is prepared to state that an installation complies to BS then surely this should be enough.

None of this solves the problem of a system that doesn't comply, however. No matter how you approach it, all your client wants is a certificate stating how marvellous everything is. There is no way around this, but you can soften the blow by letting everyone know in advance exactly how stringent your checks will be.

[Graeme]

Just spend the last few days sorting out faults on a supply and commission job (supposedly)..

Usual story that everyone is screaming for the commissioning certificate ver everything else to get site handed over.

Job not finished. Rooms not carpeted and some have no doors. Still dusty. Loads of work going on.

dB(A) tests recordings will be a waste of time. Can't do full panel tests as earth fault on a loop and not all devices installed. etc etc.

Can the tick box for "installation up to a reasonable standard" be replaced with something more specific like

"installtion work only inspected to confirm as fitted to design and control panel is wired up correctly with correct means of 240v isolation"?

or can i leave the tick box blank?

beacuse  when you so no then it upsets the installer who pays the bills but made the mess in the first instance. No win situation

[Wiz]

As I intimated before, get the installing contractor to agree in writing, in advance;

1) The condition the system and the site has to be in before you will begin commissioning the fire alarm system.

2) That you will be carrying out the commissioning work as per the recommendations of BS5839-1 2002 + A2 2008 and that the contractor should make sure he understands these recommendations. It would not hurt to issue him a list of those most common variations to BS found on most installations at the time you quote him for commissioning.

Also, work with the installer from the beginning with the aim of ending up with a lovely BS compliant system; Offer him (at extra costs)

    i) A pre-start discussion with his installation guys about what they should be looking to achieve.
    ii) A pre-second-fix site visit to identify potential non-compliance issues.
    iii) A pre-commissioning system fault identification visit to allow faults to be rectified before actual commissioning.

I know that most installers won't want to pay these extra costs, but some might realise that by doing so, their overall project costs will be cheaper in the long run. And those who won't pay, and find that their system is full of variations at commissioning, will have no-one to blame but themselves (you'd have tried everything possible to assist them in avoiding problems).



  

[Graeme]

as with this one Wiz

i did

a) give full details of terms of supply and commission and what state the system should be left in

b) Pre start meeting with install guys to advise and guide. Stressing the importance of recording acurate cables routes ( as will assist them later on) and testing of cables before installing devices.

c) mid site visit

d) The commissioning visit turned out to be the pre-commission visit as i had been assured all was up and running and fault free. I did not start commissioning that day.

Earth faults and open circuits...easily found..if they had bothered to take me seriously regards recording cable routes as they installed them.

Double address faults...easily found if they had addressed the devices as wired on loop..but  the cables routes were guessed at the end.

Insulation and continuity tests....assured were done but obviously not. Never saw any results recorded when asked for.

This is very much the normal for supply and commission jobs to sparks unfortunately. seen it a hundered times .