Who carries the can?

[kodecheck]

Some advice please.

When Building Control as the AHJ determines that a sprinkler system must be installed in a new building for the purposes of 'life safety', who subsequently determines whether the Fire Risk Assessment, Design, Installation, and Commissioning of the system are all carried out in Compliance with the Written Code? And who polices this activity?

[kurnal]

Its a big problem. And in my opinion is one of the weaknesses of our industry despite CDM and LPC and all the other safeguards that should be in place..
Many sprinkler companies are authorised by the LPC to design install and self certificate their own work. The LPC certificate is accepted as evidence of compliance by the BCO.
This applies to all their staff irrespective of taining and experience. On the other hand there are many hugely experienced competent installers who are not authorised and have to bring in another contractor to issue the certification. Invariably systems do not conform to all the life safety recommendations of ADB- most commonly in terms of dual valves and zoning- these decisions are made by the installing contractor and often without explanation and overlooked by the building inspector. The design and categorisation of goods stored etc is often made by the client and taken as read by the contractor without the fire risk assessment based view of how the buiilding will actually be used. The installations tend to be almost treated as an off the shelf package- eg if you do a job in the Northwest there appears to be a habit by some of the big contractors of installing 141 degree heads at ceiling level in warehouses irrespective of other factors "because thats how they always do it".
For engineered solutions there is sometimes  little or no  co-ordination and integration of systems eg sprinklers, ventilation, each contractor looking at their own area of responsibility rather than the whole.


But all this pales into insignificance when you follow up how the fire loading  in buildings is managed post occupation. Or perhaps I am too much of a code hugger when it comes to sprinklers and should take the more relaxed US attitude?

[kodecheck]

As I understand things, if the system is installed for asset protection the AHJ is the Insurance underwriter, who would insist on an LPC approved installer, but would still reserve the right to conduct their own inspections, are you saying that when it is a Life Safety installation, there is no requirement for any independent assessment - its like insisting on a 70mph speed limit, and not using any patrol cars or cameras to ensure that the majority conform - still its only life safety!!!!

[kurnal]

Not saying there is no need for an independent assessment- clearly there is but I find that that its  more like a lottery depending on the individual qualities / standards/ competence/ diligence of the enforcement department- local authority, fire brigade or Approved Inspector. They will and do accept installation certs as evidence without further verification.

[wee brian]

The "responsibility" is with the responsible person.  What the authorities do to check that things are done properly is irrelevant.

The RP always carries the can in the end.

[kodecheck]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, there is no requirement for the RP to know anything about anything to be assigned the responsibility, that being the case, how does anyone know if what they have actually got for a life safety installation is actually fit for purpose? Surely a life safety installation is about preventing the loss of life, its a bit late to discover that it doesn't quite measure up after a fatality has occured?

[kurnal]

Yes you are right kodecheck but ignorance is no defense in law.  Its a neat stitch up that prevents government departments from being held ultimately accountable.
Probably my cynical view showing through but is rather like the removal of the old fire brigade attendance standards from the statute book - it means that central government cannot be held responsible for any loss of life - because its now the responsibility of the local authority under the IRMP. And here we have it again- the people ultimately responsible are the elected members who need to know nothing about their responsibilities in order to do the job...... hey sorry for drifting off on one.

[wee brian]

If you are responsible for something then you should take steps to find out about the stuff that you need to know.

[Burning Issue]

Who Carries The Can


It would appear that the “responsible” person is being totally set up and holds the can for fire safety across the board or have 1 got wrong – example.

A fire sprinkler specialist designer actually implements a written code standard and certificates that what he has designed and installed meets the code standard for a specific risk that has either been described in the code or has been given to him in writing that emanated from the AHJ – any non compliances that may occur during the installation will be brought to the attention of the AHJ to agree that such non compliance (s) are minor and will not effect the efficacy of the fire sprinkler system his  (the specialist) certificate of compliance should spell it all out. If it tells not true surely the responsible person cannot be held liable.

A second scenario is a “fire engineering solution” this is a system with no written code, therefore how on earth can the liability be downloaded to another body who does not know what you mean by “a fire engineering solution”.

This is not carrying the can its passing the buck knowing full well that whoever it is does not know what his getting involved in.

From: Burning Issue

[wee brian]

Totally set up!!!!!

Whats expected of the RP is that they get somebody who knows what they are doing to install the system and to maintain it.

If they have excercised due dilligence in meeting their duties then they will be OK and the Order does allow for the prosecution of third parties where they are at fault.

This is no different from any of the other duties for health and safety that apply all employers.

[Dragonmaster]

Can we then assume from Burning Issue's post that thr RP can say 'I didn't know anything about it - i'm not a fire engineer'?

Surely if you are responsible, that responsibility includes finding out about things that affect safety, and employing a competent person to explain what it means, so anything you do does not compromise the design criteria. What's the point in having an OH3 system and using the building for an HHS use?

[Mike Buckley]

Yes the RP can, provided advice from a competent person has been followed.

[Burning Issue]

Reply to wee brian & Dragon master......


Quite right! – what you are saying is the RP can download his responsibility to a service engineer. In the first place unless the RP specifically request that the service engineer surveys his system to confirm compliance and this would apply to new and all the existing systems. When the protection is property there is an insurer and there are procedures. The problem is the life safety system, which may not be in compliance and this could be for any of the disciplines such as risk assessments, design, installation, servicing and maintenance where do we find such a person who has all this training? And when you do is prepared to accept responsibility?

[Dragonmaster]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i would assume a 'due dilligence' argument could be made if the RP could produce certificates from a 'competent' maintenance engineer, irrespective of whether the system(s) comply or not to life safety standard. This of course leads to the argument of defining and proving competency.

[wee brian]

Its clearly a defense. The courts will decide if the RP has put enough effort in. This will probably vary with who the RP is.

A big firm with lots of resources will be expected to do more than a small businessman.