Valid AFD Commisionning Certificate?

[messy]

What information should be recorded on a AFD Commisionning Certificate?

I recently come across one that mentioned various parts of BS5839 and certainly looked the part, but upon inspection the actual system fitted did not cover the alternative route (Hotel) so could not be considered an L2 system.

Should the 'L' or 'P' category be specified on the certificate? and if it's missing, is the cert valid?

As a result of this (and other issues) an Enforcement Notice was issued which seems a little harsh, as the Resp person was acting in god faith when he accepted the Commisionning Certificate, but appears to have been let down by the AFD engineers

[Graeme]

There is a little section on the BS example sheet that  has

Extent of system covered by this certificate

I normally put the Category and where it covers in there.  see BS5839-1 page 126

[Chris Houston]

I must admit, I'm not familiar with this part of BS 5839, but surely we need to know more than just the Cateogry, especially for a L2, P2 or L5 system where it would not be obvious where to expect detectors without knowing more.  Further, I would suggest the the method of signalling should be mentioned for a P system.

[David Rooney]

The commissioning certificate on its own is pretty useless, and technically doesn't meet BS with regard to the proper certification of a new FDA system.

You should have certificates for the design, installation, commissioning and customer acceptance - you may also have a verification certificate.

All these certificates together will detail the full extent of the system.

[Graeme]

i have yet to experience that Dave.

[Wiz]

In the Commentary of Section 5 of BS 5839 Part 1 2002 it states that It is not, in general, the responsibility of the commissioning engineer to verify compliance of the design, or of the installation........In general, the responsibility of the commissioning engineer is to verify that the system operates correctly in the manner designed and that the installation and workmanship is generally of an adequate standard
It is therefore implied that it can be assumed by the commissioning engineer that the design of any category should be correct and it is totally the responsibility of the designer to achieve the category rating.
However elements of the recommended commissioning inspection  covers items such as correct siting and spacing. therefore this might be understood to mean that the commissioning engineer would not look for areas without equipment that should have it, but rather wherever it is located, that it is located correctly
However, clause 39.2.c.9) recommends that identification of changes in layout since design has not compromised things and clause 39.2.c.24) recommends identification of 'obvious shortcomings' in design.
So, for all intents and purposes, despite the wording of the Commentary it could be argued that the commissioning engineer does have to check for compliance with a category rating!!!
The model commissioning certificate in BS does not ask for the system category to be detailed whereas it is specifically mentioned in the design certiifcate. Therefore I feel that all of the above indicates that it is not the commissioning engineer's responsibility to check for category compliance but can, if he notices them, mention any obvious short-comings!
I feel that customers do not understand the scope and extent of a 'proper' commissioning inspection and they often feel that the price for it is too high. For my part, I offer both a  system commissioning service (check everything works as it should) service and a seperate system compliance (check that it is designed and installed to the stated category) service at seperate costs. With this method the customer understands what he is getting for his money.
 The BS certificate is only a 'model' and it could even be suggested that it shouldn't be copied 'verbatim' because it is copyright. I manitain that commissioning engineers can (and should?) create  their own certificates that clearly state what is and what is not included in the 'commissioning' service. It also gives the opportunity to create a certificate that details exactly what has been done for the money charged. The problem with this is that some 'authorities' recognise only the BS certificate layout and content. I feel that 'authorities' are wrong to insist on the exact BS layout and by doing so are forcing people to breach copyright by doing so.

[jokar]

So when we have a little walk around and the design, installation and commissioning certificates are available with small variations at both design and installation stages and the covers are still on the AFD heads what has occurred here?

[AnthonyB]

From BS 5839:

'The system design certificate (see Clause 41) should clearly state the Category of system that has been designed and should, except in the case of a Category M, L1 or P1 system, provide a brief description of the areas of the building that are protected by automatic fire detection.'

So unless it's a P1 or L1 system (which should of course have detectors absolutely everywhere, with a few exclusions) or an M (no detectors) the category should be supplemented with locations (e.g. all stairs, roof plant rooms).

Some installers print off a device list (addressable systems of course)for a new system so you can read through the locations of all heads and spot obvious exclusions (doesn't totally replace a good walk around of course)

[Wiz]

So when we have a little walk around and the design, installation and commissioning certificates are available with small variations at both design and installation stages and the covers are still on the AFD heads what has occurred here?

Jokar, I didn't quite understand what you meant about the small variations on the certificates but the bit about the covers can be easily explained.

Commissioning engineers are invariably asked to carry out their work before a project has been completed. At the end of their commissioning, they explain to the site agent that when the floors are finally swept all the dust will get into the automatic detectors and contaminate them resulting in subsequent unwanted alarms. The site agent then replaces all the detector protective covers and promises to remove them before the building is put into use. It is not the commissioning engineer's fault if this does not happen.

99% of new/refurbishment projects I have been involved with expect the fire alarm system to be commissioned at least two weeks before handover to the customer. In these final two weeks there are many on-site activities to be completed that might create excessive dust or create fire-like phenomena that will affect the 'working' fire alarm system.

I always demand that I should only be asked to commission the system after all construction works are completed, all floor coverings are installed and the place has been totally cleaned. This never happens because the builder says he needs to check if the new fire alarm system is going to work, in good time, before project completion, just in case it is found that cables have been damaged/wrongly installed and would need replacing. He says he therefore can't wait until the project is otherwise complete before fire alarm commissioning.

There is also the matter of 'soak-testing' the system. If two weeks, say, have been allocated for this, it is not going to happen after the building is complete. The builder wants to hand thebuilding over to the client the moment he has finished his work. Therefore the two weeks soak-testing happens in the last two crazy weeks before project completion whilst there is still dust, fumes and all sorts of stuff still going on!

[Redone]

I,ve looked at a completion certifcate dated 12/07, for a new build care home today (residents moved in this weekend just gone), written on the certificate - call points only no audibility test.  Is it assumed the volume will be adequate and the detectors are OK?

Incidently no MCP provided in the kitchen or boiler room?

[Graeme]

In the Commentary of Section 5 of BS 5839 Part 1 2002 it states that It is not, in general, the responsibility of the commissioning engineer to verify compliance of the design, or of the installation........In general, the responsibility of the commissioning engineer is to verify that the system operates correctly in the manner designed and that the installation and workmanship is generally of an adequate standard
.

Wiz

This was the exact comment that sprung to my mind when i did an advanced commissioning course last year.

We were told it's the commissioning engineer's job to recheck everything from the design with detector spacings etc to the install i.e check all joint boxes to see if correct conectors are used,check for correct support inside trunking etc.

as the commissioning engineer is last on site then he is accepting all is well.

so what is the point of a designer giving a design certificate and an installtion one from the installer if the commissioning engineer has to go a check that they have done their job right,even though they have just signed a piece of paper stating that they have?

i agree a general check on workmanship and any obvious faults on the design should not be overlooked .

[jokar]

Wiz,

thanks for the information we will all know now who to point the finger at.

[Graeme]

Commissioning engineers are invariably asked to carry out their work before a project has been completed. At the end of their commissioning, they explain to the site agent that when the floors are finally swept all the dust will get into the automatic detectors and contaminate them resulting in subsequent unwanted alarms. The site agent then replaces all the detector protective covers and promises to remove them before the building is put into use. It is not the commissioning engineer's fault if this does not happen.

!

all too common for me too Wiz.

Usually the project is behind and companies are getting hit with penalty clauses,so the fire system has to be commissioned as is.

A recent one that was screaming for the commissioning certificate was no where near ready and was still a building site.

When i mentioned that the site should be sterile,i was laughed at by the fat man with the white hat and told i was being ridiculous and talking nonsense.

I also told them there was no point as all the things i will pick up,only means thay are going to have to complete the system anyway.

I sign it off as commissioned as far as possible,site still un clean,caps realced after testing and to be removed once site is clean and dBa tests carried out in a site with no furnishings and outside normal operation.

and the usual trying to make head or tails of site drawings that have been ripped into 4 pieces,walked over a hundred times and had all the addresses scribbled out a dozen.

[David Rooney]

As has been stated above... it is not the respnsibility of the commissioning engineer to sign a system off as fit for purpose.... its his job to test what has been installed and whether it is installed in accordance wth the design specification.

If the commissioning engineer feels there is a problem - eg... an office is now a kitchen and therefore needs a heat rather than a smoke.... this should be noted and referred to the system designer for them to make the decision to amend the original design and issue instructions..... this is part of the verification process...

And Graeme I agree.... I've never seen all the certificates apparently required.

I've also taken it up with the NSI that their Certificate of Compliance (which means we don't have to issue any other certificates apparently...) cos its as useless as a commissioning certificate on its own...!!

[Tom Sutton]

The commissioning certificate on its own is pretty useless, and technically doesn't meet BS with regard to the proper certification of a new FDA system.

You should have certificates for the design, installation, commissioning and customer acceptance - you may also have a verification certificate.

All these certificates together will detail the full extent of the system.

When an IO conducts an audit in most cases s/he will not be an expert on BS 5839 so they would need to examine all the above certificates. However it appears from other submissions, in most situations they would not be available, so how can it be established the system is satisfactory?