Proposals for compulsory certification of fire risk assessors

[kurnal]

Following Sir Ken Knights report on the Lakenal House fire, and his recommendation for a national fire risk assessors certification scheme, initial discussions are taking place with interested parties.

http://www.fseonline.co.uk/articles.asp?article_id=9460&viewcomment=1

Personally I support the concept of such a scheme but have grave reservations over its implementation.

I understand that further discussions between DCLG and other stakeholders are planned to take place the first week in December.

I have started this thread to try to pull together different views and questions over the proposed scheme and will try and put some kind of summary of your views in front of who ever may attend the meetings- I understand FIA, IFSM, IFE etc will be at the meeting so through canvassing several of these organisations we have a good chance of making our concerns heard.

Heres a few questions for starters.

1- Will UKAS accreditation be mandatory for any scheme?
2- If so will IFE and IFSM registers be upgraded to meet UKAS requirements?
3- If we are left with FRACS will they have the resources do meet the demand?
4- Will the implementation be big bang or phased?
5- How will the big players- (the Nationals and multi nationals companies who sometimes have the poorest standards) cope with the implementation of a scheme?
6- What would be the effect on online risk assessment companies?
7- What will be the cost of the scheme
8- Will there be grandfather rights for existing schemes?
9- Who will enforce the scheme?
10- Will legislation be needed to implement the scheme?
11- How will complaints be dealt with and by whom?
12- Will the scheme inevitably lead to a bespoke examination rather than the current assessment by peers?
13- If so will it degenerate to a HIPS style farce with the absolute lowest denomination of competence as a result?
14-Or will it be more like the Gas Safety system with numerous branches and disciplines - people who can work on sprinklered buildings, hospitals, care homes, big buildings and small buildings, sports grounds etc etc
15 If the government scrutinises the current state of the industry they will observe a very clear lack of diversity, will this then become an over riding issue? And should it?
 

[William 29]

Kurnal,

You beat me to posting a thread on this, I have contacted Warrington directly, the response is below.

My concerns would be the cost, expensive!

The process is definitely the most rigorous I've seen and will certainly sort any cowboys out.

I think grandfather rights are unlikely.

Could an assessor still legally trade without being registered?

Do we know of any one who took part in the pilot scheme last year and was successful/unsuccessful?



FEES
STAGE 1: Application and document review fee £350
(non-refundable)
STAGE 2: Technical interview fee £300
Annual registration and surveillance fee applicable from year 2 £250
Certification is for a 4 year period, candidates wishing to continue on the register
will be re-certificated after successful completion of a surveillance visit and
document review; outlined in the scheme details. A surveillance visit fee will be
applicable and will be advised at the time of recertification.

"We anticipate we will be able to completed certification in 6 weeks maximum, depending on the arrangement of a suitable interview date, which is always the area delays occur. 

 

I have attached the scheme details and below is a summary explanation of the scheme. It is our intent to promote this to the end users/RPs as a way they can ensure due diligence has been seen to be done. FRACS is a nationally accepted competence assessment process and as such the RP can’t be expected to do any more than appoint a ‘certificated’ fire risk assessor to complete their fire risk assessment.

 

The scheme is very new and since the pilot last year we have not accepted any new applicants. We wanted to wait for the UKAS accreditation that will give FRACS national status. Interest has been very good and those on the pilot scheme rated the thoroughness of the assessment highly.

 

The scheme has been written in accordance with BS EN ISO/IEC 17024; 2003, an international standard that covers the general requirements for bodies operating certification of persons.

 

The 17024 standard sets out very specifically the requirements for a competent persons certification scheme in some detail.

 

The standard is a globally accepted benchmark for organizations operating certification of persons and within the requirements of the standard the scheme has to be open to all applicants and therefore the assessment must be performance based ie objective and not subjective.  We can not restrict applicants by asking for specific qualifications nor can we insist they attend specific training courses. We can and do monitor CPD but we don't insist on a level of education or training. The pilot scheme proved that some of the better qualified and more experienced assessors didn't actually produce work of a quality that matched our criteria. All applicants regardless of experience knowledge or qualifications undergo the same evidence based assessment; therefore the RP knows all FRACS assessors have demonstrated the same level of competence to be certificated and their ability has not been assumed on the ground of a subjective assessment but assessed objectively.

 

The standard then goes on to set out the structure of the certification body and its policies relating to its operation; management systems, records, use of subcontractors, confidentiality, security, requirements for assessors and examiners etc etc We use external technical experts to assess the candidates and UKAS audit the scheme every 6 months.

 

The certification process is in two stages

 

1) Candidates submit 4 risk assessments on buildings from at least three separate categories of buildings. Each report has on the contact details of the RP and we ask that assessor has the RPs permission to use their report as evidence. The submitted reports then undergo a detailed quality check. A report and a score are generated according to objective marking criteria, and if the reports demonstrate sufficient technical quality the candidate is invited to attend an interview.

 

2) The technical interview has three parts; a practical table top exercise, a Q and A on the submitted reports and an oral technical interview. The candidate has to answer correctly 80% of the questions to achieve competent status.

 

After two years the candidates resubmit 4 new reports for review and after 4 years they undergo recertification, which involves an accompanied visit to an assessment job and subsequent review of the report produced.

 

The scheme is by far the most comprehensive and impartial of the third party schemes available and we expect that it will rapidly become the industry standard and that certificated assessors will be the preferred choice of the RP"

 

[kurnal]

I know of two who passed and apparently there was a 40% failure.

Obviously cant divulge names on here. But the successful ones appear on the list along with their employers name.

I have spoken to the FIA head office this morning and their view appears to be that:

There is no political will to make such a scheme mandatory

There is no will to amend the legislation

The focus at this time is very much on consultation with interested parties

The current opposition are very clear in their views which go against further regulatory burden

The focus is towards setting up a national voluntary and centrally managed scheme but one which doesnt rule out other registers.
I hope I have not misinterpreted anything I was told.

I was a little peeved to receive a personal email from FRACS with a fairly hard sell message yesterday, heres the body of the mail:

The competence of fire risk consultants is now a major focus for government attention. FSE Online 6th November 2009 reports; ‘Government action on selecting competent people to carry out fire risk assessments came a step closer this week…’ The Government commissioned initial report in to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order highlighted that competence of fire risk assessors was of concern for all stakeholder groups surveyed. The tragic fire in Lakanal house and the subsequent BBC news investigation in to the lack of suitable and sufficient risk assessments of social housing in multiple occupation, (in many London boroughs) has stimulated a government investigation in to the possibility of regulating fire risk assessors. A national method of assessment leading to inclusion on a national register is the most likely outcome of the investigation; several parallel certification schemes are already operating in other disciplines where competence of individuals is required to ensure public safety.   

 In anticipation of this need, Warrington Certification Limited (WCL) has cooperated with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), to provide a nationally accredited Fire Risk Assessors Certification Scheme (FRACS).  Accredited by UKAS to BS EN ISO 17024 “Conformity assessment — General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons”, it is the only third party certification scheme in the UK to use a standardized and accredited model of assessment to prove the competence of individuals operating as fire risk assessors.  UKAS has a memorandum of understanding with UK Government established in 1995, by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to accredit bodies operating various types of certification, especially in support of regulatory requirements and this is such a case. The FRACS certification process is analogous to that used in the identification of competent gas fitters (included on the Gas Safety Register) and competent electricians (included on The Electricians Register). Therefore, using a FRACS certificated assessor provides a powerful demonstration that a ‘Responsible Person’ has exercised all due diligence in the selection and appointment of a competent fire risk assessor.
Further details about FRACS can be obtained from



So according to FRACS not only are the Govt looking at "regulating fire risk assessors" they are also looking at a "National method of assessment".

IF this turns out to be misinformation  and IF the wording was deliberate sales tactics then in my opinon it could lead to questions in respect of  ethical standards. And if such questions did arise that would be a shame because the scheme appears to have a lot going for it.

Thankfully the FIA have put my mind at rest to a great extent.

[Tom Sutton]

IMO a national scheme would be the best route but not run by the government. They should devise the scheme and make the rules and regulations but leave it to a competent body to administrate it, like UKAS. The selected body could then select appropriate organisations to run the registration process using the rules and regulations of the national scheme.

If it was left to DCLG it would be a disaster. 

[kurnal]

Tom
I understand that the role of UKAS would not be to run or administer the register of assessors, their job would be to audit the provider of the registration scheme. So people like FRACS, BAFE, BSI could run the scheme and they would in turn work to procedures and be audited by UKAS.
Leastways thats how I believe it all comes together.

The downside of this is that all these people rightly want to be paid for what they do, the nature of the beast is that they all want nice offices and bonuses for their directors (much better than yours or mine) and it all pushes up the cost for the Responsible Person.

If the scheme is not compulsory the RP at the bottom of the food chain usually with the lowest levels of compliance will continue to shop round for the lowest price - and that means the moonlighting firefighters, online providers etc.

[William 29]

If the scheme is not compulsory the RP at the bottom of the food chain usually with the lowest levels of compliance will continue to shop round for the lowest price - and that means the moonlighting firefighters, online providers etc.

I agree there is not much point in a register run by anyone if it is not compulsory.  Some of the RPs will go with consultants off the register, the majority I feel will shop around for the best price as long as it done by someone from a fire/health and safety background that looks the part.  A national register is the right step BUT it needs to be done in the right way.  I also got the same e mail which would concern me if this has been sent on mass to drum up some trade?  

Also in my view it will be the vast majority of already competent consultants that will apply and jump through even more hoops.

[wee brian]

Compulsory registration is a non starter. It cuts across all sorts of European Law and so Government won't do it unless there's no alternative.

The idea is a common industry standard that RPs can use to show due dilligence in selecting a consultant.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal you put it much clearer than me and that is the set up I would like to see. I also agree with your other concerns and hope the DCLG don't make a cock up of this, like some of the other projects they have been involved with.

[Mike Buckley]

Looks to me like the cart before the horse. To get on the register you need to supply 4 Risk Assessments, so to get on the register to do Fire Risk Assessments you have to do Fire Risk Assessments!!

Surely a better way would be to have a probationary scheme where there are a set of criteria you need to pass, interview, courses, practical fire safety experience etc. then you can do FRAs as a probationer possibly with mentoring, then when you have built up experience you can have your FRAs assessed for full membership of the scheme. Licence, ID card to show the RP what they are getting.

Sorry if I am too logical, havn't been to the bar yet.

[Bobbins]

So according to FRACS not only are the Govt looking at "regulating fire risk assessors" they are also looking at a "National method of assessment".

Kurnal you missed out the word “possibility” from your quote, which changes the context of the sentence significantly.

What are the gas register and electricians’ register if not a form of regulation?

Those of us that have already spoken to CLG get the impression they are looking to support a register akin to the ones mentioned above.

How far they will go is another question.

The long and short of it is that the RP needs more advice, assistance and information from CLG and that looks like it is on the way.

[Clevelandfire 3]

So according to FRACS not only are the Govt looking at "regulating fire risk assessors" they are also looking at a "National method of assessment".

Kurnal you missed out the word “possibility” from your quote, which changes the context of the sentence significantly.

What are the gas register and electricians’ register if not a form of regulation?

Those of us that have already spoken to CLG get the impression they are looking to support a register akin to the ones mentioned above.

How far they will go is another question.

The long and short of it is that the RP needs more advice, assistance and information from CLG and that looks like it is on the way.

Agreed. Why not just have  a set national framework audited by UKAS operated by any mumber of trade bodies who want to run it and make it competitive that way. So say BAFE want to become an accrdited centre and run courses for assessors. they charge £200 whilst BSI charges £400 there no prizes in seeing where assessors will go to get their ticket. I dont see what the fuss is about. Its time the industry was regulated, cos aint just moonlighting firefighters its the incompetent cowboys who are taking money hand over fist.YOu cant have your cake and eat it and i dont think the argument that consultancies will push prices up to Rps is valid. So what if individuals want plush cars / swanky offices. Some do some dont, it happens all over the shop in all kinds of industries, it happens now without regulation in the fire industry so why is that a factor?

One other thing Kurnal for your list to take to the meeting - if assessors have to get registered what about the auditors and inspectors, shoulkdnt they also have to be accredited auditors? and if not, why not?

[Hightower]

Looks to me like the cart before the horse.

Mike - I totally agree with the sentiment of your message.  So I've done 22 years as a retained firefighter, I hold various certificates that are fire risk management related and I continue to study with the FPA, all the while I continue to do fire risk assessments so that when I grow up I can leave my current post and do something else that I believe is worth while in doing.  The FRA's I do are progressively more difficult as I gain experience, but I have to start somewhere, as does everyone.

Therefore training, continuous education, mentoring and all those other good things need to be considered in a register, which then has different levels to accomodate the various knowledge bases that are abound.

The FRA's club seems to be very elitise at times??

[Bobbins]

Looks to me like the cart before the horse.

Therefore training, continuous education, mentoring and all those other good things need to be considered in a register, which then has different levels to accomodate the various knowledge bases that are abound.

The FRA's club seems to be very elitise at times??

How do you give a value to a course when all those who attend will have learnt and more importantly retained different amounts? How can you put a value to time ‘served’? How do you logistically look at the hundreds of training courses out there?

The answer is you don’t do it that way; give them a test and see if they pass it.

The driving test is a fine example of a standard assessment taken at different centres. If you pass your test you are competent to drive. Now we all know that there are some bad and some better drivers on the road, but they have all demonstrated they can perform the minimum required to drive on the roads.

Now here is the key point, you don’t get a free pass or special consideration if you have;

Driven your dads tractor on the farm since you were ten years old
Owned and raced your own petrol go-cart and become national champion.
You don’t sit a different test if you are going on to drive a high-powered sports car as apposed to a smart car.
You don’t get a different test if you have had 30 lessons as apposed to 10 lessons
You don’t get to sit the practical test till you have passed the theory and if you have a degree or 1 GCSE it is still the same theory exam.

You do sit a different test if you want to drive special vehicles ie buses or truck.

Lets face it the biggest problem is the low end stuff RPs who own specialist buildings like power plants or chemical refineries should have enough about them to select an assessor who can do the job. What at first appears to be a simple building may be complex when you enter the building so all risk assessors need to demonstrate they know what they need to know to do the job properly. You don’t really face any restrictions once you have passed your driving test in terms of the type of car you drive or the complexity of the roads you drive. I know you do a motorway lesson but they are the easiest roads to drive on, big wide and all going the same way; not too difficult for most people.

A national test administered at different approved centres is what is needed. It isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, honestly Kurnal it has to come. Heaven forbid there is another tragedy and the assessor who did the job wasn’t competent the government wouldn’t have any defence.

[Tom Sutton]

Bobbins if it was simply taking a test to get on the register then there would be no problem however all the existing schemes require you to submit a number of FRA's how do you provide them if you need to be registered to practise? I suspect this is where the cart and horse reference comes from.

[kurnal]

Thomas I think it would be fairly easy to come up with a development programme for new recruits to our industry where they initially would worked under the supervision of another assessor, their work being signed off by another,  this could even be something the IFE or FIA could look into supporting. The IFE register already recognises this to some extent by having different procedures depending on the level of training and experience. With their examination systems and branch structure, in my opinion they above any other organisation would be best placed to take this up and run with it. I bet companies who made the effort to support such a training and development scheme could get funding for it through the Chambers of trade or Government schemes.  And in any case any scheme MUST have a development structure behind it because if like on the pilot FRACS project if 40% are going to fail first time well they aren't going to get the sack are they?


Bobbins I like your driving test analogy very much but it isnt the full picture. Yes there are varying levels of competence and tests for motorcycles, cars, caravans, buses and lorries. But IMO your analogy falls because the driving test is totally prescriptive and is based on two very thin books- the highway code and the DOT manual. Theres no breaking or bending rules allowed. Period.

Qualitative fire risk assessment is very different isnt it.  Through risk assessment I am allowed to drive at 45 in a built up area if I can prove that in doing so the level of risk is equal to or less than it would be if I drove at 30. Who is going to judge the additional risk control measures I adopt? Is the examination going to probe my underpinning knowledge on which my decisions were based or am I going to fail because I have not exactly followed a prescribed code? How can the quality of my my logic, and its proportionality to the hazard be assessed in a consistent way through testing or examination? And what if the examiner disagrees? Am I automatically going to fail?

I was curious as to the reason for the reported 40% failure rate on the first trial run of the FRACS system. I wonder if perhaps it was because of an unwillingness to allow people to take a subjective view? I know such attitudes do exist in our industry among senior figures- for whom I have the utmost respect. But it seems to me that if you are involved in writing legislation and standards there is a tendancy to become extremely defensive of them and this can lead to some inflexibility. We have had contributors on this forum threatened with being taken to court over their attitude to a BS. If this attitude persists on registration panels measuring the competence of others- well I need say no more.

But yes the examination needs to be modular, progressive, allow free argument and discussion and accept that if someone can argue their corner and has the necessary underpinning knowledge then different answers may be acceptable.

Somehow we have to come up with a scheme that can assess a range of people- graduates, others with up to 40 years experience, and newcomers who have attended a 2 day training course. I fear a lowest common denominator approach is inevitable if a scheme is introduced in a hurry as a result of a political knee jerk reaction to a tragic fire - that was  in no way  related to the competence of a risk assessment because none had been carried out.
Now if we can come up with  a scheme that effectively overcomes these issues I would give it my wholehearted support.