Variations from BS

[David Rooney]

Scenario:

In the process of installing a project we come across a variation - in this case, a large high open area has three beam detectors installed - all looks good on paper.

In reality there is a large lantern light structure taking up at least 20% of the total ceiling area and is at least 2m higher than the rest of the ceiling.

For all the reasons listed in the BS section 22 this lantern light needs a detector in the apex - due to the overall height it actually needs an additional beam detector.

Someone up the chain has said no to the installation. We have said then this is a deviation from the objective of the system (being L1/P1), doesn't comply and would be listed on ensuing certification.

However, this prompted the thought, in order for this or any variation to be an "agreed variation" who exactly needs to agree it - who exactly are "all interested parties" and whos responsibility is it to get all these parties to sign up to this "agreement".

The BS commentary says "........ variations may be based on the engineering judgement of a competent person......" does this mean we can accept the word of the "consultant" and write this in as an agreed variation even if in our opinion he's an incompetent numpty?

(no offence to numpties...

[Davo]

Any mitigating factors?

Eggshells here, obviously the Architect, the owner of the premise and your good selves who should compose the wording.

Presumably you will mark his card and steer well clear in future?


davo

[Graeme]

i would say yes but get him to sign for it. (if he agrees)

[Phoenix]

David,

As innocent by-standers, we do not know why the person "up the chain" said no detection was required.  Also we have no justification from you, other than that the standard says so, as to why the detection is required. 

If, for example, there is no reasonably foreseeable location and type of fire that could lead to smoke entering the lantern light without, en route, activating one of the installed beam detectors, then what would be the point of detection in the lantern light?  In this case I would suggest that all parties could safely agree to the variation.

On the other hand, if it is foreseeable that a fire could start in a location that would fill the lantern light with smoke without activating the installed beam detectors then we have to consider this: Does it matter?  That is to say, this scenario would indicate that there is a delay in the actuation of the fire alarm system (presumably the smoke will descend, eventually, to reach the beam detectors).  This delay in actuation is very likely to have negative consequences on the fire safety provisions in the building but only someone with a full knowledge of the fire strategy can know this.

So I would suggest that you ask yourself: 1) Is there a foreseeable location and type of fire that will not be detected by the installed beam detection?  2) If so, would a delay in alarm actuation have a significant effect on the fire safety provisions in the building?

If you feel that fire safety is not compromised then the variation can be agreed; if you feel that fire safety is compromised then all parties cannot agree to the variation and the certificate cannot be signed to say the the system complies with the standard.  In other words, if all parties cannot agree then the system cannot comply with the BS.  In other, other words, if the standard is to comply then all parties must agree.

Stu

[Wiz]

Scenario:

In the process of installing a project we come across a variation - in this case, a large high open area has three beam detectors installed - all looks good on paper.

In reality there is a large lantern light structure taking up at least 20% of the total ceiling area and is at least 2m higher than the rest of the ceiling.

For all the reasons listed in the BS section 22 this lantern light needs a detector in the apex - due to the overall height it actually needs an additional beam detector.

Someone up the chain has said no to the installation. We have said then this is a deviation from the objective of the system (being L1/P1), doesn't comply and would be listed on ensuing certification.

However, this prompted the thought, in order for this or any variation to be an "agreed variation" who exactly needs to agree it - who exactly are "all interested parties" and whos responsibility is it to get all these parties to sign up to this "agreement".

The BS commentary says "........ variations may be based on the engineering judgement of a competent person......" does this mean we can accept the word of the "consultant" and write this in as an agreed variation even if in our opinion he's an incompetent numpty?

(no offence to numpties...

The interested parties would normally be:

1) The persons responsible for how the the premises are being used

2) The persons owning the premises

3) The company insuring the premises and insuring the use of those premises.

4) The licensing authority for the use of the premises. (if required)

I would say it is the designer's task to get the variation agreed.

If the 'consultant' has taken on the role of the designer of the system then I would say it is assumed he is a 'competent' person.

However you mention someone further up the chain has said NO to the installation of the additional detection. But who is saying that their 'engineering judgment has determined that additional detection is not required?

Further to Stu's answer, the chances of smoke by-passing the beams are pretty high. With the beam detectors being mounted within 600mm of the ceiling then it wouldn't take very long until before the smoke filled up the space and was finally detected by the beams. The size of the lantern light is such that the 'space' has been significantly increased; this will delay sensing by the beams even longer. It could be determined, by calculating the volume of the extra 'space' provided by the lantern light, the extra time taken for the detection to respond - if it creates 10% extra space, it could be argued that it would take 10% longer to respond. Would 10% longer matter?

However, no-one has yet mentioned whether the lantern light is also used for ventilation. If it is, then the lantern light needs additional detection in it, no matter what!

[David Rooney]

Hello Stu

To clear up a couple of points...

David,

As innocent by-standers, we do not know why the person "up the chain" said no detection was required.  Also we have no justification from you, other than that the standard says so, as to why the detection is required. 

The person "up the chain" I believe, is the money man working for the Builder and trying to keep costs down. The justification is exactly what you say - the standard says so and the specification from the consultant says we have to meet current standards etc. The building is a museum and open to the public by the way.

If, for example, there is no reasonably foreseeable location and type of fire that could lead to smoke entering the lantern light without, en route, activating one of the installed beam detectors, then what would be the point of detection in the lantern light?  In this case I would suggest that all parties could safely agree to the variation.

As a fire company we are told we are not risk assessors and according to BS the client (or representative) should do the RA and surely decide whether its necessary - I don't think it is for us to advise against it. Regarding the smoke plume setting off a beam en route, technically the existing beams are probably 3m distance from the top of the lantern which brings in other issues regarding spacing of beams etc.

On the other hand, if it is foreseeable that a fire could start in a location that would fill the lantern light with smoke without activating the installed beam detectors then we have to consider this: Does it matter?  That is to say, this scenario would indicate that there is a delay in the actuation of the fire alarm system (presumably the smoke will descend, eventually, to reach the beam detectors).  This delay in actuation is very likely to have negative consequences on the fire safety provisions in the building but only someone with a full knowledge of the fire strategy can know this.

So I would suggest that you ask yourself: 1) Is there a foreseeable location and type of fire that will not be detected by the installed beam detection?  2) If so, would a delay in alarm actuation have a significant effect on the fire safety provisions in the building?

All of this is absolutely true but my point is that I don't think it's down to us (or a Quanity Surveyor) to make these decisions - again, the Spec says L1/P1 - earliest level of detection - if we don't install the extra beam technically we are in contravention.

If you feel that fire safety is not compromised then the variation can be agreed; if you feel that fire safety is compromised then all parties cannot agree to the variation and the certificate cannot be signed to say the the system complies with the standard.  In other words, if all parties cannot agree then the system cannot comply with the BS.  In other, other words, if the standard is to comply then all parties must agree.


Stu

In this very contractural job, we only have direct correspondence with the Electrical Contractor and there is at least another three levels of contractor involved until you get to the Architects/Consultants and the end user. We don't know that the end user has a clue as to what protection is being afforded - these jobs are always down to small print and the money men paid by the Builders to generally get away with installing the bare minimum to meet the contract.

I'm not trying to get technical answers to this specific site or justify this beam, I was trying to broaden the whole issue of who ultimately has the right to make decisions regarding variations = "leaving bits out" when we are contractually obliged to meet BS and are basically being told (in this case by a QS but it could be a consultant etc) not to meet the requirements for an L1/P1 system.

Dave

[David Rooney]

The interested parties would normally be:

1) The persons responsible for how the the premises are being used

2) The persons owning the premises

3) The company insuring the premises and insuring the use of those premises.

4) The licensing authority for the use of the premises. (if required)

I would say it is the designer's task to get the variation agreed.


All agreed Wiz..... but are we saying that we (as designers) should be attempting to make contact with all these people - and the National Charity putting up the money for the job, they have a vested interest too.... and getting them all to sign up to a variation before we can officially list it as "agreed"?

Have you ever had an agreement from insurers etc ?

If the 'consultant' has taken on the role of the designer of the system then I would say it is assumed he is a 'competent' person.

However you mention someone further up the chain has said NO to the installation of the additional detection. But who is saying that their 'engineering judgment has determined that additional detection is not required?

Further to Stu's answer, the chances of smoke by-passing the beams are pretty high. With the beam detectors being mounted within 600mm of the ceiling then it wouldn't take very long until before the smoke filled up the space and was finally detected by the beams. The size of the lantern light is such that the 'space' has been significantly increased; this will delay sensing by the beams even longer. It could be determined, by calculating the volume of the extra 'space' provided by the lantern light, the extra time taken for the detection to respond - if it creates 10% extra space, it could be argued that it would take 10% longer to respond. Would 10% longer matter?

However, no-one has yet mentioned whether the lantern light is also used for ventilation. If it is, then the lantern light needs additional detection in it, no matter what!

I still haven't got an answer on that, but as stated it needs a beam for all the reasons listed in clause 22 regardless of ventillation...

[Wiz]

Dave, you are trying to comply with the BS. The lanterns give you a problem in complying. BS offers a way out - agreed variation! To take this option, you must comply with the recommendations for it no matter how difficult they may be. Otherwise don't try to comply with the BS at all.

If the agreed variation route is to be taken, then someone has to take responsibility for organising it otherwise it doesn't happen!

If the insurance company won't respond, or won't agree, to the variation then either try a new insurance company or just accept that the agreed variation option is not available and put a detector in the lantern.

The comment about ventilation was just a reminder that the 'engineered solution' of ignoring the recommendation for a detector in the lantern might not be as acceptable if the lantern light was actually also used for ventilation.

[David Rooney]

Dave, you are trying to comply with the BS. The lanterns give you a problem in complying. BS offers a way out - agreed variation! To take this option, you must comply with the recommendations for it no matter how difficult they may be. Otherwise don't try to comply with the BS at all.

If the agreed variation route is to be taken, then someone has to take responsibility for organising it otherwise it doesn't happen!

If the insurance company won't respond, or won't agree, to the variation then either try a new insurance company or just accept that the agreed variation option is not available and put a detector in the lantern.

a. we don't know who the building insurer is - that's the client's choice
b. i think you're thinking I'm talking about our compan insurance which I'm not....
c. why is it down to "us" as the alarm company to gather all this information just to get a variation agreed - is it not down to the end user and the fabled RA - if he doesn't want it then justify it ??

The comment about ventilation was just a reminder that the 'engineered solution' of ignoring the recommendation for a detector in the lantern might not be as acceptable if the lantern light was actually also used for ventilation.

True but then that begs the question "when is a variation acceptable and when isn't it..??!"

[Graeme]

Most of the reasons i get for a variation from a consultant and/or customers are:

. Not needed.
. too expensive
. too much hassle
. Old classic-BS not law
. Your being over the top Sonny
. "what's the chances of ever getting a fire in there"?

etc etc

The last big install i did,all my correspondance with the Consultant regards all the variations in his design were done by e-mail,so i had a paper trail.
His justification for most things were-"not needed". If this is the only reason we are going to get and they are not going to install a device despite it being flagged up by the installer,then why can't this just be taken as the justification ? Not based on and engineering basis but it's all the information we are likely to get from them. Also as they are the "all knowing" Gods of the Construction world-then who am i to argue with them?

[Phoenix]

Hi David,

The picture is becoming clearer.  As is your problem.  

I believe the detection in the lantern light is required solely for the L1/P1 classification.  So its purpose is not to protect life but to protect property (the structure and contents of the museum).  Ultimately, therefore, it is the building user and the building owner who stand to sustain additional losses because of the variation (no one's going to die because of it).  I would say that it is they who should make the judgement as to whether the detection is required or not.  It certainly should not be the builder's "money man" who makes the decision!  

The building user and building owner should make their decision by weighing the (really quite small) additional risk posed by the omission of the detection against the real cost of installing the extra detection.  If they are happy to accept the small additional risk and make the real cost savings then, I would say, you could safely list the variation with brief supporting comments.        

Just to clarify slightly further, in this case, the "interested parties" would not necessarily include the fire service as they have to restrict their legislative interests to life safety matters and provided that there is a fire alarm that, at least, covers the life safety requirements they can ask for no more.  Also, at this stage the insurers are not relevant.  They should be given sight of the certificate, with the variation listed, when they take on the risk and can take account of the variation in their decision to accept the risk and in the premium they require.

Stu

[Wiz]

Stu, the requirement for detection in lantern lights (within a protected area) has nothing to do with the category of a system.

In any event I can't understand your comment of a L1/P1 category only applying to property protection. It surely also covers life.

[Wiz]

David, I understand your frustration, but you only have three options.

1) To comply with BS, install the recommended detection in the lantern light(s)

2) To comply with BS, don't install the detection but get an 'agreed variation' based on sound principles

3) Don't comply with BS.

Graeme, also mentions the responses to someone highlighting items that don't comly with BS.

If you are only the system commissioner, then so what? Just include the variation on the certificate and let others sort the problem out. If they don't like you highlighting the variation on the certificate, again it is not your problem.

However, if you are the system designer then it is more of a problem. If BS recommends something you either have to provide it, or agree a variation, if you want to comply with BS. BS confirms who needs to 'agree'. Again, if you can't get these parties to agree then it is a problem.

I believe your customer should be the one to make contact with his insurer to negotiate the agreed variation. Although I'm sure the customer will need you to tell them what they have to ask the insurer.

I don't agree with Stu's comments about the insurance if such is already in place. The customer will have to tell his insurer about the varaition, but probably only if their policy clauses include mention of a level of fire detection system or similar. I agree with Stu that upon insurance renewal the option to find an insurer who will take the risk as presented might be necessary.

[Tom Sutton]

I only have a basic knowledge of Fire Alarm Systems and no practical experience so be gentle.

The way I understand it there are four people concerned the designer,installer,commissioner and maintenance engineer. I would have thought the designer is the one to sort out variations and if he has missed something then he/she has made a mistake. Then it would be up to the others to bring it to the attention of the Responsible Person or the person responsible, that the fire alarm system is not in accordance with the BS and let him/her sort it out. Ensure its all done in writing and recorded it in their appropriate documentation. If the designer agrees to a variation with all interested parties and records it on his design certificate or corrects his/her mistake then no problems.

Cover your back.   

[David Rooney]

Thanks men... it's all interesting stuff and tis true I'm completely frustrated !!

TW you're right in what you say and and it would all work "by the book" if we were working directly for the end user and we could converse in writing and tell them to talk to their insurer and explain the reasoning behind design issues etc etc etc .

But I suppose what I'm griping about really is the fact that when you're involved in any "large" job that involves Electrical contractors/M&E contractors god knows how many design teams /Arcitects /Consultants etc, then we become the tadpole at the end of the food chain swimming amongst sharks.

And it doesn't matter how much we spout the BS and tell everyone what their roles should be and what BS says we should all do, basically no one else gives a monkeys except us !

.... and apart from all that, it just seems quite difficult to apply this bit of the BS to a real world scenario....