BS 5839 part 6 system (Grade D) In a small office building.

[Wiz]

But who was designing the system N.T., you or the fire alarm engineer?

It is not the system installer's or commissioner's job to question the design.

The designer produces certification to state that his design complies. The design is the designer's responsibility.

The installer or commissioner can't be held responsible for any mistakes made by the system designer.

Whilst it is true to say that there is a BS recommendation for installers to liase with the designer over things he might not have known about at the design stage, once he has agreement from the designer that he has taken that 'thing' into consideration within his design, then there is nothing more he needs to concern himself about it.

Some installers/commissioners are either just to stupid to understand what their role is, or they are just trying to 'bump' up the value of the job!

[AnthonyB]

Was he a genuine fire alarm engineer or just a spark?

It is possible to be both, but some of the latter do have a funny idea about the installation of systems and BS5839 & risk assessment.

If they don't understand the spec they don't get the job - suggestions about minor amendments will be taken on board but if they tried that line with me they would be out of the door.

Far too often sadly clients only refer to their external consultants for the FRA and rely solely on the provider/installer to guide them when implementing action plans often resulting in either gross over-provison or non compliant jobs.

[nearlythere]

But who was designing the system N.T., you or the fire alarm engineer?
It is not the system installer's or commissioner's job to question the design.
The designer produces certification to state that his design complies. The design is the designer's responsibility.
The installer or commissioner can't be held responsible for any mistakes made by the system designer.
Whilst it is true to say that there is a BS recommendation for installers to liase with the designer over things he might not have known about at the design stage, once he has agreement from the designer that he has taken that 'thing' into consideration within his design, then there is nothing more he needs to concern himself about it.
Some installers/commissioners are either just to stupid to understand what their role is, or they are just trying to 'bump' up the value of the job!

You're right Wiz. I am the designer but I was expecting a llittle savy from the installer especially when I explained the reason for the L5 system. Obviously, he has trouble understanding the rational behind L4 & L5 systems.

[Wiz]

But who was designing the system N.T., you or the fire alarm engineer?
It is not the system installer's or commissioner's job to question the design.
The designer produces certification to state that his design complies. The design is the designer's responsibility.
The installer or commissioner can't be held responsible for any mistakes made by the system designer.
Whilst it is true to say that there is a BS recommendation for installers to liase with the designer over things he might not have known about at the design stage, once he has agreement from the designer that he has taken that 'thing' into consideration within his design, then there is nothing more he needs to concern himself about it.
Some installers/commissioners are either just to stupid to understand what their role is, or they are just trying to 'bump' up the value of the job!

You're right Wiz. I am the designer but I was expecting a llittle savy from the installer especially when I explained the reason for the L5 system. Obviously, he has trouble understanding the rational behind L4 & L5 systems.

The installer doesn't really need to understand the rationale of a design.

He should just get on with installing it!

Obviously it would help if he understood the BS5839-1 recommendations for installation but if he can't do what he is told to do, then get a new installer!

[assured]

For me theres two different topics here.

The first is Part 1 vs Part 6 - which i think is pretty black and white. You are given a 'menu' of design categories (and in the latter case, a grade also) to choose from menu style, and i cant see why it has to be anymore complex than this? Pick one, and work to one or the other depending on if the property is a dwelling or not.

This slightly leads on to topic two - Potentially if its a part 1 system, i could understand this becoming a little more obscure if an L5 system is specified - however, the selection of L1 to L4 (from the 'menu') should be decdied upon a Risk Assessment just as much as an L5 in which case some specific guidlines as to what the objective of the L5 system should be given. (Whats to be protected and how to do it, or if the system is an engineering solution).

Whomever needs to design/install the system, can then do-so accordingly.

Before anyone says, this is all very idealistic i know and appreciate...

I do throw out a question to everyone though - Is it just me or do very few risk assessments actually conclude a design category? Very few and far between from what i have seen.

[nearlythere]

For me theres two different topics here.

The first is Part 1 vs Part 6 - which i think is pretty black and white. You are given a 'menu' of design categories (and in the latter case, a grade also) to choose from menu style, and i cant see why it has to be anymore complex than this? Pick one, and work to one or the other depending on if the property is a dwelling or not.

This slightly leads on to topic two - Potentially if its a part 1 system, i could understand this becoming a little more obscure if an L5 system is specified - however, the selection of L1 to L4 (from the 'menu') should be decdied upon a Risk Assessment just as much as an L5 in which case some specific guidlines as to what the objective of the L5 system should be given. (Whats to be protected and how to do it, or if the system is an engineering solution).

Whomever needs to design/install the system, can then do-so accordingly.

Before anyone says, this is all very idealistic i know and appreciate...

I do throw out a question to everyone though - Is it just me or do very few risk assessments actually conclude a design category? Very few and far between from what i have seen.

It should specify the category Assured. Same way as you specifying a class of extinguisher for a particular risk.