Clearing up the mess!

[Eli]

Just a quick one for a Friday

How much time are you fire risk assessors spending putting right what other risk assessors have got wrong? As a percentage of your yearly work load!

It could be picking up the pieces after an RP has had a go, after an occupational assessor or after another ‘professional’ risk assessor.

I had a meeting with a fire risk assessor yesterday and he is getting more and more calls for help after its all gone wrong. About 25% of his time is now emergency rectification.

I would just like to get a bigger picture.

[Golden]

Hi Eli, I have only had a few calls to clear up the mess but I put this down to general ignorance on the part of the owners/RPs most of whom don't actually know what mess they are currently in. I'm finishing off one project that all have risk assessments only a few years old (PAS 79 type) and there are so many basic errors on the part of the assessor that demonstrates quite clearly they have never been trained in fire safety. This week found a complete lack of self closers on fire escape staircases in a five storey block, its a modern refurbishment carried out probably ten years ago and they've obviously never been fitted. It had one full FRA and two reviews on file. Its a multi-occ and I'm working on behalf of the owners - there are loads of extinguishers in the common parts of the building despite there only being one receptionist employed by the owners - one of the RPs I met yesterday on another building confirmed what I'd suspected regarding who had carried out the original FRAs, any guesses??

[William 29]

I would say about 3 out of every 10 enquiries we get would apply to your question and also where the RP is questioning or doesn’t have confidence in the outcomes of the FRA and requires a second opinion.  On some of the larger organisation we deal with this has resulted in all the FRAs being redone, normally where the other company/individual has recommended common fire detection systems, emergency lighting and extinguishers in purpose built flats regardless of construction or height.

[kurnal]

This type of problem falls into two categories.

One type is where an extinguisher company uses the FRA to sell extinguishers and the technical quality of the report is dire. Last week I came across a three story office block with unprotected staircase  two self contained terrier alarms unconnected and a rope ladder from a second floor window. The previous 5 risk assessments by the large extinguisher based company said means of escape is ok as there is a door front and rear and the alarms are ok because they are tested weekly.

The other type is the other extreme. Have just won a retainer contract with a large local authority who use me to review their risk assessments undertaken by a large consultancy who are very diligent but simply cover their own backs by making recommendations to bring every aspect of every building up to current 2011 design standards regardless of age, circumstance and risk. The findings are simply not practicable. I did not win the contract first time round as they said they felt more secure with a larger company. 

[nearlythere]

I think that in general employers consider the best fire risk assessment as being, apart from the cheapest, the one which involves the least cost to them.
I believe that most employers are under the illusion that the "expert"  they employed to carry it out will be blamed if it goes wrong and not them. Thankfully we have seen that neither will escape and the more of both that are prosecuted the better for all.

Correct K. Many extinguisher suppliers have seen FRAs as a means of making a quick buck. If it has a front and rear exit, a stairway and loads of extinguishers it must be safe. But we must remember they may have gained their expertise by attending a 20 hr FRA course. I wonder what the failure rate is like?

Is it time we had an independent accreditation scheme for FRA trainers?

[Golden]

I think Kurnal has summed up the problem very nicely. The 'best' fire risk assessment is a matter of opinion as NT points out it all depends on your perspective; as ex-fire service I was always taught to make a building safe (following the codes where possible) but also to consider the practicalities of any requirements - both in cost terms and whether the occupier would maintain any fire precautions in a usable condition. I've thought recently about lowering my prices to get some extra volume of work (not that I'm that short of work!) but I've resisted for two reasons, firstly I want to maintain the quality that I hope I give to my clients and secondly I really don't want to be associated with the £100 risk assessment.

[AnthonyB]

There is a lot of mess cleaning up for us with new contracts and some of the stuff I see that tenants have is atrocious, understandable if they did it themselves, but they are paying out for some of these.

I've seen a terrible one done by an employment law firm for a customer and a very large hotel chain has one for a new 5 floor hotel done by a company that primarily trains the security industry and is a generic yes/no sheet with no site specific info that could have been done off site. This hotel is part of a complex that doesn't follow ADB and has very complex cause & effect, engineered solutions, etc, but you would think it was a corner shop from the FRA!

We need more prosecutions of poor risk assessors  - it won't solve the problem but should thin it a little!

[kurnal]

I agree Golden but would urge all competent assessors never to devalue yourself by lowest common denominator pricing. The only way to retain sanity in this mad world is to work out your hourly rate, price jobs according to it and stick to it, market your competence and not just the  price. I live in hope that the work done by the competency council will be pushed by the authorities and then it may be worth going through the hassle of third party certification. Its hard to make a business case for TPC with things as they are.

[TallyHo]

I don't suppose it helps when local councils are giving contracts to companies carrying our assessments for £49.

[kurnal]

Yes Tallyho its crackers isnt it. And the most frustrating thing is that councils should know better than most that best value does not always mean the cheapest. Such arrangements leave bona fide companies at the mercy of dutch auctions with predatory companies who dont mind taking a loss provided they win the work.

I walked away from one such dutch auction in a tender for work on behalf of a social housing provider even though the client said our quality was streets ahead of the other (very large) company the bottom line was that they could not give us the work unless we matched the costs. The fee offered would not even pay my guys mileage in some cases.

We walked away and were not surprised to see the other company go bankrupt this time last year with the loss of thousands of jobs. But operating in this way gives clients unrealistic expectations and creates benchmarks that many of us are unwilling or unable to follow. I love the job but that does not mean I should do it for free.

[AnthonyB]

The pressure of costs is an ever constant when the competition go in so cheap (& produce junk) to get the work and when clients want you to cut corners to do the job, such as not visiting all parts of a premises (which is what contributed to the Nottingham assessor getting jailed).

You can understand the SME's wanting the cheapest, but larger enterprises that make substantial profits have no excuse and should seek a decent job for a decent (not excessive, not cheap) price.

As I have said, until more IO's start enforcement action for these inadequate assessments little will change. Fortunately more are starting to do this and we are reaping the rewards in some cases from picking up the pieces.

[wee brian]

You do get a bit of Holy-er than thou (not sure how to spell Holy-er!) in our industry. I often hear fire professionals criticising people for taking a different view to them over things which are, by their nature, subjective. It might be better sometimes to say - I wouldn't have done that, but I can see why somebody would.

Other times people are just incompetent. But it would be nice if we recognised the difference.

[nearlythere]

I am getting quite a few jobs in dental practices as the RQIA inspectors are questioning the quality of fire risk assessments carried out by either someone from the Practice or being included in a general H&S Assessments. These are being picked up as being unsuitable.
They certainly need a more trained eye as the last I did had a three storey unprotected stairway, no FA or EL but the MOE was considered adequate in the Assessment carried out under a general H&S Assessment.
As has been said if it has a stairway with a few self contained detectors, a front and back door and a couple of extinguishers it is fine.
I am also finding that fire extinguisher providers have been installling DPs in practices. Could it be anything to do with the fact that they can be quite expensive to supply and refill?

[AnthonyB]

We work for a big firm of dentists & managed to get them to do separate FRAs.This firm has grown exponentially via acquisition & on first visit to new acquisitions it is amazing what is considered adequate, (both fire & medical emergency equipment as well!).

It seems an extinguisher and a 9V smoke is often all that is needed based on the old owners' assessments.

Powder extinguishers are banned throughout this group on our advice and if a new site has them they are withdrawn.

I've been coming across loads of poorly installed fire alarm systems recently too that have needed sorting out, it's not just FRA's!

[Eli]

You do get a bit of Holy-er than thou (not sure how to spell Holy-er!) in our industry. I often hear fire professionals criticising people for taking a different view to them over things which are, by their nature, subjective. It might be better sometimes to say - I wouldn't have done that, but I can see why somebody would.

Other times people are just incompetent. But it would be nice if we recognised the difference.

Brian

I think you are correct, there is more than one way to skin a cat and that is why risked based assessment is problematic. However I do feel that risk assessment formats are to blame in many instances as well as competence. i.e. the tick box doesn’t encourage an explanation of the rationale in making judgement. See below as a very basic example; the YES means the same who ever has completed it, but what they have checked to make that judgement could be massively varied, depending on who has completed it. If an assessor was encouraged to say why the measures are reasonable, you would have a much better picture of their ability as an assessor. Obviously as the issues become more complex and or compensatory the more evidence of the thought process is needed. This would add to the work load but the benefits would be huge in terms of establishing the quality of the assessment.

Reasonable measures taken to prevent fires of electrical origin?  YES