BAFE SP 205 scheme for fire risk assesment companies: WATCH THIS SPACE

[colin todd]

The BAFE SP 205 document, and associated requirements for certification bodies, is now completed. The scheme will be subject to a formal launch quite soon.  NSI have now made it clear they will be running the scheme, subject to UKAS accreditation, before the Summer. They will even accept expressions of interest from FRA companies now.  No doubt, other CBs will follow.
This scheme will do wonders to improve standards of FRAs and clean up the profession as people keep wanting.

[AnthonyB]

So, in your opinion, it's got the potential to be a good scheme?

I may well suggest it to my gaffers!

[Kelsall]

There are a couple of improvements I would like to see to the scheme as it doesn’t use the competence standard and it has a very limited test of competence for the assessors.

I am not sure but I think that NSI will need to get some experts in to do the office audits and onsite competence assessment of the manager.

Colin, are you and your chaps doing the expert consultancy on this?

Apart from a few issues I have with the depth of assessment, it will assist in giving the RP some much needed focus as to what will protect them form the less diligent firms trading in the market place. 

[Tom W]

There are a couple of improvements I would like to see to the scheme as it doesn’t use the competence standard and it has a very limited test of competence for the assessors.

I am not sure but I think that NSI will need to get some experts in to do the office audits and onsite competence assessment of the manager.

Colin, are you and your chaps doing the expert consultancy on this?

Apart from a few issues I have with the depth of assessment, it will assist in giving the RP some much needed focus as to what will protect them form the less diligent firms trading in the market place.  

preceding content deleted  by Kurnal to support anonymity rule I'm not surprised you have a few issues with it!!

[William 29]

Sorry to raise this one again but I can’t believe that it seems we have all these differing views and routes to a competency level that the responsible person can rely upon AND understand.   It’s very frustrating and confusing for those of us in the industry that are supposed to know what we are talking about.  I’m afraid this has the makings of an embarrassing mess to the fire industry if we don’t arrive at some clarity and common ground.  It seems to me that there are organisations that are trying to make a name for themselves or to be the first to score points and make a few quid in the process.

I really don’t understand why the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council was formed and the Competency Document produced if ALL interested bodies/schemes are not going to use it as a competency benchmark for assessors.  This really doesn’t make any sense?  If this is the case there is nothing to stop any person/organisation forming their own competency document and scheme. What is to stop another organisation in a few months coming out with their competency standard and route? Surely that is what we have now with the IFE, IFSM, IFPO risk assessor registers, with all having their own processes and criteria to gain acceptance on to their registers?  We seem to be going backwards not forwards?

In my view any scheme needs to be UKAS accredited to be worth anything and if the differing schemes out there achieve this then that will be something.  But surely we can agree on a common competency standard that we can all work to as a starting point if only to avoid one scheme saying it is better than the other?  Rant over.

[Kelsall]

There are a couple of improvements I would like to see to the scheme as it doesn’t use the competence standard and it has a very limited test of competence for the assessors.

I am not sure but I think that NSI will need to get some experts in to do the office audits and onsite competence assessment of the manager.

Colin, are you and your chaps doing the expert consultancy on this?

Apart from a few issues I have with the depth of assessment, it will assist in giving the RP some much needed focus as to what will protect them form the less diligent firms trading in the market place.  

preceding content deleted  by Kurnel to support anonymity rule I'm not surprised you have a few issues with it!!

Nothing I haven't said to BAFE directly, so why you should try and put on a negative spin is very very strange.
It's just an opinion which is shared by others but hey we must all be wrong. Piglet please just let me comment and if you can argue against it without trying to dirty things with personal attacks then do it ........please!

[colin todd]

Tony, it will be a cracking scheme.  It will be run by several certification bodies, ensuring that the price will not be ludicrous as there is no monopoly but free competition amongst CBs. The scheme has been developed by key stakeholders in the profession so it is a consensus standard.

Willie, I did not understand your rant. Why do you believe, other than by rumour or innuendo, that the CBs will not take account of the competence standard. I would suggest that the reverse is true.

Thomas, are you upsetting that awfully nice man again. What am I to do with you!  I know for a fact that you have never been in the fire service so where do you get this talent for harassment.!!!

[William 29]

Willie, I did not understand your rant. Why do you believe, other than by rumour or innuendo, that the CBs will not take account of the competence standard. I would suggest that the reverse is true.

What I meant was is that any scheme existing or new should use the Competency Standard recently produced as their competency benchmark and not their own.  If the SP 205 scheme does this then fine, I have no issue with that.  I wait with excitement (you don't get much in fire safety you know) to see the published version.

[Kelsall]

Hi William

I spoke at length with the guy from Bafe today; he is very willing to listen and wants me to email him with my thoughts so he can take it back to committee. “It’s a scheme in progress”, I dare say they all are!

Including IFC; who are apparently adding to the mix with their own scheme, according to the FIA today.

The competence standard is definitely not implicit or guaranteed in 205; that’s clear to anyone who reads it. It is published now and you can get a copy from the Bafe or info4fire websites.

The IFE had a meeting on Monday of their fire risk assessment council I wonder what the result of that meeting was in light of the activity from the other two register holders. I see IFPO have made a couple of minor changes to their registration scheme in response to the release of the competence standard.

I think you are correct that the competence standard must be at the heart of all schemes as this is a bench mark, especially as there appears that there will be three to choose from. I dare say that once all three schemes are in place there will be some differences in price but it’s ludicrous to make statements about price until the other two schemes declare their prices. I also hope that those who intend to go for a scheme do a genuine comparison and look at value for money and not just concentrate on price; heaven forbid those in the industry should make the same mistake as many RPs make when appointing risk assessors.

[William 29]

Thanks, I will be looking into both FRACS (Warrington) and the SP 205 scheme.  On the face of it both look similar in terms of the process; my main point was that any scheme should have UKAS accreditation which both will.  They also seem to be based around the Competency Standard.

[kurnal]

The links on the BAFE and Info4fire websites no longer work. Does anybody have access to a final copy of the SP205 scheme? I only have a draft and am keen to see any changes made following the consultation.

I believe there is a very significant difference between SP205 and FRACS but before posting about it would like to confirm my facts. Well theres a first time for everything you know.

[Kelsall]

Kurnal the FRACS scheme doc has been updated but it has to be approved by the stakeholder sector panel before it can be released. The two main changes are insurance requirements and the inclusion of assessment against the competence standard.
Hope this helps.

[William 29]

I believe there is a very significant difference between SP205 and FRACS but before posting about it would like to confirm my facts. Well theres a first time for everything you know.

I'd be interested to know the major differences, I looked at the draft SP205 ages ago when it came out but haven't seen the final version.

[kurnal]

Kelsall, do you know if the SP205 scheme includes the individual assessment of all fire risk assessment practitioners used by the company against the competence standard or does it limit such scrutiny to the management team backed up by a quality management system.

Many of the biggest companies in the fire risk assessment field (and nonprofitmaking fire protection organisations as well) use a network of associates of variable quality, and some do not appear to enforce any requirements to prove individual competence and currency. For this reason many of the largest players in the field did not make it onto the FIA register of member companies offering the fire risk assessment services.

I wondered how the final version of SP2 05 deals with this.

[Tom W]

Remember Kurnal that a reason why the larger companies are not on the FIA risk assessors list is due to cost. To accredit every one of their consultants would cost thousands and thousands of pounds. All this for something that is (in my experience) never asked for by clients and barely known about outside of the fire trade.

It is a mistake to think that just because they do not have a third party accreditation that they are any less of a consultant. Third Party Accreditation is about proof not education.