NEW BAFE SP 203 certification body

[colin todd]

As noted in the fire alarm system section of the Board, BAFE SP 203 is now available from a fifth CB (ECA Certification).

The relevance to those of us in fire safety is that the more CBs that offer SP 203 the more certificated firms there will be.  The more certificated firms there are, the more it is possible, reasonable, prudent and advisable for users to specify certificated firms.  As acknowledged in Government guidance, the use of such firms may constitute a due dillgence defence for anyone against whom there are proceedings under legislation because of the inadequate design, installation, commissioning or maintenance of a fire alarm system.

It also creates a level playing field as it means that, when a 3PC is a pre-requisite for tendering for work, all tenderers will have the same 3PC overhead.

[kurnal]

TPC is a good thing in principle but to be effective in driving out the cowboys it needs to be both publicised and enforced.

As the fire risk assessment sector of the industry moves forward towards TPC can we learn anything from the alarms and extinguisher sectors? Is there any information available in the public domain to show how effective the certification bodies are in terms of enforcement? How many companies are expelled following complaints and audits?  

Is SP203 publicised sufficiently to ensure that most clients make it a mandatory requirement at the tender stage?

[colin todd]

Is the universe really expanding...... Will LFB ever be accepted back into the folds of CFOA...... Who shot Kennedy.  The imponderables are endless..... What did Billie Jo Macallister chuck into the river.   Why is she called Queen Elizabeth the second when the UK never had a QE1. Who is Kelsall... What happened to Eli-has he been kidnapped by BAFE special agents contracted from Israeli intelligence... Is there intelligent life in LFEPA?  Will the retained station at Matlock Bath survive the next round of cuts.

Sometimes, Big Al it is easier to ask questions than provide answers. We can all be negative.

[kurnal]

Yes Colin but there is more opportunity to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of other schemes right at the beginning and in a uniquely buyers market to drive through the best deal. Theres always a number of critics of SP203 within the alarms sector, nows the time to know whether there is substance behind the complaints we so often hear.  Its odd that you never hear from what I assume is the silent majority- those who think SP203 has been a Good Thing for their business. Come on lets hear from you!

I wonder if there is any mileage in the professional institutions and trade associations supporting their member companies towards tpc by comparing what is on offer and negotiating  preferential deals for members? Like a best buy guide?

[colin todd]

SP 203 is fine. It is just that those without certification like to carp----"I been down Peckham yesterday and I done a service on a fire alarm system.  I never seen crap like it. Cor stone the crows guv----and all done by an SP 203 firm"  Well, I myself have also been down Peckham and virtually all corners of this wee island and seen attocious work (and good work) carried out by non cert. firms.  What does that prove.

3pc does not mean perfection and CBs can only sample. But the RP is best advised to use 3pc firms as evidence of due dilligence.  For that purpose it may not matter all that much which scheme he uses.  Of course a certification or registration body might not look too clever if it goes wrong. Some FRA registers have NEVER even seen a sample of the registered persons' work!!!!!

[kurnal]

Most of the carping I hear comes from those with SP203 certification concerned at the use of the scheme as a cash cow for the CB and the standards of  some of the companies admitted to the scheme. A number of readers of this forum have emailed me rather than posting on the forum. As an example heres an extract from an email I received one very diligent  SP203 fire alarm company:

"Fire alarm companies thought SP203  would regulate the industry infact it has had quite the opposite effect.
SSAIB, NSI and now the ECA are marketing SP203 as a revenue stream, it's quite ironic that the scourge of the industry " the sparky" is now going to start dishing out BAFE Certs.
In 20 years of business I have rarely come across any electrical contractor with the competence or experience to repair , maintain , design or commission a FA system. It will become a disaster and unfortunately will take a few years before it is sorted and realise what a mistake BAFE have made."

I suppose in response to this view one must assume that if they have achieved UKAS accreditation ECA must be diligent and will measure each applicant against the criteria. Other emails conversely point out that if you set the bar too high the scheme will never take off and if the CB is too vigorous in enforcing standards again it will put companies off applying. All are valid opinions and worthy of consideration.

In view of this I have quashed my own unease over companies being able to self certify their own assessors (and who the CB will never meet) and I accept that as a consequence it will be business as usual with a new flashy badge for some of the big players who will appoint anybody as an associate and provide little or no supervision in full knowledge that they will get away with it through a lack of enforcement and/or the odds arising from the numbers involved.

However accepting this it then makes my hackles rise when I hear of the certificate fee. Why do we need a fancy certificate? The Law requires a fire risk assessment not a fancy certificate. I could put the BAFE logo and a serial number on my risk assessment. Gold plating the legislation is what we are doing. Cash cow for the CBs comes to mind.

Even for a small company like mine completing say 12 risk assessments per week this is a significant cost. In the competitive market we operate it is most unlikely that we will be able to pass this cost on to the end user. We had a taste of this previously when exploring the viability of running accredited H&S courses, the CB charged a fee per student certificate. The competitive nature of the market meant that they were making twice as much out of the certificates as we were making out of every course. So we knocked that on the head.

I still think SP205 has potential to be a great thing for our industry but will test the market very thoroughly before joining any scheme.

[colin todd]

Kurnal, why do you think the CBs wont meet any fire risk assessors??  And I have no doubt you will apply for certification -but budget for 3 days of auditors time, two of which they will spend hearing you rant and rave about third party certification, with a further day to meet you and the lads.

[kurnal]

Nice one Colin

[William 29]

In view of this I have quashed my own unease over companies being able to self certify their own assessors (and who the CB will never meet) and I accept that as a consequence it will be business as usual with a new flashy badge for some of the big players who will appoint anybody as an associate and provide little or no supervision in full knowledge that they will get away with it through a lack of enforcement and/or the odds arising from the numbers involved.

However accepting this it then makes my hackles rise when I hear of the certificate fee. Why do we need a fancy certificate? The Law requires a fire risk assessment not a fancy certificate. I could put the BAFE logo and a serial number on my risk assessment. Gold plating the legislation is what we are doing. Cash cow for the CBs comes to mind.

Even for a small company like mine completing say 12 risk assessments per week this is a significant cost. In the competitive market we operate it is most unlikely that we will be able to pass this cost on to the end user. We had a taste of this previously when exploring the viability of running accredited H&S courses, the CB charged a fee per student certificate. The competitive nature of the market meant that they were making twice as much out of the certificates as we were making out of every course. So we knocked that on the head.

I still think SP205 has potential to be a great thing for our industry but will test the market very thoroughly before joining any scheme.

Kurnal, you make some valid points here but had to smile about Colin's 3 day audit!  I think I have concluded that the 3rd party scheme that we go for matters not at this stage, too early to tell and all getting very muddled.  I think go for a UKAS scheme based on all the evidence now and the fees.  Let the dust settle and then review, you can always change schemes.  Will the RP REALLY know the difference in the pros and cons of each scheme and there could be more schemes to come yet?!
Agreed about the £10 cert fee I can’t see the point and loses SP205 some credibility in my view.

[Tom Sutton]

Will the RP REALLY know the difference in the pros and cons of each scheme and there could be more schemes to come yet?!

I agree William The RP only wants to know if the FP assessor he is proposing to employ is competent. I would suggest the answer is a national database of all the registration schemes that meet a certain standard and could be approved by the government. All the RP would have to do is check up on the database to see if he/she was listed. New entrants to the profession could also get on the database as, in training, with a proviso that all his work has to be supervised by a competent assessor.

[William 29]

Will the RP REALLY know the difference in the pros and cons of each scheme and there could be more schemes to come yet?!

I agree William The RP only wants to know if the FP assessor he is proposing to employ is competent. I would suggest the answer is a national database of all the registration schemes that meet a certain standard and could be approved by the government. All the RP would have to do is check up on the database to see if he/she was listed. New entrants to the profession could also get on the database as, in training, with a proviso that all his work has to be supervised by a competent assessor.

The IFSM have gone some way in this direction with NAFRAR their own "national" register.  Although they promote FRACS  any assessor that has gone through a UKAS scheme can apply to go on their register.  See  http://www.ifsm.org.uk/register.html

[colin todd]

Willie, I think you are being a little naive about this self-acclaimed "national register".  If you read the blurb, you have to be a corporate member of the IFSM!!!  So its national IFSM people, who, by the way, are as rare as a right winger in the FBU.

Then you have to be registered on any UKAS accredited person (not company) certification scheme they recognise.  There is only one such scheme, though I believe a second may be coming along.

But person certification is not the end game really. It is Company certification that should be the ultimate goal.  There is one company scheme at persent with only a couple of companies. Soon thanks to SP 205 there will be a multitude.

[Tom Sutton]

But person certification is not the end game really. It is Company certification that should be the ultimate goal.

Maybe not for you but it would be for the RP who wants to know if his assessor or supervisor conducting his FRA is competent and I do not think section 5 COMPETENCIES OF FIRE RISK ASSESSORS address this fully. For instance it refers to "Listing on a recognised register of fire risk assessors" which are those as all use differing standards?

[kurnal]

The fact that the RP is using a BAFE accredited company should be all the proof the RP needs and gives evidence of his due diligence. After all Tom if you have to go into hospital for an operation you do not ask to see the GMC registration of all the individual doctors who treat you!

There will still be a role for the individual person registers so that the RP using an individual consultant, who does not trade as part of a company can check on their competence.

[Tom Sutton]

Point taken Kurnal but what about section five which states "Listing on a recognised register of fire risk assessors" when the TPCB is considering the competency of an applicant, which register would they use, as they all have different standards?

On reflection why would I need to check up because by law they cannot practice without being on the register and if they had fallen below the acceptable standard they would be struct off.