Certification of fire risk assessors - one RP's view!

[Fishy]

As someone who used to do a lot of fire risk assessments on a commercial basis (albeit a long while ago) but who now works for an ‘RP’ who sometimes employs people to do fire risk assessments, I’m rather confused by the state of play as regards certification of fire risk assessors!  Let’s see if I’ve got things right...

It seems to me that there are a number of schemes either in existence or in the pipeline & there’s currently a bit of a ‘gold rush’ where more or less every organisation with ‘Fire’ in its title is looking to set something up?

Only one is currently UKAS accredited (generally recognised as being the UK’s ‘gold standard’ as regards certification bodies) & this is based upon requirements they developed themselves, in line with the FRACC framework?

We have this BAFE SP 203 which is, in essence not a scheme in itself but is a standard for setting up a scheme, which people who wish to ‘certify’ fire risk assessors can use if they want to, but certification schemes run to its requirements don’t ‘certify’ individual risk assessors, only companies. The Companies using this Standard may or may not be UKAS accredited (their choice)?

Most schemes seem to incorporate the FRACC framework requirements, but not all?

It’s certainly a mess, but perhaps that’s the way it should be, in a country where we like industries to be self-policing  & there is competition between the bodies that the industries can use to support this?  Perhaps it’s a good thing to have different schemes, with different requirements competing for the business of those who wish to ‘advertise’ and support their ability to offer fire risk assessment services?  Sure, it’ll be confusing for some RPs in the short term, but in the medium-to-long term I imagine many/most of the schemes will fall by the wayside & by a winnowing process only the ‘best’ will survive & thrive.

I’d observe that we’ve had product certification in the fire industry for years, provided by different certification schemes with completely different technical requirements (LPCB, CERTIFIRE, TRADA etc...) & they compete without there being any apparent safety compromises or any particular confusion amongst specifiers.  In fact, the competition is a healthy thing, because it stops any of them becoming over-zealous in their requirements, or from charging outrageous prices.  Perhaps, once more mature, the risk assessment certification market might reach the same state of affairs?

I’ve no axe to grind – I’m unlikely to join any scheme & I don’t know enough to even begin to guess who’s ‘best’ (whatever that means).  I do think, though that maybe, instead of seeking consistency at this relatively early stage, & potentially backing the wrong horse, we should just let Darwinism rule for a while & see what evolution produces..?

[John]

And that, M'Lud, concludes the case for the defence.   

[colin todd]

Fishy, You ARE confused. BAFE SP 203 is not a standard for setting up a scheme. It is 100% a scheme, but one that any CB can operate. They cannot do so without UKAS accreditation.

[Fishy]

OK - think that I understand now.  It's basically an 'off the shelf' package that anyone could use as the technical basis for marketing their own scheme (assuming that they could get UKAS accredited)?  So it's as if someone has written a 'code of practice' on how to run a certification scheme for fire risk assessors?

[Fishy]

And that, M'Lud, concludes the case for the defence.   

...and your point is...?

[Tom Sutton]

I do not think so Fishy I think it’s a BAFE scheme that certifies companies (one man, groups of associates, and small/large companies) to issue certificate's to prove they are competent to conduct FRA's, nothing to do with FR assessor registers that's where we do need a CoP.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Im already confused. What schme is what. I just cant keep up with who is doing what when why and when. And i work in the industry. Go on Colin Todd accuse me for knowing nothing and that you are going to tell my employers about how incompetent i am and that i shouldnt be involved in fire safety. We all know you can track IP addresses.

[kurnal]

C3 there is no shame in being confused- most of us are so the poor old RP doesnt stand a chance at the moment. But it will settle down.
My simple summary is as follows. Please anybody correct me at any time if I have any of this wrong.

1- Third party accreditation is seen as a Good Thing. It enables the RP to find a company or an individual consultant to carry out their fire risk assessment with some surety that the person or company is competent to do so.
2- There are third party accreditation schemes for individual assessors and seperate schemes for companies offering fire risk assessment services.
3- Anyone can set up an accreditation scheme and say that in their opinion Joe Bloggs is competent. But we need standards to which the accreditation shemes should work.
4- An organisation called UKAS (UK Accreditation Services) is the Governments preferred body which measures and assesses the performance of the accreditation shemes and if they are happy awards that scheme a UKAS badge.
5-Professional standards are rightly a matter for professional bodies to consider and the IFE, the IFSM and IFPO have in the past set up registers of individual members who they have measured and found, by their standards, to be competent. They all use different criteria for their assessment of competence.
6- The FRACS (Exova Warrington) scheme for third party certification of fire risk assessors was last year awarded UKAS accreditation. They like the professional bodies also have a register of people they have assessed and found to be competent. Their procedures were  generally considered to be the most rigorous of all the existing registers.
7- So at the end of last year there were 4 different registers of individuals deemed to be competent fire risk assessors. These were FRACS, IFE, IFSM and IFPO. But standards were different because all used different criteria and methodology. Only the FRACS scheme was accredited by UKAS. It was also endordsed and taken up by RICS.
8-  The Industry wide Competency Council published their findings at the end of last year and for the first time identified the core skills and qualities needed by a competent fire risk assessor.
9- FRACS reviewed and modified their scheme.
10- The IFSM decided to upgrade their register calling it the NFRAR register. This was done in collaboration with FRACS and the IFSM require all members wishing to migrate to the new register to go through the FRACS procedure. The old IFSM register will be wound up in 2013.
11- It was reported that IFE reviewed their procedures to bring it into line with the Competency Council report.
12- So moving forward, there will be FRACS, FRACS/RICS, FRACS/IFSM NFRAR, IFE and IFPO registers for competent individuals engaged in fire risk assessment and wishing to show their competence.
13- The Government has been clear throughout- listing on a register will NEVER be made compulsory. We will never have a scheme equivalent to the GASSAFE register.
14- Apart from individual fire risk assessors wishing to show their competence, many companies offering fire risk assessment services also wish to demonstrate their competence using a third party accreditation scheme.
15- FRACS set up the first UKAS accredited Company scheme last year and so far have only one company through- BB7 in Kent.
16- The FIA wanted to see choice in the market for their member companies seeking company TPC and drafted the bones of a scheme for third party certification of companies offering fire risk assessment. They persuaded BAFE to take it forward and develop it - it became known as SP205.
17- BAFE's role is to set up and oversee the scheme but they do not directly operate it. Other organisations can take up and operate the SP205 scheme - we call these organisations Certification Bodies. The Certification Bodies (CBs) operate the SP205 scheme under BAFE supervision and must themselves be accredited by UKAS as competent to run it.
18- Fire Risk Assessment companies can therefore choose from two UKAS accredited schemes for their Third Party Certification. They can go down the FRACS route or from 31 May down the SP205 route - there are 3 CBs about to operate the SP205 scheme for fire risk assessment companies.
19- It is rumoured that IFC are also to enter the market and offer a scheme for companies.
20- The big differnce between the FRACS company scheme and the SP205 scheme appears to be in the use of competent fire risk assessors to work for the company. FRACS appear to want to assess every individual assessor employed by a company and subject them to an exam and a review of their work. SP205 schemes appear to be less onerous in their assessment of the competence of each individual. They carry out a detailed assessment of the skills of the senior staff who will authorise the final reports and manage the business but leave some freedom for the individual companies to assess the competence of their own  risk assessors, using for example people listed on the existing person registers.
21- It could be argued that the SP 205 scheme relies heavily on the best in the organisation being assessed. It’s a bit like testing the star player in a football team and him confirming the rest are up to his standard?

Look this is only my own opinion  and I am happy to defer to anyone who knows better.

[colin todd]

Kurnal you are very very close, so I am not giving you a must try harder on this occasion, but, as always, not quite correct. Firstly, CBs do not accredit, they CERTIFICATE.  Thats why they are called certification bodies.  Secondly, you are spreading misinformation again when you said the CBs will not consider the fire risk assesors, only those who sign off.  It is simply there will focus on ALL those who sign off.  There will be sampling of the work of the fire risk assesors. This is no different from all other schemes dealing with other areas, such as FD&A.

Fishy, the thing to consider is that SP 205 IS the scheme.  It is just there will no monopoly for CBs and a good thing too.  ( The only monopoly in the world should be the Monopolies Commission.)  Anyone can run it but only if BAFE agree they can apply to UKAS for acreditation, and they cannot run the scheme (other than, say, as their own pilot that is unaccredited) until they have got UKAS accreditation under another part of the scheme (SP 205-2) which sets the requirements for the CBs and their auditors. If you need to understand more, please contact me and I will be happy to explain and answer specific questions.

[kurnal]

Secondly, you are spreading misinformation again when you said the CBs will not consider the fire risk assesors, only those who sign off.  It is simply there will focus on ALL those who sign off.  There will be sampling of the work of the fire risk assesors. This is no different from all other schemes dealing with other areas, such as FD&A.

I am pleased to amend my posting to reflect the true situation, But my interpretation of SP205 is that the company undergoing review will be expected to have a policy on how they will assess and monitor the competence of their own fire risk assessors.

The SP205 inspection will audit their diligence in implementing their own policy and will for example, sample a number of risk assessments as one way of auditing this.

The more a company say they do the more they will be measured.

Is that right?

[colin todd]

You have a talent for being close but not ever exactly right, Big Al.  This is probably because, when you were in the fire service, you put out most of the fire with main jets and left the minions to do the piddly wee detailed fires with a hose reel.

I think the problem you have is distinguishing between the QMS-type matters and the deliverables.  The internal control of competence is really part of the QMS of the company, which must be evaluated. The CB will pay close attention to the people who sign off and how the company checks themselves the competence of individuals.  But then they will check, by sampling, the fire risk assessors and their assessments. This is no different from the way most certification schemes work.

I think there is no need for people to trawl over the detail of how CBs carry out their work. It simply plays into the hands of those who would like to see the SP 205 scheme undermined.  The point is that the scheme has the backing of the BAFE Council, which represents virtually all sectors of our profession and has no axe to grind whatsoever except to raise and maintain standards in the profession.  The CBs that will run the scheme are all experienced in running certification schemes and fully understand how to go about their business. It is what they do for a living and have been doing it for many many years. To make sure they do it right, they are accredited by UKAS, who then monitor their performance.

Take a look at some of the really bad fire risk assessments that have brought about grief for people and aks yourself whether the company that carried out the FRA would get 3PC from anyone.  Take a look at the fire risk assessor and ask if he would get on a register.  There will be the odd not quite up to standard FRA carried out by people on registers of whatever source, and by companies with whatever certification.  No scheme is perfect, but they raise the standards in the industry and provide confidence for users.

[kurnal]

I think the problem you have is distinguishing between the QMS-type matters and the deliverables.  The internal control of competence is really part of the QMS of the company, which must be evaluated. The CB will pay close attention to the people who sign off and how the company checks themselves the competence of individuals.  But then they will check, by sampling, the fire risk assessors and their assessments. This is no different from the way most certification schemes work.

I have no desire to see SP205 fail Colin I was there at its moment of conception- indeed the intimate moments before that! But my concern - which probably is worrying too much- is that I have carried out risk assessments for several "Large" companies before my own business became fully established and still do from time to time. Companies that will have no problem collecting all the QMS badges, because that and marketing are what they are good at. But in some cases the people at Head Office have little or no knowledge of technical fire safety. In the case of one firm I have worked for the person who signs the reports off admits openly he has no knowledge of fire safety. They rely on the assessors to get it right and the technical content is not questioned though the punctuation and grammar often is.  Now some of these companies are very good and diligent at picking quality assessors to do their work and some of them are not so choosy.  I hope the CBs understand and expect this. Probably like you I read every word of every report that goes out of the door. Not all are like this but just perhaps those that arent wont satisfy the CBs....... I will take your advice and wait and see what happens.

It would also be good if the BAFE  risk assessment logo is  unique and easily identifiable to fire risk assessors. Otherwise  RPs may become  confused by use of the logo for other purposes such as SP203 in muliti disciplinary companies.

You have a talent for being close but not ever exactly right, Big Al.  This is probably because, when you were in the fire service, you put out most of the fire with main jets and left the minions to do the piddly wee detailed fires with a hose reel.

The fact is Colin that you cant change the habits of a lifetime and the role of an operational officer in the fire service is pretty well shooting from the hip - the bells go down, you immediately drop whatever you were doing and apply yourself to the crisis in front of you, no crib sheets and little reference. You never get it 100% right because theres no opportunity for detailed strategic planning or research but a success is making a good stop and getting everybody home safely. You leave it much better than you found it.

I find that this becomes a way of life - whether it be blogs, taking the missus shopping or doing the decorating. Much to Mrs Ks annoyance. Shopping dear? Ok. Fire Brigade! lets race there do a quick reccy, surround the commodity, deploy the wallet, put in a stop and go home. Closing down home station.

[nearlythere]

But in some cases the people at Head Office have little or no knowledge of technical fire safety.

Gosh. You mean it is a nation wide thing? I thought it was only present in my former head office.