Certsure and BAFE SP205 discussion- please read the full thread

[AnthonyB]

Certsure (ELECSA/ECA)have pulled out of BAFE SP205 and will no longer be carrying out third party accreditation of life safety fire risk assessment providers.NOTE BY MODERATOR-SEE COLIN TODDS LATER POST

This leaves just NSI & SSAIB and the inconvenience and expense of moving across to a new certification body for those who used Certsure.

The discussion topic therefore is:

- Is BAFE SP205 a long term entity worth sticking with, or is it going to be a minority scheme with a limited future?

[Golden]

Just heard this from another source who are now in the position of having to find an new certification body - I'm not surprised to be honest as they were never really committed in my opinion (I was registered with them for a while) and they have other sources of income. I really don't think that the assessor pool is big enough to sustain the 205 and will be limited to a few big companies who will then sub-contract assessors from other registers such as IFE to ensure their own quality assurance under the BAFE scheme.

[kurnal]

There aren't many of the big companies signed up to SP205 yet though Golden.  I have spoken to a couple who think they have sufficient standing in the  marketplace not to need it.   In respect of the ECA / Certsure I wager that when Mick Clifford emigrated that left them with a problem, Mick was their competent fire assessor and an all round good egg.  They may have made the judgement that the market for SP205 is too weak to justify recruiting and training a replacement. Pure speculation on my part of course.  

[colin todd]

Oh dear............ Be not despondent Silver. SP 205 still rocks and I would recommend it to anyone. As the Old Boy says, it is far from a big boys scheme. It is for all and sundry and take up has been good amongst a number of small firms.  From this month FIA member companies who want to be listed for fire risk assessment need to have applied for 3pc from a UKAS accredited CB, which means SP 205, IFC or FRACS. Speaking on behalf of my own company, we firmly believe in SP 205.  NSI and SSAIB are both well-committed to the scheme.

[William 29]

We used NSI, we are not a massive firm, around 12 subcontracted assessors. From speaking to NSI over the last 2 years or so they are committed to SP205 and have invested too much time and money into the scheme for it to be a flash in the pan.

3rd party UKAS accreditation is the way to go for our industry in my view and as I have said many times on this forum I can't understand the problem!? We have been moaning about the cowboys out there doing ?50 FRAs and taking away our business but we aren't prepared to back and support our own industry standards?

[colin todd]

Can I set the record straight on behalf of Certsure.  It is NOT the case that they are pulling out of SP 205. As Kurnal said, Mick Clifford has emigrated, which leaves a short term resource problem for Certsure, which they are currently working to resolve.  Existing certificated firms will continue to be serviced in the future, and, in due course, Certsure will be in a position to accept new applications, which they will welcome in order to build the scheme alongside their other schemes including SP 203.

Perhaps the moderator would like to consider taking out or amending the existing title of the thread, as, for those who do not open the thread, they will read a factual error, namely that Cersture are pulling out of the scheme.

[kurnal]

Fair comment Colin have amended the first post in the thread

[Golden]

I'm not despondent ct .. in fact I was very happy at getting rid of the 205 and building a client base using the IFE registration is much more effective in my experience for small company. The IFE assessment was also much more rigorous with respect to fire safety and didn't just involve producing documents that mean very little to the customer but a real test of fire safety/risk assessment knowledge and understanding.

I'm afraid my opinion on many of the TPA schemes is that they're there to keep outsiders at arms length and maintain profit margins of the larger companies - William although 12 subcontracted assessors is not a massive firm its a decent size and I'm sure you've got some support staff to help you out but my thoughts above are for one man bands and small companies where the cost and time demands of 205 significantly outweigh the benefits.

G .... soon to be employed (on a sub-contract basis) by a SP205_1 registered company

[AnthonyB]

I stand corrected Colin, but they told us they were quote "no longer be offering the BAFE SP205-1 Fire Risk Assessment certification", that we had to transfer to SSAIB or NSI and that they would maintain registration until certified with one of those two. They did originally just put things on hold for our re-registration when MC left with the intention of keeping it going, but categorically told us later by email that they were not offering it and that everyone would be withdrawn as soon as they have re-registered elsewhere.

Hence the pulling out comment!

We are sticking with it by the way!

[colin todd]

Tony, no criticism of your understanding, but the situation as I expressed it above comes from the highest level in Certsure, so you can take is as Gospel (new testament, not old).

Golden, I am disappointed at your somewhat distorted view of the intent of 3pc.  I chaired the FIA Council that produced the first draft of the scheme. We tested every clause one by one to make sure it could be satisfied by a one man company. Not a two man company, 12 man company or a giant multi national, but a one man company. Indeed I would argue that, if anything, it is actually biased TOWARDS small firms, and indeed that is the view of some of the largest players.

I am pleased that you find the IFE Register so good, as I chair the panel responsible for it, but the IFE have no quarrel with the principle that the ultimate end game for the reassurance of the end user is company certification, not just person certification, though the latter is very important and always will be.

No CB has any intent of creating profits for large companies. Many CBs themselves are non profit making.  UKAS require an accredited CB to maintain an impartiality committee.  BAFE are non profit making and have a Council that represent all relevant stakeholders, including the men with pointy heads. 

[Golden]

Colin its a distorted view in your opinion but its my actual experience that I'm relating, I've got no problems with company TPC and would support any suitable scheme but for a one man band the BAFE process is too costly in time and money for very little return. It can be satisfied by a small company but at what cost as every day that is lost to the accreditation process is a day's work lost - other silly issues occur like the numbered certificates which are a pain in the butt however is 'required' to maintain the registration. In my opinion the assessment is more geared towards record keeping and administration than fire safety knowledge and understanding which is what is required by the RP served by a small company. In a business environment where we are getting squeezed out by companies bidding low then hiring inexperienced and cheap 'risk assessors' to complete the contract (via Reed Employment in one interesting phone conversation that I had) TPC is irrelevant and it is cost and customer service that keep the clients interested and coming back. So I admire your and the FIA efforts in making it accessible but the reality is that, for me at least, its not the case.

I am toying with the other company scheme and am getting some user feedback from some friends on the scheme to see if this is more suited to my company needs so any opinions from Firenet users will be most welcome. 

[William 29]

Currently working on a tender for 54 schools see section below from the tender:


5.4     Quality Assurance / Accreditations
   
State whether your company has attained ISO9000 status, and the areas in which it has been achieved. Copy of certificate to be included with you tender return

Define in outline your documented quality system.  If no documented system exists, define how conformance to customer requirements is assured.

The company must be a member of a UKAS Accredited body. A copy of both your membership and the accredited body UKAS accreditation must be provided with your tender return.

[Golden]

William do they ask for TP certification for fire or just for QM/QA?

And the certificate is normally only a short cut to filling out all of the other paperwork. As a small company these sort of contracts are out of my reach due to other criteria in the tender requirements such as financial criteria. I'm sure the company recruiting their risk assessors (very poor day rate and no expenses) through Reed probably had a significant collection of quality management badges at the bottom of their webpage too. Most of the building companies that condone shocking work on fire safety (loads of pictures from yesterday if you need any) have a plethora of badges and awards that would make your average boy scout sick.

I'm not belittling TPC but just saying its not for small companies and one man bands; I may have to conform at some point when I'm bullied into it but by that time I'll be fighting for anybody to be registered to have a degree level or equivalent qualification in fire engineering or a related subject to ensure that suitable standards are maintained.

P.S. as a SME I wish you luck with your tender application.

[Kelsall]

Sadly the effort hasn't been made by all concerned to make third party commercially viable and no matter what Colin says all the company schemes have a real price advantage for larger companies. There is certainly an economy of scale when you compare a sole trader with a company of 4 upwards.
I think there is a lot of work to be done by the FSF, CLG the CBs and the trade and professional bodies to make the demand for third party the norm. If the end users are not demanding it in sufficient numbers it becomes an unnecessary expense. I believe there will be some work carried out on this by the competence council who have parked themselves in the FSF. Possibly at the fire sector summit there will be some good suggestions in the certification workshop.

[colin todd]

Silver, I hear what you say, but most firms certificated under SP 205 are small. So it cant be biased towards large organizations. It is a fact of life that large organisations pay less pro rata for services.  This will be true of your accountant, who will not charge ?50 to you and ?500 to British Aerospace for his day rate. He will be paying for his professional body membership, which takes more from his bottom line pro rata than PKF. The CBs running SP 205 are non profit making, so you are just paying for the true cost of the service, not for the profits of shareholders.  The auditors carrying out the work will be paid no more I would wager than you charge clients.  The small clients you work for will be paying more pro rata their profit for their FRAs than British Aerospace. That is life.

None of this makes TPC a rip off, biased towards big boys or inappropriate.  Gradually, large buyers of FRAs see the benefits of schemes such as the IFE Register and SP 205.  For those who don't want to use TPC, it is their choice.  I never use an electrical contractor to work in my house unless he is NICEIC.  The fact that some contractors do not choose to seek NICEIC certification is their choice.  My grandfather was one the first certificated electrical contractors in Edinburgh.  As far as I am aware he was never heard to bleet about the cost (though the post war recession folded his business as he would not lay staff off).