Certsure and BAFE SP205 discussion- please read the full thread

[Kelsall]

There will be no more regulation or control, the government said to the industry; sort your own act out!

If you don't marginalise those without certification there is no point in having certification.  The aim of this whole exercise was to get rid of the poor assessors, or minimise opportunity for the poor assessor to get work. i.e. the very individuals or firms who are unable to get through a reasonably difficult competence assessment process and gain certification.
What we have now is those who can get through an assessment to gain certification, are not bothering; which levels the playing field, sadly at the lowest level possible. If it were any lower it would be a swamp!

There has been very little in the way of change in the fire risk assessment landscape as far as I am aware, in fact there appears to be a continued lowering of standards; many of the really good guys are now refusing to compete on price as the quotes are so low, they are losing out to cowboys on price as that is the only criteria specified. In a competitive and unregulated market the cowboy can thrive and survive.
It isn?t too late in my opinion but there has to be a change in tack. 

[kurnal]

To be fair Golden my choice of the word expelled is a little harsh as is your phrase being thrown out . To put the record straight the FIA has clear membership criteria intended to improve the professionalism of the british fire industry, and in any sector of the industry where a choice of 2 UKAS accredited TPC schemes exist then only companies that have or are working towards certification are accepted as members. Until this last year schemes for fire risk assessment companies have not been in place so the FIA professional standards working group was set up and a scheme, which later became BAFE SP205 was born. I was a member of that group of 4 that drafted SP205. Then FRACS and IFC also offered schemes and therefore, from next renewal, any FIA  member company who has not applied for TPC will not be invited to renew their membership. Its not a surprise, its always been the clear objective  and one that I would support had TPC taken off as I had hoped and expected. Sadly it has not  taken off, there is no market imperative to join a scheme and a number of aspects of the implementation of TPC by the CBs  have left me dissapointed and disillusioned.   

[kurnal]

I agree totally with Kelsall but am not convinced that SP205 is hitting the problem where it matters- the person doing the assessment. I have recently come across two examples that have left me very concerned. And if the assessor has not recognised the presence of smoke ventilation in a fire engineered building with an atrium let alone the fact that the control panels in the plant room were open, disconnected  and the batteries missing then how will the person authorised to sign it off pick up on it?

[Golden]

Kurnal my apologies for going for dramatic effect - I have previously seen the FIA changes. I also knew that you were on the committees there as I did look into the association and to be honest membership of the FIA is another expense that I don't feel necessary; my opinion of trade bodies is poor in general. I'm not really sure of what the complete answer is but for my money I believe every assessor should have to have a pertinent qualification at a suitable level to start as a risk assessor; as you point out with your example such issues cannot be found by an inexperienced assessor nor taught on a few days/one week course.

Kelsall WRT to the marginalisation and the point of certification I think the answer to your point is being given by the industry - unfortunately in my experience the assessment process is not particularly difficult - the level is already quite low.

[William 29]

The whole TPC frustrates me as well but from the perspective that I can't believe we are debating this in our industry!?

Firstly SP205, FRACS etc was very poorly advertised in my view, BAFE made some noises but the FA's could have done more and should be pointing RP's towards companies/individuals that have TPC.

Golden, I have read your comments re SP205 several times and I feel you paint a very distorted view. We went through the same process and had to choose a range of differing buildings over 2 days of auditing. Yes there is no exam with SP205 like FRACS or the IFE. But the competencies of the assessors are scrutinised as are the validators that sign off the FRAs. You can have the head knowledge to pass an exam, but some assessors can't put this is to a risk based FRA document.

SP205 also looks at the company/individual business operation, complaints, document control, FRA template, CPD records, audit process and access to current fire safety BS's and guidance.

Also the SP205 process is based on nationally recognised competency criteria for fire risk assessors, such as that
of the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors, which is produced by the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council.

For me if there is a bench mark in our industry then we should be aiming for it, if we don't support TPC then who will? It doesn't mean there will be no bad assessors I have seen good and bad examples from some TPC individuals. What it does do is give the RP a fighting chance of getting a suitable and sufficient FRA.

What gets my goat is some ex fire officer with MIFireE, IFPO etc after his name that has ridden a fire engine for 30 years setting himself up as a fire safety consultant charging ?150 for FRAs. The RP just ends up paying twice for a S&S FRA.

[kurnal]

Good points well expressed William.   You have quite a number of associate assessors - were they all audited or just a percentage ?

[Golden]

William - I don't mean to paint a distorted picture but to give some balance to the debate using my own experience of the system and I am only saying it as it was for me; at times its been painful to point this out but I feel it has to be said. I don't believe this is airing the dirty laundry as the system obviously needs fixing - there is no point in just going down the route of marginalising those assessors who don't have SP 205 as that reminds me of the emperor's new clothes and RPs will be no better off than before. I've always stated the reasons why that its unsuitable for me as a small business. As a profession we are one of the youngest having only been around for 15 years or so and it is important to get this right and I don't feel that this system is badly broken but it needs a tweak or two and as the enforcers aren't prepared to do much then it will have to be up to the profession to fix itself.

The business operation and process aspects were very beneficial to me but I thought the technical examination was poor. I also agree that people who pass an exam may be unable to carry out a risk based assessment but there is an element of a competency standard in passing the exam that the RP can point towards as due diligence in selecting an assessor - or could if this was included in the list.

Yes the ex-30 year guys with no FS experience get my goat too but there are also examples of people with surveying, fire extinguisher/alarm technicians, 1 day FRA courses, NEBOSH and the like setting themselves up so its not only ex fire brigade who haven't a clue. I cannot believe on the LinkedIn FS forums that some people are giving advice where the poster is clearly way out of their depth. At one of the CPD sessions I attended last year a senior person in building control circles told us (with a straight face) that they were going to give up assessing building works and take on FRAs as it was easier!!

[William 29]

Good points well expressed William.   You have quite a number of associate assessors - were they all audited or just a percentage ?

Hi Kurnal, the first year 2 assessors had an on site "witnessed audit" and 2 had a desk top audit, they assessed a selection of their FRAs. They also did an audit of my audit on the 2 witnessed site visits. 6 months later we had another surveillance visit as per the BAFE scheme and I had 2 more assessors go through a site witness audit.

12 months after that we had the 2nd visit and again 2 more went through the same process. They are with you for the full day and you get charged a day rate, so as long as the premises are close together it can work to your advantage.

When we have taken new assessors on they must have an on site audit by me (SP 205 validator) of their first FRA for us or one of my other validators. Each assessor must have a site audit at least once in every 12 month period, this is checked when NSI audit. My intention over time is to get all assessors to be validators as they can then apply and go on the NAFRAR. I think we have 2/3 on there at the moment.

Once you are a validator under the scheme you can sign off your own FRA i.e. sign the BAFE Cert however each of ours is audited by me or a different validator before going out to the client.

In my view its a great scheme, it works for us and it's what we should be doing anyway in providing a professional service we are getting paid good money for.

[kurnal]

Thanks William. I wonder how the SP205 system could work for the really big companies that have a large network of assessors with national coverage? Like for example the FPA or some of the big name nationals, almost all of whom work with remote associates on an occasional basis rather than employing people on PAYE.

[William 29]

Good point, not sure really it could work though but I know one of the big nationals wasn't going for any TPC.

[Kelsall]

They would if they missed out on more contracts as a result of not having it.

What is the tipping point for schemes to work?  Financial gain or financial loss!

Out of 10 enquiries how many times would you need to be asked for certification before you would think about getting it?

3 out of 10 as a guess

How many times are you asked for it now? 

[kurnal]

I have never yet been asked. I often tell clients about the scheme  but none has so far made it a requirement, those who have used us in the past say they are well aware of our cometence. As we do no marketing new clients come to us through recommendations of others.

[Mike Buckley]

The tipping point is also likely to be the size of the contract. Single jobs would require a fair number before it is viable whereas a ?400,000 contract for a number of sites would make it worthwhile.

The basic argument would be will gaining TPC and the running costs of it, be out weighed by the profits from the work obtained? If an individual or company can only see that it will cost money for no advantage, why do it?

The real question is what's in it for me? This covers both the providers and the clients.

[colin todd]

To make a real difference things needed to be done differently at the time but I was a lone voice in a big room.

I am reminded of the proud parents who went to watch the passing out parade for their wee Jimmy at Sandhurst.  So dad says to mum " It makes you proud to watch wee Jimmy because the whole of the regiment is out of step except him".

But hey, I am fully prepared to accept the whole of the FIA fire risk assessment council, the IFE, IFPO IFSM and around 30 other stakeholders were all out of step except Kelsall.  How did we ever miss the opportunity to listen to him. All 30 odd stakeholders in the room must have gone deaf or mad momentarily.

Wullie, glad you find TPC to BAFE SP 205 works so well for you. It certainly works well for us.  For those who don't want it , like Silver, it is a free country and a free market.  For those who don't want to support the aims and objectives of a trade association, by honouring an agreement to which they signed up, that is up to them.  No biggie.  There are very reputable one man bands certificated for extinguisher maintenance, under SP 101, necessitating full ISO 9001. There are one man bands who don't bother. Caveat emptor.

[Kelsall]

Has what the OLD GUARD did made a difference?    No!  
Actually Yes!
They have succeeded in reducing massively the number of fire risk assessment companies in the FIA, it is down to around 13 now, my memory isn't good but I think they had around the 45 mark before certification. RESULT! Voting with their feet is a remarkable achievement.
They will have reduced the number of IFSM registered assessors by around 100 very shortly. RESULT! By committing to the change and trying to support third party certification the IFSM made a very positive move. But quite rightly their registered assessors looked sideways at the IFE and IFPO and said why aren't they doing the same?  The way it was set up by Colin and his crew was to protect the existing IFE register. (This is my opinion from the observations at the time and from conversations with an IFE member) It would have been financial suicide for that register to go. Colin has SP 205 why does he need to be on the IFE register and pay out twice for the same thing? Granted he can afford it but why?  What purpose does it achieve?  In the spirit of third party certification he has two different levels of certification; both supposedly covering the same thing?  
The result is we now have several different levels of certification UKAS accredited company certification which is supposed to be the best assurance, we have individual UKAS accredited certification and non-accredited certification with the professional bodies, we have those on the OSHCR register doing fire risk assessments as self-certified professionals and then the vast majority of other fire risk assessors with nothing at all. RESULT! What a brilliant way to address the problem of poor fire risk assessors; by very effectively just adding in another layer to the mix they have created a marketing tool for companies like Colins' without really addressing the issues in the industry.
It works well for Colin because he helped write it so it would work for Colin. I am alright jack and it's a free market so stop your bleating seems to sum up his last post.
As chair of NAN (National Association of Narcissists) he will never admit he is wrong, but he is. Perhaps protecting the RP was never the intent of this process perhaps it was something else entirely! Regardless of what the majority came up with it hasn't worked; I believed at the time there was a different approach that would have worked I still believe it would work now. If you want to make a difference you have to do something different! Perhaps I will take some advice from Socrates
The secret of change is to focus your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new.