Fire Strategy - When is it required?

[hammer1]

Afternoon all,

We have some existing stock of purpose built offices leading back to the 60's, obviously built at the time of the design requirements. The management of these buildings have not been great with alterations etc over the years (no doubt the same with most same type of buildings).

We have had some people advise us a as built fire strategy should be completed? some quoting a good few grand. My question is this, is there any benefit of such a service/document and a requirement, I would hate to think they would do this to current benchmark standards (ADB, BS9999) considering the age of buildings.

Surely a robust FRA, assessing management levels, detailed emergency plans, compartmentation and assessing benefits  compensatory measures would be the best way forward.

The main idea for a FS is to be completed at the design stage? Or if major alterations were to happen?

Is this a salesman trying to get some work or a justifiable argument ?

[Jim Scott]

I am finding that many clients, particularly in multi occs, are asking for fire strategies for the building.  This is mainly because building control are asking for it, prior to agreeing any re-fit works.  I would say that there is merit to providing it in complex buildings.  But simple buildings?  I think it will provide little more than a good FRA will be do.

[hammer1]

I am finding that many clients, particularly in multi occs, are asking for fire strategies for the building.  This is mainly because building control are asking for it, prior to agreeing any re-fit works.  I would say that there is merit to providing it in complex buildings.  But simple buildings?  I think it will provide little more than a good FRA will be do.

Thing is there not even any re-fit schedules in place which makes it even more bizarre.

[kurnal]

Why not stick with providing what the Law requires ie the  fire risk assessment(s) ( or for the purists waiting to jump on me the prescribed information) and a fire emergency plan. Unless there are alterations taking place and these are subject to an application under building regulations there is no requirement for a fire strategy document. Don't forget Regulation 38 though, this will be used to set out the fire implications for the works and inform the FRA. Sounds to me like the age old problem of  tenants, managing agents and estate agents making it up as they go along. Challenge them. Call their bluff!

[Messy]

We have a policy document that covers Article 11 duties of how we manage fire safety across the estate and provides guidance so theres uniformity of control measures. This sits across individual FRAs and a workstream schedule (timetable)
I cant see what a strategy document would offer in terms of improving safety or planning. Or have I missed something?

[Jim Scott]

I think it's the case, that some people like to know how their building 'works'.

For example, I am currently compiling a retrospective strategy for a client who has recently taken over a very complex building. The strategy will go into a much deeper level of detail than the FRA does, particularly in respect of the cause and effect logic of the active systems.

These documents can take weeks to put together. Especially when the existing information on site is limited.

[Fishy]

I think it's the case, that some people like to know how their building 'works'.

For example, I am currently compiling a retrospective strategy for a client who has recently taken over a very complex building. The strategy will go into a much deeper level of detail than the FRA does, particularly in respect of the cause and effect logic of the active systems.

These documents can take weeks to put together. Especially when the existing information on site is limited.

Yes - we're getting asked more and more to prepare these 'retrospective' strategies.  These are sometimes instructed pre-project (they can be used to drive the RIBA 1/2 stage architectural concepts) or sometimes the clients want them so they can understand how their building works in 'steady state'.  We need to delve into the performance requirements of the kit itself - kind of 'reverse engineering' the building.  This is a one-off process that complements (and potentially informs) the FRA.  They basically replace the fire strategy that was never written when they were built and/or altered.
 
On the original question - there is no legal 'requirement' to produce fire strategies at all, for any stage in a building's life-cycle.  We find, though, that for the work we do (new build & alterations) they are often specifically mentioned as a required deliverable in the contract, & even if they aren't they're often expected by the 'Authorities Having Jurisdiction' (building control in most cases).  They're actually really useful in the design process as they can (should) be used as reference documents by the other engineering disciplines (particularly Mechanical, Electrical, Public Health and Architectural).  They might also have value in the more complex buildings where works aren't planned, where the existing engineering documentation (O&Ms etc) aren't clear on how the building works in fire safety terms.

[kurnal]

I fully take your point Fishy and understand where you are coming from. I probably overdid my role as a fire risk assessor!

 I would always do my best to investigate and evaluate any engineered solution as part of my FRA in order to assess the RP's compliance with the design parameters - often having to reverse engineer the set up due to a dearth of information  available. I saw any provision of ventilation or engineered solution etc as part of the general fire precautions of the building and so an essential element of the prescribed information to be recorded, where there was nothing in the premises H&S file etc I  would ensure that my  evaluation was set out in the FRA report.  The same goes for fire compartmentation etc.

Where  an assessor has not done this (how that could be considered a competent assessment is beyond this old dinosaur) then such services would be both beneficial and necessary.

[Jim Scott]

I fully take your point Fishy and understand where you are coming from. I probably overdid my role as a fire risk assessor!

 I would always do my best to investigate and evaluate any engineered solution as part of my FRA in order to assess the RP's compliance with the design parameters - often having to reverse engineer the set up due to a dearth of information  available. I saw any provision of ventilation or engineered solution etc as part of the general fire precautions of the building and so an essential element of the prescribed information to be recorded, where there was nothing in the premises H&S file etc I  would ensure that my  evaluation was set out in the FRA report.  The same goes for fire compartmentation etc.

Where  an assessor has not done this (how that could be considered a competent assessment is beyond this old dinosaur) then such services would be both beneficial and necessary.

Playing devil's advocate Kurnal......

Would it not be reasonable to assume, as a risk assessor, that any engineered service such as smoke ventilation, would have been designed and approved to meet the design specification?  Now I appreciate that things in the building change over time, but are you suggesting that we revisit the design principles, possibly redesigning the design fire?  I would suggest that is a little beyond the scope of a normal FRA.

To some extent, I would suggest that this principle is analogous to putting faith in the building regulation process for risk assessing flats, where the standard of compartmentation is not explicitly detailed.  Also, in terms of cost, a 'reverse engineered' strategy could possibly take weeks to complete.  I'm not sure many clients would cough this up for an FRA?

[Davo]

Jim

Yes, it would be reasonable...........however the Law of Sod should be applied, I think that is what K is hinting at

davo

[hammer1]

Why not stick with providing what the Law requires ie the  fire risk assessment(s) ( or for the purists waiting to jump on me the prescribed information) and a fire emergency plan. Unless there are alterations taking place and these are subject to an application under building regulations there is no requirement for a fire strategy document. Don't forget Regulation 38 though, this will be used to set out the fire implications for the works and inform the FRA. Sounds to me like the age old problem of  tenants, managing agents and estate agents making it up as they go along. Challenge them. Call their bluff!

But would the fire strategy satisfy the requirements of Regulation 38 when required.

[Jim Scott]

IMO no it wouldn't, but Reg 38 wouldn't be relevant to an existing building.

Plus, annoyingly, Reg 38 never gets enforced anyway...

[Jim Scott]

Jim

Yes, it would be reasonable...........however the Law of Sod should be applied, I think that is what K is hinting at

davo

Fair enough, maybe I misread the context. Apologies.

[kurnal]

In response to Jim then there's a limit to the reverse engineering carried out as part of the FRA- for example I do not expect anyone to carry out CFD modelling, simply to recognise that travel distances are excessive by benchmark standards, that there clearly must have been a fire engineered solution to justify this, and to evaluate in the absence of information and using a combination of training, knowledge and  experience to whether the original solution, in the absence of information is likely to require review. I agree you have to accept that even if wrong, if it has been approved by building control and the fire service all you can do is summarise your concerns and recommend a review as an action in the risk assessment.

But I would expect a competent assessor for example to:

For sprinkler systems evaluate whether the category of goods, mode of storage and height of storage is in accordance with the design and capacity of the system

For fire engineered solutions to assess whether travel distances and risk levels are in accordance with the approved design or if no details available use trading, skills and knowledge evaluate  to whether travel distances are still likely to be in accordance with the original design- many warehouses for example have been converted from open plan block storage to palletised rack storage thus increasing travel distances and reducing visibility. Many with roof smoke vents have had large  mezzanine floors installed. Many smoke vents conflict with sprinkler design.

For flats with extended travel distances and mechanical ventilation (which is nowadays dual purpose for ambient ventilation  in which all vents may be open simultaneously on a hot day) whether the design parameters are in accordance with BRE or similar guidance and whether it is correctly configured (one scheme I came across with 45m dead ends had a fire engineered solution approved by all parties with doors not open for the prescribed periods, smaller design fire and modelling with thresholds taped but nobody noticed).

And a brand new chilled warehouse in which the fire engineers had shown their full calcs and illustrated the smoke vents on the drawings. Trouble was no vents had been installed at all and all parties had mistaken the chiller cold air inlet vents as being smoke extraction vents!

I  could go on with many more examples but have no doubt bored you all enough!  

[Jim Scott]

Thanks for the clarification Kurnal.

Here lies the issue.  Accepting the limits of competency.

I have often risk assessed a building (usually shopping centres), where the previous risk assessment has not flagged issues with the change in the original design, without consideration to the impact of things, such as the smoke control issue.

In the cases I have seen, I just think it is a matter of the previous risk assessor not understanding what they are looking at. 

Third party accreditation will sort it all no doubt.