Inspection Barcoding

[fsdg73]

Does anyone have any experience with the use/purchase of barcoding equipment for extinguisher/alarms/fire sprinkler inspections?

I have to purchase a product for our inspections division due to the requirements of a contract spec and have started with four potential providers.

Firebug, Hallogram, MSS, and Building Reports

Please, any suggestions, reviews, and/or advice from this community would be useful. Thank you.

 

[inspectortx2]

DONT DO IT IT JUST MAKES THEM LAZY AND THEY JUST SCAN IT AND DONT DO THE WORK. Try life saftey 101 you can take pics of defincies voice notes and signatures. one of our inspectors took a pic of a control valve off do to froze pipe owner did not want to fix building burned to the ground we had a pic and a signature of it excused from court.

 

[NJ1]

Yes they get lazy. I dont believe in non of those softwares unless it is a customer requirement. It only indicates that inspector got to that device.

 

[FFP1]

I think this type of software should be BANNED by NFPA 25!!

 

[fsdg73]

Thanks for the input guys. We ended up using hand written reports and paying someone in the office to enter the data into Excel so that it could be manipulated to look like the common Bar-coding report that our client had been used to getting every year prior.

You are correct. The bar-coded report appears complete and thorough, but it is really only as good as the inspector and the data that is entered. After finding multiple major errors in the reports the client provided from the previous year inspection we convinced our client to give us an opportunity to complete the inspection the traditional way. We then strengthened our case by finding major deficiencies while completing our inspections this year.

Extended coverage sprinklers that were 14'-0" off the nearest adjacent wall, CO2 extinguishers that were manufactured 11 years ago and had not been hydro tested as required. They were listed on last year's report as needing hydro-testing next year.

Nothing that I would be real proud of had our inspector's been given the opportunity to make those same errors.

 

[NJ1]

I do not want to sound condescending but I have travel the country the past 4-5 years providing NICET training, operations management, consulting, etc and I found that these type of softwares are lame, insufficient and allows for fixing many errors and omissions. I love to find out my guys are good at what they are doing or I need to provide immediate training. In cases even replace them if necessary.
I want to see your signature, comments, and somebody signing reports end of story. If a customer does not like paper reports then I will have someone at the office transferring that data to PDF form period. Badly design technology can only lead to disaster.

 

[inspectortx2]

fsdg 73 that sounds about right just did an inspection where they were using bar codes and hanging green tags only thing that had got inspected was around the fire pump 28 story college dorm that had been remodled all the head spacing was off and rooms that had no coverage but it was green tagged. scan gun reports said every thing was ok. they should have lost there license.

 

[NJ1]

Just make sure you understand that inspections as per NFPA 25 do not covers installations flaws ok. What ever was installed or however was installed it is assumed it was done as per NFPA standards. Your inspectors are not required to identify these issues. keep this in mind.

 

[fsdg73]

In the state of Georgia spacing issues are a yellow tag. Anything that would impair the successful operation of the sprinkler system is a yellow tag. Granted sprinkler spacing can be considered a design issue and such issues are out of the scope of NFPA 25. But spacing issues constitute a lack of coverage which will impair the correct operation of the sprinkler system and should be considered a deficiency. Personally I think there is a bit of liability if one of my inspectors walks away from a spacing issue with the thought that "that is a design error/installation that should have been corrected prior to final C.O." and the facility burns and there is a loss of property of life. Thoughts?

 

[NJ1]

fsdg73

This is why you must consider other avenues before you start looking for installation/design deficiencies. I agree with you but it must be address differently such as separate letters and not in the report.

 

[FFP1]

Spacing issues do not justify a yellow tag based strictly on the Georgia Fire Sprinkler Act and NFPA 25 inspection scope.

This is an interesting topic and there are MANY discussions as well as differing opinions regarding this somewhat complicated topic. Spacing and many other installation (i.e. NFPA 13) requirements SHOULD be resolved during the design, plan review and initial inspection process (PRIOR to obtaining the certificate of occupancy). We all know this process is flawed in some areas of the country; however, an engineering analysis is required (much more involved in comparison to the NFPA 25 inspection requirements) in addition to NFPA 25 inspection routine to identify all of these isues.

 

[fsdg73]

NJ1,
Thanks for the information. Since I have been in design for 10 years I automatically recognize design deficiencies and flaws. Honestly I hadn’t thought of the Inspection liabilitly from the other side of the equation. I will have all my inspectors stop mentioning what would be outside the scope of 25 in their inspection reports. We will include a separate report that mentions said deficiencies but stops short of making recommendations and have a well worded disclaimer that has been reviewed by our lawyer. Given the situations provided in your letter I can see where assuming the extra liability can be a major issue, but I still feel you assume some liability when you fail to mention it at all.

FFP1,
We have had several discussions with both state FM and local FM's prior to writing up and subsequently yellow tagging systems with spacing issues. You are correct if you go strictly by the letter of 120-3-3 state codes and regs spacing is design issue but spacing will impair the proper operation of a sprinkler system. Ie. Extened coverage sprinklers 14’-6” off the adjacent wall.

I think our company should continue to write them up but it is not exactly to correct to yellow tag a system for something you should not, for liability reasons, put in an NFPA 25 inspection report. If you guys don’t mind me asking what is your approach? Thanks again.

 

[NJ1]

Here is my input on this.
Fire Sprinkler Inspectors are not required and in cases nor certified to identify design flaws. What I did was I instructed my inspectors to write the following:
(Picture this is as reports)

Note: These other deficiencies are installation flaws and are outside the NFPA 25 scope of inspection. However these deficiencies could impact the proper operation of the fire sprinkler system in question. You should have a qualified Engineer to evaluate your property to determine the severity of these deficiencies.
1) Lack of coverage
2) Improperly installed seismic bracing
3) Improper K-factor sprinkler head used
4) etc, etc, ect


I have being using these technique when providing training or writing reports for quite a while. I thinks it serves well if needed.