NFPA 13D vs 13R - and AHJ variances that put an installer at risk..

[ContractorDave]

Scenario:

A residential structure is designed as a 3 family dwelling that is basically 3 prefabbed and pre-sprinklered structures that are assembled on site one on top of the other. The local bylaws state "All two family dwellings and multiple family dwellings shall be sprinklered". (That's all it says). NFPA would require this to be a 13R installation. The city bylaw department has decided to relax the bylaw and permit a 13D installation.

Plausible future scenario:

The building burns down and lives are lost. Though the sprinkler contractor has documentation that a 13D installation was permissible by the cities bylaw enforcement division, it can be argued that they are not the experts in the matter, and that if a sprinkler system was installed, it should have been installed to 13R.

This is happening.

Thoughts?

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

What is the difference in cost between a 13D and R system? In the grand scheme of things it is negligible except for the city tap if there's capacity charges.

What are we looking at, $100?

I would install a 13R system.

 

[ContractorDave]

Hello SD2

My apologies but it's a little more complicated: the building is located in an area where there is no municipal supply. The OFM then says "13R so fire pump" and all that entails.

The matter has become political and I just want to look at it strictly from a code perspective. With the world gone litigation insane I can choose to wash my hands of this, but it has done me good in the past to ask questions here and get different points of view.

Regards
D

 

[pipesnpumps]

Happens all the time!

The inspector or building official only enforces what they perceive to be minimum compliance..

Last week I witnessed a fire pump test with a uniformed fire inspector at a DoD installation.
I asked if he had checked the calibration date on the pitot gauges. He laughed at me and speaking to the installations contracted maintenance personnel yelled "hey Jim when's the last time you checked those gauges?". He looked on the back, and having no sticker on it, he shrugged his shoulders and they both laughed.

Ultimately you are responsible not the AHJ. They can of course be liable also, both the government entity and the person. For the person to be liable I believe that would require gross negligence on their part.

Alot of contract language requires "highest standard of care". The legal definition of that effectively means that if you asked 100 of your peers if you met every possible requirement to the letter, that all 100 would say yes.. Stay away from that wording btw. Use reasonable standard of care.,

Real world knowledge doesn't fall out of the sky on a parachute, but rather is gained in small increments during moments of panic or curiosity.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

lightecho, I agree with pipesnpumps that ultimately you are responsible not the AHJ. If there is ever a problem the AHJ will skate and you will pay.

If you end up in court using the defense the AHJ said it would be all right is going to make you look pretty silly in front of a lot of people.

It took me a lot of years to learn sometimes it is better just to walk away. I'd do it right or walk away on this one.

 

[b1ueshift]

If there is a fire, then it will be because someone left a pot of hot oil on the stove and forgot about it, or threw a lit cigarette into the bin or something. You as the designer aren't responsible for the source of ignition, only for those things that are within your control. As a designer, you could be held responsibl for 10% of the loss as something outside your control caused the fire.

If a fire is made worse by some aspect of the design, then all kinds of people can be sued. The tenant can sue the landlord, or the architect of record, or the sprinkler contracto or the develper who sold the property. Who gets sued usually depends on who has the most money and the best liability insurance.

The designer can argue that they are not the experts (not in the field of risk management). Designers know how to design a system that complies with a building code, but they don't know how to write a building code that meets certain risk management objectives. For example, there's nothing in NICET required knowledge that tells you how to estimate the number of deaths per 100,000 years you can expect in a building and how this number will be affected if you install a sprinkler system.

You also don't know what the fire brigade response time is. Without this knowledge, you can't be expected to know whether a building requires a sprinkler system to meet certain safety objectives.

If you followed the requirements of the AHJ, then it would be very difficult for an occupant to prove you were neglegent.

While it's theoritically possible to sue a sprinkler designer, you can only be held responsible a small portion of the loss, the plantif will find it easier to sue someone else (ie the person they leased the building from or bought the building from) and you just because you can design a sprinkler systems, doesn't mean that you can be expected to know whether the local building regulations are adequate or not.

 

[b1ueshift]

Sorry about the grammer, I didn't proof read it before posting.

 

[b1ueshift]

I also agree with pipesnpumps, in that you should be careful what you sign. If you sign a contract that says you will provide a sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the AHJ, that seems fairly safe. If on the other hand it includes phrases like 'highest standard of care' then that's a little more dangerous.

You your communication with the general contractor shouldn't imply that you are experts in fire safty and risk management - you just know how to fit pipe so that it meets code.

 

[ContractorDave]

Not only is it apparent that the business of system installation is a little different in Canada, it's quite a bit more informal up where I am verses much of the rest of Canada also. In the 22 years I have been doing this I have never signed a contract per se. I offer a quote or submit a tender that basically says I will design, supply and install a system to the required standards / codes and then qualify it a bit depending on the particular project (includes all expenses, does not include the garage area, etc.etc.) and the client says yay or nay with a signature on the bottom of the quote. Even when doing projects with the government for example, the above simply is changed to supply and install as per section 13 13 15 of the tender document.

What is this other stuff you are all talking about?

 

[pipesnpumps]

lightecho, maybe it is just a Yank thing. There is often such language in design/construction contracts, in the form of the boilerplate legalese attached to request for quotations or purchase order.


Real world knowledge doesn't fall out of the sky on a parachute, but rather is gained in small increments during moments of panic or curiosity.

 

[NJ1]

This is my take on this. I wrote an article several months back and page 3 is focused on individuals responsibilities. Very interesting when you get to local officials section. They have total immunity something people do not seem to understand.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

NJ1,

To many get confused with what the AHJ can legally do. Sometimes they mistakenly claim to have the power to waive certain requirements, such as accept 250 gpm for hose stream instead of 500, when any lawyer will tell you they don't.

They have no more power to accept a lower standard than a state trooper would telling you it is ok to drive 115 mph on a certain section of interstate highways. You're ok until you're caught.

I worked in a couple of states that had "Boards of Standards and Appeals" that had constitutional authority to grant waivers in case of financial or other hardship. These boards were made up of people appointed by the governor and usually included one or two architects, couple engineers, three attorney's along with a few others.

I used it a couple times with success. Once was 500 gpm hose, drew the job up and when I turned it in I told the plan reviewer he would have to reject the reason being I couldn't provide 500 hose but 250. As soon as he rejected I could appeal with the board of standards, pay a small fee and be heard in a few weeks. They would hear what you had to say, take input from the plan reviewer who rejected the drawings, vote and then issue a ruling which you got in writing on state letterhead. In my opinion this is how all these issues should be handled.

 

[NJ1]

Sprinkler Designer2 I agree with you a 100%.
My whole point with this was that the contractor will finally be responsible for any actions even if the Town official approves something that is wrong. The contractor will always be consider the expert/professional no matter what.
For example the latest law suit I just came across by research was the one from SimplexGrinnell in PA.
The town official approved the design but the PE and contractor did not performed the task as required. Even when the design was not adequate the contractor still installed it as. Building burned due to fire and SimplexGrinnell was sued for 65 Mill.
Ouch

 

[ContractorDave]

NJ1

Do you have a link to the SimplexGrinnell lawsuit you speak of? I am in the process of developing an argument as to why, not only should I not proceed with this installation, but why no one should.

Thx
D

 

[skdesigner]

NJ1, that is a real eye opener. $65 mil would put a company our size out of business ten times over. I'd also appreciate it if you could post the link.

No wonder I don't sleep well.

 

[b1ueshift]

Symplex Grinnel is owned by Tyco which is one of the biggest corporations in the world. Someone might sue Tyco for $65M, but nobody is going to sue some small operator for $65M.

I would be interested in finding out what happened in this case.

 

[NJ1]

I will try to post something shortly. But blueshift is right. Nobody is going to sue any small company for that amount unless a life is loss

 

[skdesigner]

Thus "10 times over". Bankrupt is bankrupt (even if we are small operators), I was simply impressed by the magnitude.

 

[ContractorDave]

Lol prairie guy!

 

[cdafd]

this looks like a bash tyco site:

http://www.laser-inc.com/fpc/issue18/18_FPC_06_08.pdf