Obligations for initial inspections

[ContractorDave]

What are the obligations for an inspection firm doing first time or initial inspections when it comes to the following type of situation:

Reading through the previous years inspections you come across several of the 'greater than annual' testing and maintenance items (full trips testing for dry systems every 3rd year, fire pump flow testing via hose streams every 3rd year, check valve internal maintenance every 5 years, etc).... all of which are marked "See note A". In the Comments and Recommendations sections: "Note A, There is no information on when these testing and maintenance items were last performed. The owner is responsible for finding this out and having the testing and maintenance performed as required."

This particular inspection is a tender we won. A rather large and potentially lucrative one at that. Pricing was based upon 'initial or first year testing and maintenance.

On the face of it, it would seem prudent to bring this up with the owner before we proceed, but (A) the previous inspection firm is one of the larger companies in the world with whom we don't wish to get into any mudslinging with, and (B) it just looks bad ... like when a journeyman fitter comes on to a job after a previous fitter has left and cuts down all his work.

Yet, doesn't this appear to be a can of worms that might need to be opened? If I do my inspections and do not do, say, the 5 year internal maintenance of a check valve and then this check valve fails in an emergency situation, does having a "Note A" on my report save me from liability? Never mind that, is it an acceptable way to do business in an industry where we are supposed to be ensuring the life safety systems of our customers are up to snuff?

If there were only a couple of these items I would very likely eat the extra labor. The problem is there are 5 fire pumps, 8 dry systems and a whole whack of check valves.

A rock and a hard place or am I going overboard?

Regards
Dave

 

[FFP1]

Dry pipe valves should be trip tested annually (the functional trip test with full trip test every third year is an exception to the requirement and is only considered acceptable in certain circumstances).

Same thing with the fire pumps........flow tests should be performed annually (the every third year with hoses is an exception if flow meters are used - third year is intended to ensure the flow meter results are accurate and allows for accurate calibration of the flow meter).

There are many 5 year interval and some 10 year, 15 year, 25 year & even 50 year intervals which many/most inspectors seem to simply ignore completely.

The dry pipe system and fire pump items you mention are annual requirements; however, the internal check valve inspection frequency is not part of the annual requirements. You should probably take a close look at the contract your company uses regarding inspections and ask yourself how things would go down in a court of law! This might be an enlightening experience. In my honest opinion, the "Note A" approach will get you and your company in a boat load of trouble if and when there is a severe fire or other serious incident with significant property damage or loss of life.

 

[FFP1]

As long as I am up on this Soap Box:

There is the right way to complete a task/project and there is the fast/easy/cheap & most profitable method.............we all need to get away from the "construction mentality" (as I like to call it) and start doing what is best for our customers, the fire protection industry and society as a whole!

Most of the blog participants that read and submit posts on this forum care and seem to have integrity; our industry needs more honest people who take pride in their job.

 

[FFP1]

I want to be perfectly clear that I am impressed with Lightecho and have enjoyed his numerous posts on this blog.............he is one of the many people on this blog that cares and seems to have solid integrity.

 

[ContractorDave]

Well gosh ..... (insert goofy smiley emoticon here)
I appreciate that FPP1.

In regards to the fire pump flow testing, unfortunately I have a little inside information about this particular project and therefore I am in a culpable situation. I know that 4 of the 5 fire pumps have flow meters on bypass loops. Therefore the 3 year flow via hose stream would apply. The last inspection report also had this less than spectacular remark: "The flow meters should be calibrated" .... yet apparently these flow meters were still used to obtain the test results noted on the report...

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Regards
Dave

 

[NJ1]

Ok you guys made lots of sense. I like it.
In my opinion you must recommned during your initial inspection all greater than yearly inspection and testing requirements. If the owner has evidence of such reports then he complied with the code but if he does not he must perform all those requirements. I allways trained my guys that way. Do not assume that these task where done.
Talk is cheap. Show me that reports or I must recommend it. Bottom line.

 

[LCREP]

Dave,

My point of view from the insurance side. Do your contracts with the client indicate you will meet NFPA 25? Is NFPA 25 enforceable by state or local law code?

So IF the pump does not work and you were the last one to touch it, who do you think I am going after to get my $$ back because the building was a total loss and the fire pump was the problem? Yea I am also going to name the last few contractors that also touched it, BUT what will these company say?? it was OK when I inspected it.

When I teach contractors I tell them write what ever you find wrong, even if it is the 10th time. No one reads the reports UNTIL the loss happens. Cover your butt!

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too!

 

[ContractorDave]

Thanks Tom

It's seems it's too often that liability is the driving factor in how things are done now a days, as opposed to what's in the best interest of the client. In a perfect world these things would be mutually inclusive.

Dave

 

[fireguy519345]

Quote from FFPP1 "There is the right way to complete a task/project and there is the fast/easy/cheap & most profitable method" Very well put sir.

One of the best purchases I made last year was the Water Based Fire Protection Systems Handbook, NFPA 25-2008. Not cheap, but it has already improved our inspection procedure, & knowledge. The commentary lists reasons for the various testing requirements.

Table 13.1 lists the frequency of different tests. Check valves are to have the interior inspected every 5 years.

 

[ContractorDave]

fireguy

Which handbook are you referring to? If you are referring to NFPA 25 itself ... I'll try and say this nicely, but how could you have previously even attempted to do inspections without very intimate knowledge of 25? My assumption is that you were doing inspections based on an installation standard then?

I apologize in advance because it's not you personally (edit: well maybe it is but I frequently come off sounding like I'm attacking people and I'm not really here to make enemies), but this kind of thing is an industry wide problem that needs more attention. I spend years doing a rock solid ITM program for my clients and then some start-up comes along and writes out a 10 page deficiency list based upon an installation standard and everybody is up in arms. The whole inspection process is brought into doubt.

I'll stop now. I feel a Tuesday morning rant coming on.

Regards
Dave

 

[Arsnman4]

From a jurisdictional perspective; NFPA 25 requires reports to be made available to the AHJ upon request. The manner of “request” is open to any jurisdictional agency policy and is typically either on-site or directly mailed to the jurisdiction.

Our jurisdictional receipt method is electronically and for those firms operating in our district that don’t have electronic capability to submit reports; they must be kept records in a “Red” binder at the system control area for a 5-year year period with the most recent reports housed in the binder. This requirement is via our ordinance amendments to the testing and maintenance provisions of the NFPA. Personally, I read all submitted reports and in the event we find deficient issues reported, we follow-up with an inspection complaint and begin the deficiency tracking.

Some firms don’t like to send the reports in fear of losing business to another firm if the jurisdiction is made aware of issues and steps in. In my opinion, this is totally wrong since we are all serving our customers in different ways to assure their systems are compliant and will perform as intended in an emergency. As others have said, take pride and when something happens a person like me will be looking at why it failed or did not perform as intended and looking for who inspected or tested it last and in our case, the last five years.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[ContractorDave]

Arsnman4

I'm assuming by your last paragraph that you make the request of the inspecting firm and not the building / facility owner?
If this is the case, my take on the matter, and I have had this discussion with many an AHJ, is that when a client hires me to do an inspection, the report is the clients property, and not mine to pass along. The AHJ can certainly request a copy from me, but I make it clear that it will only be by the approval of the client and e-mails are exchanged to this effect. I certainly make the client aware that it is in his best interests to comply with the request. But it's not my decision to make.

We work quite closely with the fire departments, OFMs, and other AHJs, and I have a very good relationship with most of them. And in the end, we are all here to ensure the client (and the public in general) are safe. We are all essentially on the same team. I just happen to work for the client and not the AHJ.

Regards
Dave

 

[Arsnman4]

Dave,

That is correct. Our ordinance requires “the individual, partnership, company or corporation who installs or maintains ….etc. provide records of all annual testing on fire protection and detection systems within the jurisdiction. Our take on the matter is this. The systems are required to be maintained and tested in accordance with the adopted code or referenced standard. The code or standard maintains the position that records “shall” or “upon request” be provided to the AHJ with exception to NFPA 2001 where the standard maintains the position that the owner shall be provided with a record of the testing, hence our ordinance amendment. We require all companies who work on fire protection or detection systems to provide our jurisdiction with a record of annual testing and require the records on site for 5 years versus the 1 year so we can verify any historic issues with lack of maintenance and or required testing frequencies. With limited personnel to verify annual compliance in all facilities, the records allow us to at minimum verify that the maintenance and testing is being completed.

I agree totally and understand your stance however our jurisdiction desires to know that the testing is being done without having a reliance on the system’s owner maintaining their records since we had issues with finding the records and owner’s maintaining the systems historically and therefore the need to amend through ordinance.

Yes, we are all on the same team.

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[Arsnman4]

Dave,

That is correct. Our ordinance requires “the individual, partnership, company or corporation who installs or maintains...etc. provide records of all annual testing on fire protection and detection systems within the jurisdiction. Our take on the matter is this. The systems are required to be maintained and tested in accordance with the adopted code or referenced standard. The code or standard maintains the position that records “shall” or “upon request” be provided to the AHJ with exception to NFPA 2001 where the standard maintains the position that the owner shall be provided with a record of the testing, hence our ordinance amendment. We require all companies who work on fire protection or detection systems to provide our jurisdiction with a record of annual testing and require the records on site for 5 years versus the 1 year so we can verify any historic issues with lack of maintenance and or required testing frequencies.

With limited personnel to verify annual compliance in all facilities, the records allow us to at minimum verify that the maintenance and testing is being completed.

I agree totally and understand your stance however our jurisdiction desires to know that the testing is being done without having a reliance on the system’s owner maintaining their records since we had issues with finding the records and owner’s maintaining the systems historically and therefore the need to amend through ordinance.

Yes, we are all on the same team and meant no disrespect with the comment "take pride" just referencing other's opinion.

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[ContractorDave]

Arsnman4

Certainly no disrespect was even remotely noted!

Thanks for your reply.
I would offer that it is required by code that the owner maintain these records and this "should" be the best place to keep them as inspection firms come and go and are loathe to share their information with competitors.

But if your process works, that's what counts!

Regards
Dave

 

[fireguy519345]

Lightecho, no offense taken. I often rant myself, it does no good, but I feel better. The book is published by NFPA and is NFPA No. 25HBO8, authored by David Hague. It contains all of 25-2008 with very good expanatory comments about the code requirements. I have found it to be facinating reading. And it helps me to do a better job of inspections.