Shall vs Should. So what is the right thing to do when inspecting?

[NJ1]

I need to get clarification on this since nobody since to get this right. As a NICET level three I try to ensure that property owners, tenants, property managers, etc understand the difference between both words. My problem is that NFPA 25 indicates that many routine task SHALL be performed as required but if you take a look at some NFPA books such as: Fire Protection Systems
Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Manual both P.E'S replaced the word shall with should.
I always used the word Shall but explained the client that I am not the enforcer but the messenger. I don't understand why people, companies and or certified personnel are afraid to used such words.
If the standard says SHALL but you replace it with SHOULD then you are contradicting the requirement.
Please advise.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Handbooks are commentary and reflect the opinion of the author and the staff of the code producing organization, regardless if its NFPA or ICC. The adopted standards and codes in the jurisdiction have the force of law. When NFPA 25 states one shall do something, you do it. When the provision in the standard states "should" it is optional and is based on your judgment of the situation.

 

[NJ1]

That is right but why companies do not want their inspectors to use/write the word shall in the inspection reports. By using the word shall you are not obligating the client to do it instead you are separating the mandatory requirement from the recommendation. That's all.
Throughout my entire career I have used the word shall in the reports and always trained my technicians to not to deviate from the standard. You must use the word shall if it applies.

 

[chicopee]

Companies use the word "should" because they do not have the authority to enforce the requirements

 

[byrnesf]

As an AHJ, I never interchange the two terms. If I was a private inspector or consultant, I would follow the appropriate code section with "This requirement is enforcable by the AHJ, if adopted." That gives the client a heads up as to the possibiliy of future enforcement action. Just a little added Customer Service.

 

[NJ1]

I guess no one here ever performed field inspections. If I am performing a fire sprinkler inspection and I used the world shall that does not mean I am enforcing anything. For example:
25 painted heads shall be replaced as per NFPA 25.

I am not enforcing anything instead I am educating the customer with what is mandatory. If I put should then the individual will not take seriously a mandatory requirement. Unfortunately people don not get this. NFPA 25 does not indicates who is to used the word shall or should however it indicates that the AHJ's is the enforcing body. By explaining the customer that the word shall is just to indicate what is mandatory you are educating such individual.
I have being in more than 10 depositions in the past fire years as an expert opinion advisor and I can tell you that every company is wrong. If that is how you will train your inspector than so be it.
Just be in the look out for bottom feeder attorneys that will eat you alive because of this.

 

[Arsnman4]

As an AHJ like other said “shall” mandates that that specific task must be done and in reference to 25 it’s the service provider’s responsibility to do it and mine to make sure they did. Regarding service provider’s report writing, I would recommend possibly adding “The standards states..............to your writing style and then you are just stating what the standard says in relative matter and nobody including the "suits" should interpret that as ordering anything.

And in my experience service companies don’t want to lose service contracts so they instruct employees to document the issue and put in the paperwork for the service department so they can send the system owner the bid price for the repair etc.

Hopefully a person like me will actually read your inspection report and we’ll take care of the “shall” for the deficiency discovered......but that's another issue for another time.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[NJ1]

Arsnman4

Thanks to GOD for having here. I thought I was crazy because everyone told me I was wrong by using the word SHALL. In my opinion a contractor must use the word shall on their reports however like me and you said you must indicate that such requirements are required by the applicable standard and that the contractor is not the enforcing agency.
You made such a clear point that contractors do not want to loose clients that is why they instruct their inspectors to use should instead but in reality you are confusing all parties involved. Like i said before If you want your inspectors to get ahead of their game you must teach what the standard says. That is why most technicians/inspectors continue to fail testing for certifications. I am currently in the process of launching my personal website for NICET education, expert opinion and professional consulting.
I have a great track record when it comes to NICET training because i teach what what is on the standards and not what study guides indicate. They seem to be quite confusing and not beneficiary to the public.

Closing Statement:
If you use what the standard indicates you will certainly minimize liability on your behalf. Just separate the enforcement from the servicing end your responsibility and you will certainly be ahead of the game.

My Web Site- (Template) Will be launch in another week.

firespk25.webs.com