You'd pointed out that the spkrs WEREN'T required by code in the COR. They understood this and accepted it- the blame is on the clerk of the works.
Reasonable man theory would hold you clear. And why are they suing if the uprts controlled the fire? They didn't buy suppression, they bought (I assume) CONTROL. And got it. And I trust my insurance carrier would subrogate the A/E for designing the ceiling that -as PROFESSIONALS- they should have known would result in a protection scheme rendering the uprights semi-useful and the pendants -who knows? They may have worked in a different fire scenario, and I'd sure assume the shuck and jive of "well, we're just the dumb installing contractors that noticd a problem, suggested a fix the PROFESSIONALS could have rejected and replaced with a REAL fix, but didn't. If building damage was minimal, no deaths/injuries, I'd go to the stand on a full nights sleep in that one. Especially if it was YOUR job :) Would I sue Jeep and win if I ran over a toddler going forward from a parking space because the REAR camera didn't show the kid? The pendants were a bona fide attempt to make a bad situation only poor. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Ron Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 6:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Ceiling Clouds throughout Band / Choir Room George, I'm usually with you on your answers but not this time. Reality - Submit the COR, get the extra, install the heads in the clouds. Fire in band room, sprinklers installed in clouds fail to activate for lack of heat collection. Sprinklers at roof deck control fire until arrival of FD. School sues FP contractor for selling extra work that was not required by code and did not work as advertised. That's why I call them "feel good sprinklers". They look good but don't work. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Sprinkler Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Ceiling Clouds throughout Band / Choir Room Wouldn't hurt to point out the dilemma of "it meets the code but the effectiveness is cut substantially; my contractual obligation is met by meeting the code; if you would like us to provide protection in excess of the code and drop heads below the panels, we'll develop a COR for your consideration. Their response, or lack of it, may spare some legal defense costs in the future; perhaps ensure the future of Rapid Fire as a "going concern". One thing is for sure- it would be prudent to have acknowledgement that a) you met code with just uprights b) you brought the code vrs reality to the attention Believe me when I say you do NOT want to be debating the acceptability of it, or the code compliance issue, in a courtroom years from now as a precedent to apportioning % of blame and share of resultant damages. We've had incidents where the insurance adjuster, after getting a copy of our dog and pony letter wherein the owner's rep has signed off acknowledging responsibility for the system including ITM and protection of wet system from freezing, has called us and said "Thanks for making my job easy". That letter and the dog and pony show has been MANDATORY standard operating procedure on EVERY job we do for years. As Russ L says in his #25 seminar, if you do a lot of work or if you do it for awhile, it's not IF you have a fire (freezeup, incident) in one of your buildings, its WHEN you have a.... Think of it as legal preventative maintenance. Far easier now than later, and heck- maybe you'll get a few extra bucks and install a better system for the time to write one letter or email. Glc Ps I believe the wording is CONTROL the fire, vrs suppression mode (ESFR). -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Knight Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 5:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Ceiling Clouds throughout Band / Choir Room Craig, I agreed with you on the quantity and closeness of the panels, I was merely pointing out the fact that an object is not an obstruction just because it is 48" wide. It's not an obstruction until it exceeds the 48" threshold. As far as are sprinklers required; it will depend on the actual layout of the panels. It may be that there are areas were it would be advisable to place pendants in the panels, while there may be other areas where this can be avoided. This is why I'm not sold either way. The layout will dictate where sprinklers will be required. As Garth mentioned, I think it was Garth, the fire sprinklers are designed to contain not suppress the fire. While we all want to see every fire suppressed, this is not the intent. It is an excellent bonus though that most fires are suppressed by sprinklers, and I agree that we need to be diligent in our designs so as not to create systems that will be destined to fail. Bob K _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
