I'm going to weigh in on Paul's side. The sprinkler contractor is essentially seeing that the devices send a signal whereas the alarm contractor is checking to see that that signal is processed properly per his requirements.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >From one person's perspective: Waterflow and supervisory devices are 'parts' > of the FA system inasmuch as they are initiating devices. They are also > 'parts' of the sprinkler system. Each is referenced in their respective > code. > > If a device fails, both contractors are going to be seated next to each > other when the insurance company asks "Why". Was the device > inspected/tested per NFPA-25? Was it inspected/tested per NFPA-72? That is > a two-part question that neither single-discipline contractor can answer > completely. > > Based on the above, it's probably in the property owner's best interest to > either: > 1) Have a single contractor who is licensed and competent in both > disciplines handle the inspection/testing process, or; > 2) Have a single contractor of one discipline agree to perform the entire > scope by sub-contract arrangement with a competent contractor of the other > discipline (wording contract language carefully here so as not to violate > applicable statute), or; > 2) Allow each to contract and perform separately, resulting in redundant > inspection/testing of certain common devices. The problem with this > approach is the old 'quality salute': alarm tech says it's the sprinkler > device, while the sprinkler tech says it's somewhere after the device > (wiring, panel, etc.). > > Either way, failed sprinkler devices still need to be replaced by sprinkler > contractors. That opens up the debate over whether sprinkler techs can > detach and reattach wires, etc. > > The sooner our industry gets a solid handle on this issue, the sooner we > build credibility and cost-effectiveness in effective ITM for fire > protection owners. > > Thanks, > > Paul Johnson > Bardane, Inc. Visioning a competitive workforce > (407) 401-7154 - Office > (407) 399-5081 - Mobile > [email protected] > www.bardane.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Duross > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Concurrent Testing > > Well, one in particular is a 19 story with 6 levels of parking. Brand new, > '08 editions prevail. > Two dual fed wet zones per floor and three dry systems per level of parking, > plus 4 more dry systems. > Fire pump, 4 roof outlets, etc. > They're pushing back claiming it has to be done by them as well. I'm not > sure I agree. > > Tom > > Well how many devices are there? They already have to check every smoke > detector anyway duct detector , strobes, etc. > > Forest > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
