To all; Beware of designing to what an architect determines to be a code interpretation, just finished a case where the building owner and architect went to a code official requesting permission to eliminate sprinkler protection in the wood attic of a small specialty hotel. The owner and architect finally influenced the code official to permit the elimination of the sprinkler in the attic. The sprinkler contractor documented their concerns about the elimination of sprinkler protection in the attic meeting the requirements of NFPA 13 and strongly protested in a letter to the owner and code official. Six years latter you guessed it, the building had a fire that caused extensive damage because the roof structure collapsed into the building. Guess who the building owner sued? The architect, code official and sprinkler contractor each for an amount in excess of $1.5 million. The sprinkler contractor was the only defendant who had to pay out of pocket the deductible in defending the company until the court system released the sprinkler company from the legal action two years later. Thank goodness the contractor had kept the project paperwork or the contractor would have been paying $1.5 million to the owner who had initiated the waiver to the code official for elimination of the sprinkler system in the attic.
Just a reminder to beware of the Owner asking for a waiver limiting the scope of fire protection, even if the code official agrees it is the contractor who is caught holding the bag. Have a fire safe day! Regards Jim Jim Davidson Davidson Associates Fire Protection * Medical Gas * Code Consulting 302-994-9500 Fax:302-234-1781 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Building trade off update So document any objections or concerns you may have as the contractor regarding the design or interpretation of the code and copy the GC and Architect. Be sure to cite specific code excerpts where you feel the decision is incorrect for reference. Never just say "per NFPA 13 you gotta do......" Cite specific chapter and verse. But as the sub-contractor you can either argue til you're blue in the face and still not convince the uninformed or document your concerns and keep going or back away from the job altogether. If you have legal counsel on retainer might want to copy them on the letter as well. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Kramer Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Building trade off update I have to second George's response. Having an AOR or EOR or AHJ tell you it's OK to design a sprinkler system that doesn't meet applicable standards (NFPA 13 in this case) doesn't shield you from liability if something goes wrong. As a sprinkler contractor, you're generally not considered a code expert. But any plaintiff lawyer worth his salt will successfully paint you as a sprinkler expert. As a sprinkler expert, you should have know to design for 3000 sf. OK, back to my regularly scheduled day job. Ed "J Cochran" Kramer > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Building trade off update > > Only one question- was the mtg documented so you have a copy to take to > court in 2014? > > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sprinklerforum- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Building trade off update > > > I wanted to follow up and let everyone who helped me think through the > process know what happened. This was a new two story courthouse (A3) > with a combustible attic above the 2nd floor and a single (B) occupancy > attached adjacent on the ground floor. IBC 2009. He was sprinklering > the basement, 1st and 2nd but not the attic. We met with the Architect > and and asked him if he could educate us on his decision tree that > allowed: > > > 1. No sprinklers in the combustible attic that was draft stopped > every 3,000 ft. > 2. Install fire protection on the first and second floors (not > required systems in the A3) to allow a reduction in fire rating of the > corridor walls, stairs, and the wall separating the courtroom A3 from > the B occupancy. > 3. His logic for not mandating an increase of the design area on the > 2nd floor to 3,000 ft. > > His answers were: > > > 1. The IBC 2009 doesn't require sprinklers except for the basement, > so NFPA 13 isn't applicable. > 2. He stated that the IBC allows for reduction with partial systems. > 901.2 "exception" > 3. He believed that because partial systems are allowed and that > because the code didn't require a system in the attic that we wouldn't > need to increase our area on the 2nd floor even though the combustible > attic above was unsprinklered. > > We took the advice of GC / Roland and others and listened and accepted > what he said. The tone of the meeting was very good and at the end of > the day I am glad he chose more sprinklers than required in lieu of more > rating. I personally don't agree with the lack of increase in area ( > question #3) but as it has been pointed out...... not my decision. > > Thanks for all the input and help. We learn and move on. > > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire Protection > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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 [email protected] http://fireball.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)
