I'd say it's the owner's obligation to pay for it, but how services are rendered is up to the contracts. Did the sprinkler sub sign a contract that includes water quality testing or remediation of found or known issues in their scope? If so, then BIG Oops for signing that bad boy, but it's not likely. NOBODY'S on the watch for MIC or other good practices if they're not already considered code or common practices.
Steve L. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rahe Loftin - 7PCE Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:40 PM To: SprinklerFORUM Subject: Re: Adequate water supply What do you do when the water supply is adequate in pressure and flow but has corrosive elements other than MIC? Who is responsible for the quality of the water supply? * * *Thanks* * * *Rahe Loftin, PE * *Fire Protection Engineer (AHJ)* *General Services Administration* *Region 7 - TX, OK, NM, AR, LA* *Design & Construction 7PCE* * * *c - 817-371-3102* *o - 817-978-7299* On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Sprinkler Design Services < [email protected]> wrote: > I'll echo the comments. I've always had the water flow qualified in > the bid scope. If we weren't able to obtain the flow from official > sources like the fire or water department, then we cited a "typical" > flow and noted it as the minimum required. > > Marc Walter, SET > SPRINKLER DESIGN SERVICES, LLC > 780 6th Avenue > Seaside, Oregon 97138 > V - (503) 956-4019 > F - (503) 717-5182 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Cahill, Christopher > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Adequate water supply > > What Scott said. Was it design build? Where did the flow test comes from? > Was there a change in flow test between design and construction? With > a change why? With a change, for example the City turning down the > pressure after the design test but before the construction test, > probably not the contractors problem. But if you tell me you need a > pump and you do the wrong remote area, don't take reduction > allowances, use 5.6 heads where 8 work and 1" BL then probably not > justified. And yes, been part of both scenarios recently. One paid, one didn't. > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > 8201 Norman Center Drive > Bloomington, MN 55437 > Phone: 952.656.3652 > Fax: 952.229.2923 > [email protected] > www.burnsmcd.com > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: > MN > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Steve Johnson > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 4:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Adequate water supply > > At what point does anyone think the owner/general contractor should be > liable for a change order for the increased pipe size due to lack of > adequate water for the calculations of the sprinkler system? > > > > Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
