Nor do we usually receive the bid package early enough to ask questions and get answers. Ron F
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Cook Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard Dave - I find when submitting pre-bid RFIs regarding non-applicable requirements in the bid packages, most are not addressed, and some engineers (will not name them) got "offended" about being called out on some of it. One we see frequently - applying hanger rod diameters and hanger spacing required for plumbing (assuming) to sprinkler specs. Disregarding specs made me think of a funny story from a project a long time ago - I had a general contractor insert a note in the middle of his weekly meeting minutes that were emailed to the team, stating "if anyone actually is reading these and calls me stating so, I will give them $50". Not a single person called. STEVE COOKÂ TG Gallagher -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Sornsin Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard I worked for Rapid Fire last year and when putting together a bid, I found it interesting that the spec for an elementary school had verbiage that I had written 9 years prior while doing the FPE thing with Mark Sornsin. An engineering firm had subbed out a High Expansion Foam job to us, and our spec apparently then became the basis for their standard sprinkler spec. Contractors in this industry are so used to schlock spec's that they too often ignore items added by legitimate EOR's. If all contractors actually questioned the ME's prior to bid, and copied the Architect, it would put pressure on the ME's to clean up their act and actually modify the spec as needed by the current job. But few contractors have time, and the ones who are used to bidding off certain EOR's 'know' what's enforced and what isn't, thereby giving them a competitive advantage versus anybody not familiar with that particular engineer. When I worked with Mark we used to joke about adding a clause at the beginning of each spec: "Note: We really, really, really, really mean what we say in this spec." David M. Sornsin Sornsin Fire Design & Consulting Fargo ND 701.371.0643 [email protected] On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. < [email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. Though these questions are best asked during the bidding > process, not during shops review. > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard > > When you have to specify a non-standard design criteria it's best to > provide some clarification in the documentation as to why you chose > what you did. It could help prevent these types of questions (or at > least minimize them somewhat). > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group Lead > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard > > My comparable story relates to a small town community wellness center. > It included Gymnasium spaces, swimming, etc. We were hired only to > provide a 'performance specification', but we thought it might be > novel to include performance criteria... > > For the gymnasium we talked with the architect about potential uses > beyond athletics, and he confirmed that there could be trade shows, > receptions, etc. We specified OH II. The contractor submitted shops > to the Fire Marshal who commented that the Gymnasium didn't require > OHII, just Light haz., so naturally the contractor wanted us to allow > the LH design. I don't blame them, but this highlights what we're discussing > on this thread: > classification and hazard are different animals. Sometimes a > gymnasium, is just a gymnasium; sometimes a banana, is just a banana; > and sometimes the engineer has done his homework and specifies a design for a > good reason. > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Curtis > Tower > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard > > It seems that semantics are everything in this industry; however, > certain terms tend to be used interchangeably by certain people. Code vs. > Standard, hazard occupancy vs. IFC occupancy group, etc. I've had > very heated discussions with GC's and MEP's concerning the > differences. I once had a full blown argument with an individual over a > "community center" > project in a small Texas town which was blanket classified as IFC > Group A-3. As we later found out, every third weekend, this community > center, which had a large, multi-court gymnasium would be hosting a > swap-meet inside. > > Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but what would have been considered a > light hazard occupancy per the standard is being utilized as an IFC > Group "M" or "S-1" occupancy which would necessitate a higher density > requirement per the standard. Given that it's a "swap-meet" there is > absolutely no telling what sort of commodities might be present. I > imagine that the commodities would not exceed 8'0" under most any > circumstance and the majority of the merchandising would be on > collapsible tables, but I was attempting to apply a conservative approach by > implementing an ordinary hazard II density. > > Curtis Tower > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Casterline [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 10:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: occupancy classification vs occupancy hazard > > Humble enough, Sir Roland. > I will have to think quite a bit more about everything else you said, > however. > _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
