If a contractor used the "latest" and "greatest" version of the code and that
specific version of the code is not the legal version of the code the
contractor can be accused of practicing "engineering" and invalidate the
protection afforded by the contractors contract with the GC because the
contractor exceeded or went beyond the scope of the contract with the GC.
Lawyers are using this tactic in legal actions against contractors doing NFPA
25 inspections when the contractor notes deficiencies that are beyond the scope
of NFPA 25.
Happy Easter to all.
Regards
Jim
DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES
Fire Protection Engineering P. O. Box 4002
Code Consultants Greenville, DE 19807
(302) 994-9500
Fax (302) 994-3414
CONFIDENTIALITY
This report and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged.
If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this report in
error, please destroy the report, notify the sender immediately, and do not
disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store
or copy them in any medium.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 12:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: ignoring new standard requirements
Thank you all for your response and input.
Mark hit the nail on the head for what I was driving at regarding the PE's
obligation to society, and how one would deal with this kind of problem. If
I'm not mistaken, your code of conduct requires you to lookout for welfare and
safety of society. You can only do that by basing your design on the most
current information. But if an AHJ doesn't require the newest codes, whether
more stringent or less as many have pointed out, then as a subcontractor you
may be pricing yourself out of a competitive bid. So you are stuck with the
dilemma...meet the code of conduct, or ignore the latest requirements to
compete with other subcontractors so you can put food on your plate.
Going all dramatic here...but which is the lesser of two evils. Has anyone
heard of a legal case involving this type of scenario and what the outcome was?
Thanks,
Sean Van Gaal
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E.
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: ignoring new standard requirements
My favorite example of this conundrum goes back to the transition to the
requirement in 13 for the use of QR sprinklers in Light Hazard, and the
reduction in design area allowed by their use. I believe this occurred in the
'96 edition - whatever, our local codes were following earlier editions of 13.
So when the engineer specifies to design to the latest edition of NFPA 13 and
follow state and local codes, what do you do? QR sprinklers at the time were
more expensive; but you could get the reduced design area, which could save
money. Meanwhile, since the most recent edition of 13 called for their use, it
was implied that QR was superior protection to standard response in Light
Hazard occupancies.
Galen's response make the most sense, but in my example, we were a contractor
competing for a job as a sub-contractor to mechanical - or maybe sub- to a sub-
of the general. No one cared about such an issue during bidding. If you won the
job, no one was going to listen to your esoteric discussion about the benefits
of QR sprinklers unless you were willing to give a deduct change order. It was
more difficult after receiving my PE, when I became professionally obligated
(not just morally) to provide the best system for our customer.
The QR issue was relatively minor and I am certain no one suffered injury
because our local codes didn't adopt the latest version of 13 at that time.
But it highlights the challenge and emphasizes a common point on this forum:
engineers of record need to be more engaged in and take more responsibility for
the fire suppression aspect of their job. And if the opportunity is available
to contractors (with or without PEs on staff), they should take Galen's advice
and propose alternative designs based on the latest standards.
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: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: ignoring new standard requirements
I'm sorry for my grammar and autocorrect as this is coming from my phone.
How does the forum feel about ignoring the more stringent requirements of the
most current NFPA standards all because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest year?
As the standards have evolved with each new addition, they typically try to
clarify murky wording of past standards, expand on topics, or add/change
requirements based on the latest and greatest tests. So should we be purposely
designing and installing and inferior product that more times than not is less
safe just because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest design guidelines. I've
heard sometimes the AHJ doesn't adopt the new standard simply due to the
financial impact of republishing their amendments and not merely because they
don't agree. To me it seems morally/ethically wrong but I may just be on my
high horse today.
Thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
