Boils down to contract scope and whether or not the omission is defendable against your scope of work. If the contract language is clear that the electrical supervision is not a part of the scope and "by others" then the definition goes way beyond any reasonable contract language. The glazier does not specifically exclude plumbing in his contract as everyone presumes he won't be doing that work. In Washington if a state licensed sprinkler contractor, with a state registered certificate of competency (essentially an RME), has a state certified sprinkler designer do the design and had thè system installed with his state certified fitters were to do this electrical work, and not also be a state licensed electrical contractor, with a state certified electrical administrator and state certified low voltage or full electrical journeymen doing the work he is breaking the law of the land as specified in the RCW and WAC (Revised Code of Washington and Washington Administrative Code respectively). If industry standards in your neck of the woods is for the sprinkie to provide the switches that are attached directly to sprinkler pystem then do that. If it's the standard to sub the work then do that. If the standard is to buy the project sup a bottle then do that. Or specifically delineate how far you'll go. You'd probably get some push back if your contract said you'd provide materials and labor to install a sprinkler system but excluded the sprinklers themselves, but hereabouts its common practice to stop at the connection of conduit and and wiring to the switch itself. Let the roofer do it I always say.
And as an example of odd laws. If I were a contractor with all the above mentioned certified people I could design and install both the underground and above ground portions of the sprinkler system system, EXCEPT if the back flow device is inside the building I cannot make the connection on the incoming side of t hat device. That must be done by a licensed plumber. Note that I said inside the building. If the device is in a vault (typical, it gets cold here) outside the building perimeter then I can make that connection. I can also test it under any conditions if I gave an employee with a state backflip testier certificate. But I can't repair it if it's inside the building. That requires that plumber. Outside though my dog can do the repair as long as my certified tester signs it off afterwards. It's also illegal to carry a concealed sword over six feet long in Seattle. On Tuesday, September 1, 2015, John Drucker <[email protected]> wrote: > Craig, read 104.10 carefully. My writings parallel this code section which > has not been satisfied. Also keep in mind that the conflict section of the > IBC is mandatory language which trumps subjective language. The IBC > contains prescriptive language regarding Protection of balconies that is > not in the NFPA standard, does that negate the IBC requirement ? > > John Drucker - Mobile Email > [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > Cell/Text 732-904-6823 > > > [email protected] <javascript:;> wrote: > > Here's the difference in the PVC versus chain issue. > > I could defend the chaining option based on the NFPA 13 standard since it > is a viable alternative recognized by the fire sprinkler industry and > established by the knowledge base of the authors of the NFPA Standards. So > while the Code states the valves are to be electronically supervised, this > is a recognized option. > > I could not defend using Shoe-Goo on PVC pipe because the AHJ said so if > it wasn't documented as a viable option in any trade or industry standard > or Code. I'd have nothing to use as a defense for the choice. > > Now per the IBC, there is language that grants permission to the code > official to allow modifications to the code requirements based on unique > conditions. If the code official then uses an already established and > accepted guideline such as NFPA 13 as a reason or source for his alternate > direction and that decision complies with the directive as noted below, > there is no dereliction. > IBC 2012 > [A] 104.10 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties > involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, > the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications > for individual cases, upon application of the owner or > owner's representative, provided the building official shall > first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter > of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance > with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification > does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire > safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting > modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of > the department of building safety. > > Good food for thought as we often get sucked into these "the AHJ said > ________________" issues where there is nothing more to stand on than that > one person's opinion. > > > > Craig L. Prahl > 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] <javascript:;> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of John Drucker > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:38 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: RE: AHJ Powers > > Members, > > Someone's responsible. Craig I agree with part of your thinking, if the > sprinkler contractor was not responsible for the actual electrically > supervised side of the equation, then mount the supervisory devices and so > note in the final documentation making certain that the lack of electrical > supervision is so noted. Some sprinkler contractors go even further and > provide a written quote to provide same and document an owners refusal > therein making a reasonable attempt to fulfil the code requirements. Keep > in mind that code officials are typically immune where there actions are > not considered gross negligence, ie he/she made a mistake. This immunity > typically doesn't extend to other parties, I,e, the code official said it > was ok that's my defense. That doesn't hold up as design professionals and > contractors have a duty to comply. For example if the code official said > it was ok to use any kind of cement on cpvc would you ? > > Food for thought. As always the disclaimer.....the preceding is not a > legal opinion, nor the opinion of the borough of red bank but merely an > informal observation, always consult qualified legal council. > > > Gross Negligence > > An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect > to the rights of others. > > Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use > reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm > to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared > with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable > care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of > inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is > conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is > important, since contributory negligence-a lack of care by the plaintiff > that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury > and completely bar his or her action-is not a defense to willful and wanton > conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of > willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive > Damages, whereas gross negligence does not. > > West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale > Group, Inc. All rights reserved. > > > John Drucker > Assistant Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > Borough of Red Bank, NJ > 90 Monmouth Street > Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 > Cel/Text: 732-904-6823 > Email: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of [email protected] <javascript:;> > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:22 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: RE: AHJ Powers > > What provides the electronic supervision, the fire alarm system. Who > provides the fire alarm system, the alarm or electrical contractor. So as > the fire sprinkler contractor if you provided and installed the supervisory > switches why sweat this issue? You provided your scope of work, it's up to > another entity to connect and make it compliant. > > If the AHJ ruled that chains were satisfactory are you as the sprinkler > contractor going to petition the State for a ruling over him? > > Is there a letter of acceptance? If yes, move on unless you want to make > this a Judge Judy episode. > > Either way unless the alarm system is part of the sprinkler contractor > scope, this is not a sprinkler contractor issue. Why make it one? > > Craig L. Prahl > 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] <javascript:;> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of John Drucker > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:50 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: RE: AHJ Powers > > The requestor stipulated that the valves are required to be electrically > supervised by applicable code, presumably the IBC. Where conflict in code > / standard occurs IBC trumps so NFPA-13 irrelevant. Here's the code > sections; > > 2009 IBC > > 102.4 Referenced Codes and Standards > > 901.6 Supervisory Service > > 901.6.1 Automatic Sprinkler Systems > > 903.4 Sprinkler System Supervision and Alarms > > 903.4.1 Monitoring > > > If there's a loss these references may well be cited for the various > parties to defend their actions with regards to a nationally recognized > building code adopted by jurisdiction. > > Hope that helps, > > John Drucker > Assistant Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > Borough of Red Bank, NJ > 90 Monmouth Street > Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 > Cel/Text: 732-904-6823 > Email: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of [email protected] <javascript:;> > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:24 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: RE: AHJ Powers > > Yeah this is where the NFPA people need to be in-line with the ICC > people. But the ICC also makes no exceptions for those installations > where there is no alarm system to connect any signals. > > Keep the documentation of the AHJ approval for posterity. He signed off, > he's the final say. Move on to the next great adventure. > > Round and round the mulberry bush..................................... > > > Craig L. Prahl > 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] <javascript:;> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of Matthew J Willis > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:15 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: RE: AHJ Powers > > If the system is a Required system per IBC, then valves controlling water > to sprinklers must be electrically supervised. > > It is an IBC violation, not NFPA if I am assuming correctly. > > R/ > Matt > > Matthew J. Willis > Project Manager > Rapid Fire Protection Inc. > 1805 Samco Road > Rapid City, SD 57702 > Office-605.348.2342 > Cell-605.391.2733 > Fax:-605.348.0108 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of [email protected] <javascript:;> > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 6:12 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: RE: AHJ Powers > > NFPA 13 gives clear options, chaining and locking is one of them. What's > the issue here? There are building installations where there is no > requirement for a fire alarm system so there is no provision for > supervising valves electronically, in those cases you chain or lock them. > > 8.16.1.1.2* Supervision. > 8.16.1.1.2.1 Valves on connections to water supplies, sectional control > and isolation valves, and other valves in supply pipes to sprinklers and > other fixed water-based fire suppression systems shall be supervised by one > of the following methods: > (1) Central station, proprietary, or remote station signaling service > (2) Local signaling service that will cause the sounding of an audible > signal at a constantly attended point > (3) Valves locked in the correct position > (4) Valves located within fenced enclosures under the control of the > owner, sealed in the open position, and inspected weekly as part of an > approved procedure > > > > > Craig L. Prahl > 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] <javascript:;> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf > Of [email protected] <javascript:;> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 8:49 PM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: AHJ Powers > > What say you? > An inspector failed to require tamper switches on control valves. The job > is complete and there are thousands of pounds of concrete between the > control valves and the electrical panel. They placed a chain and lock and > the chief declared the chain and lock meet intent...final approved. What > say you? > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
