All true and so all the more reason to be specific regarding scope. I can recall a scenario where the general expected the sprinkie to install the conduit to and wiring to the panel from the sprinkler system switches even though specifically excluded in the sprinkie's proposal and signed contract. The general based his assumption based on the fact that the last sprinkler he used always did it, but "he was more expensive." So was the old sprinkie guy also an electrical contractor? Did he do it illegally? Did he take responsibility and sub it to the alarm guy? The extra cost suggests he wasn't just doing it for free. When I was contracting I had three times as many boiler plate exclusions than inclusions and it seems every job brought some demon out of Mordor that then became a standard exclusion.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And always apply the corollary, "Will I get sued?" A mistakenly closed > valve, a fire ... if it's required by code it's required. I know my state > and I guessing it's common practice in others as well: contracts state that > the scope of work is to design and install per all applicable codes and > standards.. > > > Steve > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Roland Huggins <[email protected]> > Date: 09/01/2015 12:22 PM (GMT-06:00) > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: AHJ Powers > > Allow me to address just the issue of the inspector failing to require > it. As contractors, that's how we desperately want to perceive it. The > truth is that the contractor (whether it was the fire alarm or the > sprinkler guy) failed to install them IF required by code. The inspector > failed to catch their mistake but that does not make the inspector own it. > As already mentioned, only an approved variance letter shifts the ownership > to the AHJ. > > They are the safety net and in some places it has a tight weave and others > it wouldn’t catch a Mac truck. We’ll ignore the age old conflict with > those that us a sledge hammer but have no knowledge. We want well trained > inspectors so there is a better chance of catching the inevitable mistake. > It’s also nice when we are all dancing on a level playing field since it is > hard to compete against an under-designed system. > > Roland > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> > > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2015, at 5:49 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
