An Open-Spec for Fire Sprinkler Systems - Part II

Last week I posted the start of an open specification and asked for feedback - and boy did you all not disappoint!

If you haven't read that post, it's where to start. We laid out a few ground rules about what we're trying to achieve.

I genuinely appreciate the review, the comments, and the emails. I'm very encouraged by what we'll be able to build together that can improve things for all of us.

Who knew putting together specifications could be so fun? Joking - sort of.

As you're able to skim through this updated draft, which now includes Part 1 (General) and Part 2 (Products), here are some of the areas worth paying attention in a little more detail:

#1 - CHANGED SECTION NUMBER
We've updated the specification section number to reflect that this isn't just a wet-pipe specification; it's intended to consolidate many pages of redundancy into our main goal; a concise, easy-to-read and easy-to-edit specification.

#2 - NOTE TO NOT FALL BELOW CODE MINIMUM
There's a line added under C in the "1.1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK" that reads "at no time shall work be less than the applicable codes and standards listed below. Proposed alternatives, discrepancies, or questions shall be addressed by written Request for Information."

My goal here is twofold; one is that we're protecting the consultant and enabling the contractor to push back in written form. 

At the end of the day, we need a code-compliant system. The days of turning a cheek or intentionally being above code because a PE said so should be over. 

The concept with this inclusion in the specification is that if the contractor sees something (anywhere) that is less than code, then they have an avenue to have it addressed formally and an opportunity to clean it up in the project.

On the opposite side, the consultant has some relief in that they're clearly not advocating or instructing the contractor to fall below code unless it's in approved written process (such as an approved code-alternative).

I hope this to be a win-win opportunity for code-compliance at the end of the day. Like the others - curious on your take.

#3 - OPTION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO BE AN FPE OR "KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED" IN FIRE PROTECTION
There's a tangible value to being a Fire Protection Engineer (informally an "FPE") specifically. An over-generalization would be that the Engineer has taken the time to study and pass the Fire Protection P.E. Exam, which itself is no small feat. 

With that effort and focus (which often takes months of preparation even for seasoned Engineers) there's a line in the sand that speaks to that individual 'owning' fire protection as a key area of focus and effort. 

Being an Engineer who passed the Fire Protection P.E. Exam doesn't make someone more knowledgeable (outside of learning many new facets while studying) nor better than another Engineer, but it does reflect a certain level of dedication to the fire protection field specifically.

That said, we as an industry have far fewer Fire Protection Engineers than Professional Engineers in other disciplines (my at least an order of 10-to-1), so mandating that all shop drawings be performed by or under the purview of a Fire Protection Engineer can be impractical.

It's a bigger discussion point for sure, but I've modified the specifications to either call for an FPE specifically, or to mandate a Registered Professional Engineer "who is knowledgeable and has experience in the field of Fire Protection."

I'd be curious on your take with this as well.

#4 - MOVED QUALIFICATIONS TO 1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE
More of a practical shift here, we had a few requests to move the licensing and qualifications to the Quality Assurance section in 1.5 and out of the Submittal section of 1.4. Seems to make more sense here.

#5 - ADDED PART 2 FOR PRODUCTS
Since last week we've also drafted Part 2 where we cover Products. This should add a little more 'meat on the bone' and probably queue up plenty of contention points. 

Let me know what you like and what specifically you would change - all for building a better industry. Click below to view, and thank in advance for helping bring to life a needed resource!