Last week, we posted results on what sprinkler contractors need as part of a set of biddable construction documents.

One of the top needs that sprinkler contractors expressed was whether the owner had any insurance-driven criteria that applied to the project.

THE SURPRISE
This likely isn't a surprise if you've encountered it on a job: a building is designed, bid specs are applied, bids are collected, the contract is awarded, sprinkler shop drawings are created and submitted, and then out of the blue [BOOM!], a review comes in from FM Global.

FM Global? Did someone know that this was an FM Global job?

No discredit to the FM Global team whatsoever - they do an excellent job in establishing a higher level of excellence and have propelled our industry for years - but shouldn't we all have known that FM would be a part of the project from the beginning?

That answer, of course, is yes.

CHALLENGES WITH INSURER-DRIVEN CRITERIA
It can be tough to grapple with if you've been on a project where that's been a surprise. It can also put a building owner in a difficult position of mediating what their insurer wants them to provide against the increased cost of doing so via change order.

As we've discussed, delegated design is one key area where a consultant provides tremendous value in coordinating and pre-planning these asks well before bid day, which would create a smoother project experience. Instead, missing or ignoring insurance criteria altogether can set the project back in schedule and cost.

From the consultant's side - it's not always easy to get a straight answer from a building owner. 

VARIABILITY AMONG BUILDING OWNERS
Big developers or large corporate clients are often very informed on their design standards; they may even have a complete set of standards themselves ready to distribute.

Smaller or first-time building owners are often less likely to carry insurance criteria that stipulate much in terms of fire protection above code minimum. 

But what about the projects in between? 

What about the corporate client building in the area for the first time? The regional grocery chain? The distribution center? Mid to large retailers? Restaurants? Healthcare? Manufacturing? Hotels?

Anything in this range could carry insurance that mandates a standard above NFPA 13 in certain areas, including critical ones like sprinkler design criteria.

Just because an insurance company isn't FM Global doesn't mean that FM Global Standards don't apply; many other carriers could still follow FM Global criteria or even have a more comprehensive program like XL GAPs (or something similar).

​
BEST PRACTICES FOR GETTING THE INSURANCE QUESTION ANSWERED
What I'm most curious about is what has been your most successful process for getting this information from a building owner.

As a consultant, I had my best luck when we'd have a design meeting, and the owner or owner's representative was in the room, and I could ask directly about any insurance mandates above code minimum.

The line I used often sounded like, "Do you carry any requirements or standards above code minimum, like FM Global?"

If the owner or owner's representative was familiar with FM Global, there'd usually be a quick yes and they could confirm fairly quickly.

Honestly, all other cases would get a blank stare. I'd explain that the insurance criteria above the code were not the norm but that we'd want to incorporate it if there were any that applied.

In most cases, this was enough information to work from, but I never liked the inexact nature of going by a mostly uninformed answer. I found it to at least elicit a response, unlike emails, which tended to never get returned, but still - there's got to be a better way.

THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU?
From last week, we know that insurance criteria are a major factor in determining what should be in the bid documents.

So my question to the consultants here is: What have you found to be the best approach to getting this information from an owner?

What method has worked to (1) actually get a response from the right person and (2) get a response that's usually accurate?

Let us know in the comments here. I have my lame approach but I'd much rather collaborate and share ideas on what works so that, as a whole, we can do a better job of creating a quality set of bid documents.


Thanks for continuing to advocate for the industry. Hope you have a great rest of your week!

- Joe

First - thank you to all the feedback, comments, and emails that made this possible. This community of professionals looking to help improve the industry is second to none. 

I very much appreciate the time and input in building this together.

A BASIC, OPEN-SPECIFICATION CONCEPT
One of the frustrating aspects of bidding a fire sprinkler job in North America is when you're reviewing a job and the specifications that accompany it are simply terrible - boilerplate, don't actually provide any useful information, are conflicting, include irrelevant content, or clearly haven't been updated in decades (list no longer manufactured products).

One of the ideas we kicked around and now delivered is essentially an "open source" specification. One that we build and curate together and post for open use.

We explicitly do not intend for this specification to replace consultant's specs who already update and care for the industry. The beauty of consulting is providing unique value to your clients - this is absolutely not intended to be the only specification available. 

Rather, we would hope that it could help provide a baseline open-source template where specifications could at least be of this quality level.

OUR GOAL
From our collaborations, posts and discussions thus far, we're all really wanting something that is:

1. Helpful: actually provides information the contractor is needing to price a job.
2. Concise: as short as possible, so that it's easier to read and easier to edit. Don't duplicate requirements from other standards (such as NFPA 13), but simply defer back to them. We also want to limit the number of sections (again for simplicity, easy to navigate).
3. Clear: the specifications need to be easy to navigate and explicit in what is being required.
4. Timely: we don't want antiquated methods or products that aren't feasible or achievable.

There are other goals too, but those seem to be the reoccurring themes.

THE DOCUMENT
I have highlighted GREEN and BLUE areas where a specific selection needs to be made (one or the other).

I have highlighted YELLOW additional alternatives which may be less common than a typical, mid-size commercial job.

​All portions of this specification would be editable, though the highlighted areas would be of particular concern to change and update job-to-job.

DISCLAIMER
A very important note here, as is with all tools and resources for the fire protection space. Any information presented should not be relied upon as a replacement for sound engineering judgment. ​Use only at your own discretion. While we build these to help improve aspects of the industry, we are not and cannot be assume responsibility for use of the specification. For more on our Terms of Service, please visit: https://www.meyerfire.com/terms

Another big thanks to everyone who helped make this happen. If you're looking for a baseline set of specifications for comparison, for a basic project, or for a consultant who asks - we now have something to share.

Towards a better industry - thanks! 

​- Joe