Last Thoughts on Fire Sprinkler Open-Spec?

5/22/2024

Are you tired of specifications yet?

If you're a contractor - you've long been tired of bad ones; that's for sure.

A month ago now we wrote on the problem: Ideas for Fixing Bad FP Specifications

Then we discussed the goals for an open specification, including being helpful, concise, clear and timely.

We've now incorporated three weeks of great discussion and feedback, and now this week we have our first complete open-specification. All three parts. All in less than ten pages!

What do you like? What doesn't work? What's good practice that you'd generally want everyone to be doing?

I'd love to take your last round of feedback on this (for now) and open up the word document next week.

Thanks for being a part of making positive change happen for the industry!

- Joe

Josh

5/22/2024 10:49:57 am

Please don’t close them too soon. I would really, really like to find time to do it this weekend.

Brian Cockburn

5/22/2024 10:57:11 am

I would like to see a requirement for the design engineer to visit the site a minimum number of times (2 or 3 at least, or as many as required) and provide detailed field review reports (with photos!) to the engineer of record for the project.

Carlos Lizama link

5/23/2024 05:13:26 am

Definitely agree with requiring design engineer to visit site.

Brett

5/23/2024 07:33:42 am

I think that would be a strange requirement to include in the specs since the design engineer is the one writing the specs. Those types of requirements are typically included in the contract between the owner and the design team.

Josh

5/23/2024 07:40:14 am

Good point, Brett. We send the GC our specs and they get sent to the subs. I do like the idea of changing that over to say the fire protection contractor should send updates with photos though at 30%, 50%, 75%, 100%.

When EOR firm is hired to carry through to the end and do CA work, we go out there monthly and do photos and field reports as it is already.

Brian Cockburn

5/24/2024 11:39:38 am

Hi Brett,

I meant the sprinkler contractor's engineer, not the mechanical engineer of record for the project. This spec template is for a performance specification where the detailed design is completed by a different engineer.

In a project where the fire suppression is fully designed up front (alongside HVAC and Plumbing) then you're right, it wouldn't be necessary.

Ray Hardy link

5/28/2024 08:26:53 am

Hi Joe, I can't seem to open the document. When I'm writing a specification, I always remember that it is not only a technical document, but a commercial document too. Not only that, Health & Safety needs to be considered, design risks etc. I hope to have more luck opening the word document as I agree, this is an important issue.

Jack G

5/28/2024 09:57:30 am

I agree with the site visitation and detailed pictures.
I also think the Engineer of record when compiling his “ performance spec” ( code sheet) shall do a “ blow by blow” walk thru each IBC, NFPA, AND AHJ , code paragraph , section and paragraph, detailing the code he is using for the performance spec.
Basically I do not like “ performance spec concept”. It gives the E.O.R. a chance to lead you down, or slightly off the correct path and hold you liable. I also send a Friday doing what I think is the correct references and send to the E.O.R. to put his response on record.
If my concept differs from theirs, I am on record that I disagreed. Helps in a lawsuit over using the improper code references.

Fritz Descovich

5/28/2024 12:05:02 pm

Hi Joe,

Before closing this Blog topic, please let me offer some thoughts and commentary. Once again it seems you have provided all of us with another great topic for discussion and comment.

I went back and re-read the Blog topic "Fixing Bad FP Specifications" and all the great comments. As well as this topic "Last Thoughts on Fire Sprinkler Open-Spec?" and all the additional comments.

In MHO, all of the comments had some really great suggestions and insights that seem to stem from each person's real-life experiences and knowledge. I would just like to add some of my own to the mix.

I am coming up on a 46-year anniversary this September doing design, estimating, PM and in-house code codes and standards management as an employee of several sprinkler contracting companies. Currently I am tasked with translating all relative codes and standards related to fire suppression systems to our staff in California. I also on occasion discuss this topic with consultants in the FP field.

At this point in time, I do agree with some of the comments regarding these two Blog topics that good base-line water-based fire protection system specs. should pull back from a lot of material and device information in favor of stating everything must conform with all applicable codes and standards. Then, if there are project-specific preferences, they could be added to the specs. above the codes and standards minimum requirements.

I do feel a significant fork in the road regarding these specs. is how much delegated design is actually required for each section or area of a building (e.g. parking areas, levels and structures with electric vehicles and car stackers, etc.). Good specs. and related bid drawings for the FP contractor do not have to result in a version of War and Peace.

The minimum system Basis Of Design (BOD) is usually all that is needed. But how much will the FP engineer/consultant who authors the specs and related BOD FP drawings for bidding purposes be involved through the course of the project?

In many instances on our large projects, we end up becoming the EOR after the contracts with the GC are executed. But it is fully recognized this would not be possible on all projects.

Additionally, how much knowledge and experience of the spec. author goes into the specs. regarding all applicable codes and standards, included all the amendments by the local AHJs.

Just to augment Jack G's comments about providing back-up for each paragraph of the specs to support the technical requirements. An interesting concept given bibliographies that are often provided with formally published documents. Ironically, in my experience this is where to rubber meets the road. How much does the author of the specs truly understands all of the current applicable codes and standards, including all local amending documents/requirements by the project AHJs.

In writing specs outlining the Basis Of Design (BOD) for our systems on some projects, or submitting our proposed revisions to specs. prepared by an engineer for the project, I have found the best end result are specs. that are concise and get to point without being to "wordy". Yet still address all of the critical aspects of the system design submittals, coordination, materials and devices, fabrication, installation, acceptance testing, and project close-out documentation to protect the owner and are a sold roadmap for the FP contractor.

In working with some clients they have additional insurance underwriter FP system standards that also must be properly accounted for project specs. This aspect is something that I have found needs a lot of work across the board. Spec. authors should be fully proficient in these requirements above and beyond the "code minimums".

All that said, again in MHO, putting together an industry standard for a solid base-line FP System Open Spec. in essence emulates how NFPA standards are written with example forms provided. And putting something like this together, in the end is really not that difficult.

And the most success in good solid spec. writing seems to constantly come from the collaborative input, extensive knowledge and experience from so many great people in our industry.

Eddie link

5/29/2024 11:46:18 am

I am relatively new here. How do I see the full article? The article above states less than 10 pages have been posted. I am not seeing the previous articles and the sample sow.
Thank you in advance.

Joe Meyer

5/29/2024 12:19:49 pm

Hi Eddie,

Just go to www.meyerfire.com/blog to browse the last few weeks (each article points to a few different questions).

If you click the image, you'll get the full drafted spec.

Thanks!

Comments are closed.

Home
Our Cause

The Blog
The Forum

PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit
MeyerFire University

Pricing
Login
Support
Contact Us

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

MeyerFire, LLC is a NICET Recognized Training Provider and International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.
All text, images, and media Copyright © 2016-2024 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

Last Thoughts on Fire Sprinkler Open-Spec?

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

AUTHOR

FILTERS

ARCHIVES