The Delegated Design Problem

11/8/2023

If there’s one big hairy problem in the fire protection industry that everyone knows about, yet few take head-on, it’s the delegated design problem.

The practice of delegating pieces of the fire protection design has been around forever.

THE CURRENT REALITY
Some harsh but perhaps true realities today as an industry:

There aren’t enough professional engineers in fire protection to be doing full system design, all the time.
There are plenty of simple and straightforward projects that don’t justify the expense of a full design by a professional engineer.
There are plenty of professional engineers we wouldn’t want designing the systems anyways.

Out of those realities has been “delegated design”, where a professional engineer stipulates (specifies) what they deem critical, and “leave” the details to the installing contractor.

GOOD VS. BAD
If done well, delegated design can:

Allow the engineering decisions to be made by the professional engineer.
Provide a well-defined scope of work for bidding contractors.
Clarify important “need-to-know” elements of a system that affect other disciplines.
Allow for “apples-to-apples” bidding by contractors.
Reduce or eliminate the upfront “at-risk” work of figuring out the scope by bidders.

If done poorly, delegated design can:

Make the ability to bid on the project significantly more difficult.
Make the ability to design and perform the work significantly more difficult.
Expose the project or owner to costly change orders from upfront negligence.
Actually get in the way of a code-compliant installation.

THE CENTRAL ISSUE
At the risk of sounding highly dramatic, I see this as the central issue that plagues our industry in North America.

It is awful.

And if you haven’t seen it, then ask your local estimator. What do they see? Is the scope of work well-defined?

Or are they seeing documents that are simply full of landmines?

Where a quick note on plumbing plans or buried in a specification could mean tens of thousands of dollars of cost that the contractor is supposed to eat?

A DISSERVICE
We, as an industry, do a terrible disservice to everyone else in the way that we do delegated design.

Terrible.

This isn’t a regional issue, either.

I didn’t know it was this bad until I started working for contractors and I saw what they saw.

And good grief, it’s terrible.

SO FULL-DESIGN?
Now conversations about this usually then go to – fine – what would you have Joe? Full design, every time? What about a single-family home? We don’t have enough FPEs for complex projects, much less residential sprinkler design?

And I’m with you there – I think the answer is more about reform than it is abolishment.

If we simply do delegated design well, I don’t think we’d have the issues we’re seeing today.

WHO'S TO BLAME?
And, if I’m going to make gross generalizations; if you’re the kind of person who cares about the fire protection industry, or maybe you see your role as being “in” the fire protection industry (like this concept) … then you’re likely not the problem.

I tend to find it’s not the people that are concerned about this being the biggest violators. It’s those who don’t care, don’t show up, don’t invest in fire protection. They just “also do” fire protection.

That said, the issue needs fixing.

CREATING CHANGE
Two weeks ago I wrote about working towards change.

If 2033 looks different, what is the reality we want to create by then?

I think this problem is solvable, and it’s worth solving.

A CARROT OR A STICK?
Generally, we see fixing incentives as a carrot or a stick problem. Do we use the carrot, or the stick?

The carrot entices, rewards, promotes and builds up those that are doing things well. We find ways as an industry to recognize and promote people who do it well.

The stick simply beats the violators. It pushes-down, disciplines, penalizes. This might be reporting to state boards or reporting to certification bodies.

Right now, we collectively don’t have much of a carrot or a stick.

NO REWARDS? NO PUNISHMENT?
We don’t recognize who is doing it well, and we certainly don’t promote them. Heck – we really don’t even have a scorecard or a standard to even identify what “doing it well” looks like!

And state boards? What if the people on the board are doing the same bad practices as the violators? Reporting someone to a state board is time-intensive, has little reward, and makes enemies. No wonder so few people go about trying it. And besides that – what do we even compare negligence against? What is our standard practice? If negligence is so widespread, then what really is our standard of care?

So, the question becomes, how can we uplift the practice of engineering in our industry when we don’t clearly establish what it is that we should be doing?

And even where we have established what that practice looks like – how many of those practicing in fire protection have read and understood it? How accessible is that guidance?

WHAT'S THE ANSWER?
These are questions and challenges I think we’re up for tackling.

I think it can be done.

As with all the other impact projects we look at – what is the fundamental answer?

Is it access to information?
Is it the helpfulness of that information?
Is it in education?
Is it helping establish why it even matters?
Is it providing clear standards?
Is it providing helpful resources? Checklists? Rubrics? Examples?
Is it providing a carrot, or handing out sticks?
Or is it in code or regulatory changes?

I don’t know the answer, but I think it is within reach. Maybe it’s one or all these things.

While some of the writing lately may sound grandiose (and it is my writing, thank you very much ChatGPT), we’re taking active measures to attack this core issue head-on.

In the coming pieces over the next few months, I’ll talk about the issue from my vantagepoint, build and ask, and try to open up the dialogue on what a better engineering practice looks like.

This is something we can affect, and something I hope you also want to see improved as well.

Got ideas on this topic? Share them below. I'd love to hear your input. We can get this right.

Thanks for being a part of our community – and as always – as an advocate for what we all do.

- Joe

Food for Thought

11/8/2023 11:13:07 am

This is a great post besides not mentioning anything about NICET Certifications and/or NFPA certifications. Many states are addressing this by allowing engineering technicians to work on projects without FPEs if they achieve specific levels of certification (often NICET III or IV or equivalent like NFPA CWBSP). Some states also have supplemental exams. This method obviously has limitations as work becomes more complex, however since there are only a handful of schools with Fire Protection Engineering programs the NICET Certifications and/or NFPA certifications are much better for the industry then having no one qualified at all.

SFPE/NSPE/NICET/ASCET/NCEES has a joint position paper that acknowledges this method stating:

"It is recognized that some jurisdictions have enacted regulations that allow the Technician to layout the system and prepare installation drawings without the involvement of an Engineer. In such cases, an Engineer might not be involved with the project. The Technician is then additionally responsible to ensure that the fire protection system(s) criteria are in accordance with all applicable codes and standards."

https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/professional-policies-and-position-statements/sfpenspenicetascetncees

Joe Meyer

11/8/2023 11:27:21 am

This is great, thank you!

I think many shortcomings CAN be overcome by NICET III and IV technicians, and they are now in many (most) cases. If a project is to get it right - in many cases this is how it HAS to be done today.

But I don't think excellent NICET III and IV requirements should HAVE to make up for the lack of quality engineering documentation. I think that's a problem that can be corrected.

Appreciate the input! Lots more to talk on this topic!

Mark Sornsin

11/17/2023 09:38:19 am

The part of the position statement that notes "some jurisdictions have enacted regulations that allow the Technician to layout the system...." has always rubbed me wrong. In my experience the jurisdictions have not actively decided that technicians can design sprinkler systems. Its is just always been that way. I don't believe most state boards acknowledge the degree of actual engineering done by the low-bid contractors. I suspect that they believe the PE working for the A/E team is providing oversight. And when its a design-build project without participation of a specifying engineer... well, that doesn't seem to count as engineering in their minds - or they simply haven't considered those situations.

James Art, FPE

11/8/2023 11:30:14 am

Why the FPE should do a detailed design.

Big Problem is the need for the installer to be the lowest bidder.
The C-16 has a big interest in doing it as economically as possible,
and that is not always in the client’s or Fire Protection best interest.

IF the density chosen or an Occupancy is too low, or a contractor cuts corners,
then the system may be overwhelmed, and the loss may be higher. Or a total loss.
(Really looks bad in the news!)

When the FPE determines the Occupancy, sets the Parameters,
or even does the design, then all the contractors are bidding on the same thing.

IF the building owner anticipates a possible different tenant in the future,
that decision can result in better fire protection now. And
they can leave plugs for future drops, and get a much less costly future change.

Also, if no design, the contractor often knows there will be other bids,
so rather than take the time to design it,
he will just estimate the cost of the system.
Often he will just guess at the water pressures and pipe sizes.
When he does that, he doesn't want to lose money,
so he will include some extra for Unknowns.

With a good design to bid on, based on the Occupancy, and the available water supply, a contractor can bid more easily, maybe a job he would not take the time to bid on otherwise.

The contractor can see how many sprinklers, what type of sprinkler, what size pipe, hangers,
and do a much more accurate bid, and get to installation sooner.
Much less need for extras for just in case.
And he does not need to charge for the system design.

Better job, and more accurate bids without extras for unknowns may be lower.

11/8/2023 12:12:13 pm

My take from the contractor's side..

At the start of my career I was very frustrated that the specifying engineers could get away with producing bid/contract drawings that were lacking information in every possible way while the designer had to produce shop drawings that were up to code, economical and installable.

Nowadays, I realize that my favorite contract drawings are the ones that just put a note on the floor plan.. "provide protection per NFPA 13". This gives us a great amount freedom and room for profit. We don't need to RFI the inconsistencies in design, we don't have to argue about pipe sizing changes with the owner and we are fully responsible for the final product and margins. Design is very performance-based and we like to be in control of all the criteria. A good designer can name their price.

An FPE that can actually produce a full system design ready for fabrication is an extremely rare breed... and that makes sense, since that is not their purpose and dare I say.. it might be beneath their compensation level. I don't see an incentive for an FPE to save money on an install by producing efficient full system designs.

There's a good amount of Fire Protection/Plumbing engineers straight out of school that were never exposed to actual system installation - and that's fine - that's what designers are for.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the design delegation process benefits the specifying engineers who can continue to output mediocre work and the designers who can be heroes by generating great margins on these projects.

A lot of towns around here employ Third Party Reviewers who are usually excellent at plan reviews and can catch any mistakes that the designer and engineer missed.

It seems like if everyone stays in their lane, nothing is going to change.

11/8/2023 12:25:26 pm

This is great - and I agree on the "just per NFPA 13" part. Those kinds of documents more or less just stay out of the way.

I guess the areas I'm really getting at are sets that don't address fire pump needs, water supply, hazard classifications, allowable materials, or even whether or not a standpipe will be present.

In your opinion, do you see "staying out of the way" (ie: no documentation) or "at least correctly address these major decisions" (ie: dry system here, fire pump here, water supply information, hazard classifications) as both viable paths?

That the best approach (stay out of the way/provide quality decisions) just depends on the complexity of the project?

11/8/2023 12:27:22 pm

It's probably also worth noting (in my opinion) -

Good delegated design does not necessarily mean "full" design, with sprinklers and pipe and calculations.

Good delegated design can mean addressing the most-important aspects of a project, still without showing pipe and details.

11/8/2023 12:51:49 pm

I misunderstood the "full" design as meaning shop drawings.

Agreed - the most important aspects of a project NEED to be identified and documented. Most certainly, hazard classifications, storage analysis, fire pumps, standpipe locations etc.. The water supply is a tricky one, since it really falls on the contractor to perform a new test.. most of the time. Especially, if there are tight safety margins, we perform our own tests.

I know that my opinion is a bit controversial and doesn't apply to all contractors. I don't think I would feel the same if I was freelancing.

To answer your question.. "Staying out of the way" works for us. Any additional information from the engineer is definitely welcome but not required for most projects. Yes - depends on the complexity, as you said. We are very fortunate to work with excellent FPEs who can identify any inconsistencies in the specifying documents.

Thanks for starting this conversation! it is definitely a major problem in FP.

11/9/2023 12:42:20 pm

But the Engineer needs to know what he is doing!

One terrible loss I investigated was the US Post Office fire in Richmond Ca.
They had added a 10,000 sq. ft. Addition to a distribution and sorting building that was 3 blocks long.
Seasonal Business:
40 ft high used for rack storage including plastic materials, that were not used except during the Holiday Season.

Burned to the ground, and they asked me why.
The fire had progressed into the existing building, opening 5 sprinklers on each line.

In the Mezz of the existing building they had a plans room, with every document for the Addition, 10 years earlier.
There I found the original sprinkler specs, produced by a Mechanical Engineer:
All he had done was take a "footprint" of the 100 x 100 Addition,
drawn a big "X" over it and marked in the middle: Provide Fire sprinklers to NFPA 13, Ordinary Hazard.

Low Bidder?
The sprinkler contractor had done just that, designing to a big existing fire pump.

So not only was the design way too weak, but they had fiddled with the fire pump, and a pressure relief let out much of the pressure.

The riser remained standing in the ruble and I saw that there were never any wires to the water flow switch!

Federal building, so no local app'ls or inspections.
Gov't is "self Insured" which means Not Insured.

11/17/2023 09:44:13 am

My experience from my contracting days was that we LOST many jobs because there was no guidance given my the "specifying engineer". We would see a situation that we knew required a higher density but could easily be ignored by other contractors and completely missed by the AHJs. After getting my PE, I found it especially difficult to bid projects because too often I would have to ignore best engineering practices and ethics if we wanted to get the work (no I didn't do that, and we lost those jobs - I long ago got out of contracting).

Dave

11/8/2023 01:02:24 pm

Joe, as you know I’ve been on both the contracting side and the engineering side. The Good vs. Bad you lay out at the start of the article is spot on. But I do my job fully and correctly when I’m on the engineering side (and I do sometimes miss things) I have laid the groundwork with a set of drawings and specifications (criteria documents), for bidding on a level playing field and have protected my client and end-user. Then the sprinkler contractor can do what THEY do best in their deferred design. At the risk of insulting my engineer colleagues (which I hope to join), generally-speaking, my designer colleagues on the contracting side can design circles around most “professional engineers.” (With many exceptions of course.) Being a good designer (and estimator) involves knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your company and those of the competition. I prefer to leave it up to the individual contractor to use their creativity and individual strengths in estimating, design, coordination, purchasing, fabrication, etc. Not locking them into a specific design, except for example, where the architect requests specific routing. On the contracting side, for one of the big-box places where you have to go by their provided design, we were only able to gain an advantage with some out-of-the box (so to speak) fabrication and installation innovations. Except on the smallest of jobs, I fight for specific fire protection sheets over notes on mechanical or plumbing where it might get overlooked. But I can’t do a good job on the engineering side and still have the time to do a good fully-coordinated detailed design. (And in my primary market, while we often do full MEP design, our clients do not pay us for that for fire.) So in my view, full design is not the answer, but as an industry we do need to work amongst ourselves and with our AHJ’s to promote and enforce integrity and quality design. One of our industry colleagues has been posting on LinekdIn some examples of egregious sprinkler design. This is the battle we face.
Good conversation, I’d type/edit more, but I have deadlines today.

11/8/2023 01:33:45 pm

Love this Dave! Very well said.

I'm with you - I don't think full design is the answer or necessarily even "an" answer to the problem.

Carson

11/8/2023 10:05:21 pm

Joe, thanks for the article, and Dave very well said! This is something I been saying since I started working for an ASMEP firm. Strangely, less than a week ago I was complaining about this exact issue after performing a third party FP review of a delegated design for a client. Incorrect hazard classifications, no Class 1 standpipe system when it was required, no flow test, high possibility for the need of a fire pump, failed to see the need for a dry system for exterior loading areas, etc etc. I had to bleed all over it and it was signed and sealed by an Mechanical Engineer as a delegated design. It was utterly useless.

If the main issue is bad delegated design criteria drawings, I believe part of the solution is for architects to clarify the scope of work that is included in the Fire Protection Engineering Services they are having their clients pay for. Simply stating in the MEP contract that Fire Protection design is part of the services is way too vague. The Architects/clients need to fully understand what services they are paying for and make sure it’s actually something they couldn’t do themselves. They don’t need an engineer to tell them an NFPA 13 system is required or where the water will enter the building. If that’s all they are getting in a set of design criteria drawings for the subcontractor to follow, that engineer is not needed.

The architects/clients need to understand the scope of the building, the required fire protection systems, and then make sure they are hiring an engineer who provides services that are actually beneficial during the design phase that will save the client by anticipating items that impact other trades.

Trent

11/8/2023 03:23:05 pm

We've recently been encouraging our architectural clients to allow us to provide full designs on some projects where coordination among the different trades will be particularly important. The entire design team generally works in Revit, so I think this method drastically improves the coordination aspect. However, we've had mixed reviews on this depending on which contractor is awarded the project. One common issue is that the contractors want us to provide material lists. As an engineering firm, we're not interested in being that closely involved with material ordering. I understand why this is a common question though since some of the contractors design and list in AutoSPRINK, and listing from our Revit model or hand listing from the drawings adds an extra step. Another common issue is that we occasionally become heavily involved in the clash detection with the contractors. The MEP drawings provided by our firm are working drawings, but not shop drawings. Even though we've done a decent job of clash resolution internally, the M&P contractors occasionally develop their own models which lead to more clashes with the fire sprinkler system. Since the fire sprinkler contractor is using the shop drawings we produced, they didn't include an additional service to handle this BIM coordination so it inevitably falls on us.

One idea that we've thrown around recently is that we start offering "working drawings" on these more complex projects. These would include accurate pipe and sprinkler layouts that have been coordinated with the other disciplines, but the contractor would be required to take our model and work through the BIM coordination with the other contractors prior to adding the couplings, cut lengths, hangers, etc. The main issue with this is that our engineering fee would be higher than typical delegated design projects, and contractor would still be required to include a design fee. This would likely increase the overall cost of the fire sprinkler design, but it would more closely align with the other disciplines.

Thanks for encouraging this discussion, Joe! This has definitely been on the top of our minds for awhile now.

11/8/2023 05:29:11 pm

Thanks for that similar perspective, Trent. I at least try to make sure by coordinating with the rest of our design team (who are mostly in REVIT now) that there are physical pathways for sprinkler pipe routing, hanging, and bracing, beam pen's when needed, power for my compressors, etc. On most of the types of projects we do, with the funding they have, more design would fall under "additional services" that some clients take advantage of, but most not. I’m on a couple projects now where we are modeling the mains only in REVIT for coordination and clearance purposes. I am fortunate (spoiled?) that most of the sprinkler contractors I get on local my projects are super competent and good to work with.

11/17/2023 09:57:09 am

When we have done "full designs" we generally clarify that we are providing 75% to 95% design drawings. I.e. we will coordinate as much as possible and note that we stand by the pipe sizing, but final coordination is up to the contractor. This is far more than contractors normally get, and greatly reduces the unknowns for bidding contractors, making the bid far more competitive. To be clear, this level of design is rarely purchased by the clients because it costs more up-front. And if I'm being hired by an architect, they've usually already negotiated fees and normally don't want to go back to the owner for me - so they fall back on more delegated design.

Dan Wilder

11/8/2023 06:29:16 pm

The FPE's role for should be to provide the objectives & design criteria only as detailed in 4.2.1 Engineering Documents of the SFPE/NSPE/NICET/ASCET/NCEES Joint Position Statement. This information is easily attainable at the design stage, clear for all parties for a baseline for bidding, and should not be a point of issue unless there is a base change which would warrant a change order anyway. It provides the guidelines for an installing contractor but leaves the means and methods to the people that deal with it daily. If the info isn't available, the provisions for all the other building factors (egress, wall ratings, structural fire protection, HVAC, site water supply) would also all be affected.

There is little chance an FPE, for that matter any installing contractor, could design an installable system based on design docs alone without coordination or at a minimum, a large allowance for offsets for field conflicts (not sure how to bid for that). The time of concept/build/design/confirm/as-built (in that order) has become so prevalent that it's become the rule not the exception. I suspect much of it driven by the ability of owners to secure smaller pieces of total financing only (and not wanting to pay interest on all of it from the start).

Scrape & prep the site, shell plans incoming.
Build the shell, we will figure out the interior later.
Interiors build out going, trades are now stacked to finish within a schedule that become increasingly shorter.

The other side of this is follow-up. If an FPE provides an install print and we bid/fabricate/install from said drawing who is responsible when it's not correct? If it's brought up at bid and costs more, even if there is the ability to get a pre-bid RFI in, that responsible contractor is punished by being the high bid, if it's bid per plans and needs field fix, the contractor is punished for being a change order fiend (some contractors have this reputation for good reason). In addition, what sales team has the time and extensive enough knowledge to check the small nuances that create the cost impacts and provide enough bid:win work to keep a company in business?

We as contractors are also potentially dealing with 3 FPE's per project, the one providing the design scope and/or drawings, the one sealing our "shop drawings" because the AHJ's require it, and the AHJ who has to have an FPE on staff to review another FPE's drawing. Where and when does the ethical obligations of any of those 3 get exercised?

Do I think anyone should be providing fire protection design, absolutely not. However, I would like to see the responsibility, competency, involvement, and requirements increase based on the specific system from some certifying organization (NFPA/State RME/State CSA/NICET or equal) up to FPE. There is a big difference between a 13D system and an AMHS design....

My best personal example is a pre-drawn plan for a parking garage laid out at 16x16. The FPE did not take into account the extension of the garage floor decks extending out past the centerline of the perimeter columns a full 4' (available floor parking was 3' out so we got the AHJ to not account for the last 12") and spaced the uprights to the outside edge of the columns (1' short). There was also 2 - 24" shear walls down the center where the uprights were spaced to the face of the wall and did not account for the openings for the car drives leaving that 2' coverage gap. The building was that sweet spot where relocation of lines was not available, and the water supply would not support an 18x18 layout which required the addition of 4 branch lines (~250' a piece) & adding 16 sprinklers per line times 4 floors....and I was the bad guy after trying to talk direct with the engineer (to amend the design prior to us pointing it out) before going forth through official contractual channels with the GC.

Another one I see a lot is hose valves being laid out with just overlapping hose lay "circles" and not accounting for the actual snaking path needed to access rooms via walls, if they are even shown on the plans to begin with.

Now, SFPE looks to be trying to help the situation with acknowledgement of the lack of qualified FPE's and/or the lack of competent engineers with the "Fire Protection Engineering Roles" to provide more specific classifications for those who are competent within the 17 described roles.
https://www.sfpe.org/publications/fpemagazine/fpeextra/fpeextra2023/fpeextraissue94?_zs=adX2k1&_zl=U97I9

Reading through the Ethics reviews provides some insights as well.
https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resources/board-ethical-review-cases/signing-and-sealing-documents-fire

Eric R

11/9/2023 01:28:05 pm

Dan,

Those two links are very interesting. Reading the ethics review one has my brain going in circles with how many catch-22's there are in just those few paragraphs.

I'm lucky that my state has pretty good rules in the building code that recognize my NICET certification for independent fire sprinkler shop drawing prep as long as they conform to the EOR's stamped construction drawings. Even so, I've had issues in the past where an EOR for a project wouldn't accept my state licensure for their delegated design spec requirement, demanding that I have a PE seal my drawings, which based on this ethics review would be unethical to do. (Gonna bookmark this in case I'm ever told that again.)

I do think the Joint Position Statement sets a solid framework for division of responsibilities, but I also think there's a lot of room to fill in the details(pun intended) and really work on improving the industry standard of what should be provided from the EOR to allow contractors and their design technicians to do the work they do best.

MarcBielicki

11/9/2023 06:52:33 pm

I believe a good start would be to offer more fire sprinkler courses in school. That way more engineers come out of college knowing the industry than being introduced into down the line. I would also say that to become an FPE you have to spend time in contacting to see what is actually going on. Anyone can copy and paste details, figure out hazards and spec whatever. But can they actually apply it to real world building!? Most of the time no. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain my design to the engineer approving it. I’m also a fan of the engineers NOT suppling full design - this helps weed out the contractors that don’t have designers on staff or know nothing more than how to install. Yes there are many out there. I’d almost like to see a hybrid of contractors with an FPE on staff to assist with projects with the owner and architects from the start of planning. So the project will go from planning, engineering to install all with one team through the life of the project. I’m currently NICET III in design and am working on my FPE to start this hybrid system I feel will be most beneficial, as I work in contracting and don’t ever plan on getting out. I love this industry and really feel my spot is making sure all aspects of a project are done properly and beneficial to all involved, not just does it meet code that I feel the FPEs only care about. That’s my two cents of being in both engineering and contracting.

Renardy

11/10/2023 05:45:00 am

Hi Joe,

Excellent topic! I worked for a sub-contractor for 8 years and now have been working for an engineering firm for several months and can say I agree 100% with what you said in this article.

While working as a sub-contractor, I can’t tell how many times I read FP drawings and specifications that were unclear, incorrect and caused more confusion when trying to bid or design a system. One of my biggest frustrations was the fact the drawings and specs had many pages and paragraphs that did not even apply to the project just to cover the engineering firm from any liability. It was clear to me that some of this people did not even care to revise specs and apply to the specific project. This made everything very difficult when trying to bid or design a system. I also believe that some engineering firms try to do the full design of a fire suppression system, but they do not have all the expertise to do a drawings that can produce efficient installations since they do not have any direct feedback from the field installation team. A designer learns a lot based on the feedback they receive from the installers and an engineering firm does not have that available to them. Also, every subcontractor company does things differently on how they layout and prefer to install their system. When the engineering firm fully designs a system and makes mistakes because they do not have the know how, then the client can be subject to change orders that would not be needed if the subcontractor had full ownership of the detailed design. For these reasons I believe the subcontractor should always take responsibility in producing detailed shop drawings.

Now regarding the quality of the engineering design documents, I think it depends on the company and team that you have. I’m lucky now to be at a good firm that cares and have good process in place. I believe that having a good quality control process is key to produce good engineering drawings (not full detailed drawings). Engineers are human beings and they make mistakes, but when you have a good process in place where multiple people review your document and provide feedback, you will minimize mistakes and have a much better design. I think the process is key and for sure checklists can help as well.

11/17/2023 10:22:04 am

Regarding the Carrot or the Stick:

There are some carrots out there. The government's UFC requirements for fire protection engineering is a good example. Those requirements reward those who have FPE knowledge/licensure and encourages other firms to train their own in FPE work or hire others with that knowledge base. More jurisdictions should do similar or incorporate guides like Florida's for the requirements of the PEs doing fire protection projects.

The stick is harder to find. Fact is that fires are rare. An improperly designed system will likely go the entire life of the building without ever being used. If it is used, the likelihood that the fire taxes the system to the point of failure is pretty rare. Or if the system does fail, it might be attributed to a closed valve or other issue without the system design ever being analyzed as a cause. The ME who improperly designs an HVAC system will get feedback long before the warranty period is over and they will be held to account. But the ME who provided a performance spec that was followed by a system improperly designed by the low bid contractor is almost never going to learn about that system being improperly designed. Again, fires rarely happen and the performance specs usually have so little information that there's little to tie to the "engineer of record."

Until more engineers are held accountable for a bad design or lack of design oversight, there will remain little incentive for change. In fact, liability is probably the main reason why engineering firms have NOT taken on more design responsibility, and there's been little incentive (beyond ethical responsibility or the carrots mentioned above) for firms to change.

Patrick Drumm

11/24/2023 11:40:55 am

Joe, this was such a great post. I'm disappointed I was just able to read it, and not fully participate in the discussions earlier. Our industry really is suffering from lack of new participation from top to bottom. So many contractors are having trouble finding field personnel and you mention FPE's being too busy because there are only so many of them licensed out there. As you describe there are typically two options to solve a problem (carrot or the stick). In this case, I wonder if a carrot option could work.

If there are freelance system designers who can help produce documents for FPE's for their review and approval, it takes a bit of the leg work from the FPE's day-to-day, but they would still be reviewing and approving documents for code compliance and project scope. This could potentially resolve two of the issues mentioned above.

1) There aren’t enough professional engineers in fire
protection to be doing full system design, all the time.
2) There are plenty of professional engineers we wouldn’t
want designing the systems anyways.

Yes, I understand as a freelance designer that this is a little self-serving, but I think a viable option. I'm a freelance designer that worked on the contracting side for years in multiple positions (designer, project manager, division manager). I think the best designs that I have come across are the result of system designers who bring "field perspective" and real-life experience, working together with quality reviewing FPE's who bring their code-based knowledge to the table. I'd be interested in how others feel about the potential of this idea. It seems both the FPE, and designers could benefit financially and help resolve a nagging issue in our industry which does not seem to be a regional problem.

11/30/2023 10:54:00 am

Patrick, I thing that's a perfectly reasonable approach. Fact is, many jurisdictions do not require FPEs per se to specify or design fire sprinkler work. If the MEs in those areas, along with any FPEs that are understaffed, were to employ such designers, there would be a significant improvement from the status quo.

I am already seeing this happen, though on a very limited basis. But this is a good way to improve the engineering field's final product.

11/30/2023 01:54:42 pm

Patrick - this is a great idea. One of the hurdles we need to get over in cleaning up the engineering effort is educating and advocating that there are people out there who can help.

One of the concepts I have in mind is (1) actually identifying, out-loud, the different options that an architect or MEP has at their disposal to get help, and then (2) have helpful and ready resources right there that can connect people who need FP input with good contacts.

Plenty more to come on this - love the idea.

Fritz Descovich

12/22/2023 07:02:49 am

I saw this discussion when it first came out 11-09-2023 and wanted to offer some thoughts and opinions. So I subsequently reviewed the related discussion FP Engineering Documents: What Goes In? dated 11/15/2023. And I reviewed the older discussion We Need YOU in Fire Protection dated 06/15/2021 as the subject of a recent email notice dated Nov 18, 2023. At the same time I re-read the NFSA TechNotes dated 10/24/2023 Technical Careers in the Fire Sprinkler Industry. I started to write a reply to this discussion The Delegated Design Problem four times and each time the reply became a lengthy narrative. I finally realized the reply should be as concise as possible but focus on the big picture and not go into a lot of detail. That could turn out to be a college thesis. But I felt some context regarding my history in our industry might be helpful regrading this discussion.

I am an old dog in the fire sprinkler industry now pushing 65. In 1974 at the age of 15 I began working summers in the fabrication shop at my father’s sprinkler company in Northern California. In the summer of 1977 after graduating high school my father brought me into the office where he began teaching me about sprinkler system design based upon the 1976 edition of NFPA 13. And in 1978 my father coerced me to work at his company full time as a “sales engineer” and gave me a copy of the “new” 1978 edition of NFPA 13 which I still have to this day. Back then sprinkler contractors continued to “sell” sprinkler systems directly to company owners as a way to lower the owner’s property insurance premiums. And in our specialized trade sprinkler system designers were often referred to as sprinkler system engineers.

I studied my new copy of NFPA 13 in earnest as if it were a new college text book. Over the next few years we had between 2-4 other sprinkler system engineers (now titled designers, system layout technicians, etc.). And my father and I had many “spirited” discussions regarding the need to always produce accurate sprinkler system designs to meet the letter of the law as regulated in NFPA 13. As well as the requirements in NFPA 14 for standpipe systems and NFPA 20 for fire pump systems. Even back then my father could see the Design of these systems was going to evolve and would probably be increasingly more refined and complex with each new adoption of the NFPA standards.

For general insurance policies sprinkler plans were reviewed by the local Insurance Services Office (ISO) and not local fire AHJ’s. This was the protocol until 1985 in California when ISO announced it would no longer review sprinkler plans for insurance rate-making purposes. So the responsibility to review these plans fell on the local fire departments where each project was located. And from that time, sprinkler system Design became more regulated through the adoption of California building and fire codes and updated editions of NFPA 13. As well as updated editions of NFPA 14 for standpipe systems, NFPA 20 for fire pump systems, and other NFPA standards for special fire protection systems, hazards and occupancies.

However, prior to and after 1985 for property owner’s with mutual insurance policies on their properties sprinkler plans were submitted to mutual insurance underwriters like Factory Mutual, Kemper and Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI). My father also contracted with a local general contractor who did a lot of remodel work and new building construction for grocery stores like Lucky and Safeway. We submitted our sprinkler plans to Frank B. Hall & CO, the insurance broker for Lucky grocery stores and if I recall correctly, we submitted sprinkler plans to Safeway Inc. who was self-insured for Safeway grocery stores. Now days the leading remaining mutual insurance underwriter is FM Global (formerly Factory Mutual).

My father and his business partner closed our sprinkler company in 1985 and since then I worked for four (4) other sprinkler contracting companies up through 1995 where I began working at a sprinkler contracting company as a senior designer. I later became a design manager’s technical assistant. Then later transitioning as codes and standards manger/ project PM and water-based FP systems consultant on large high-rise residential/retail projects which brings us to the present day. I am not a registered FPE but I am a NICET Level IV in water-based systems layout.

Over the past 46 years like many old dogs in our fire protection systems industry I have seem a dynamic shift regarding how water-based sprinkler, standpipe and fire pump systems,must be Designed. That term now days involves regulations coming from four (4) main sources: 1) codes and standards, 2) AHJ’s, 3) project documents, or 4) project owners/developers. In short these are the Delegators of water-based fire protection system Design Standards and Regulations.

As a minimum all

12/22/2023 07:07:50 am

(just to complete my original reply)

As a minimum all fire protections systems must conform with Design Standards and Regulations from all applicable codes and standards as adopted under the local ordinance(s) in each local jurisdiction where each project is located. This would involve Delegators 1) and 2). Additional preferences for Design Standards and Regulations would then come from Delegators 3) and 4). And we can not forget some fire protections systems may require Design Standards and Regulations involving Delegator 5) owner/developer mutual insurance underwriter (e.g. FM Global).

The next major step is determining who will be the Project Delegator on each project to make sure all fire protection systems conform with the Design Standards and Regulations set forth by all applicable Delegators 1) through 5) to deliver the Full Design for each system?

The answer to this question will determine each Fire Protection System Delegated Design team member to deliver the Full Design for each system on every project.

From my experience on large or special projects the Project Delegator can identify (map out) all roles and portions of each Fire Protection System Delegated Design team member, to deliver the Full Design for each system, by creating a wall chart. These types of charts do take some time to prepare. But once complete they can be a very useful tool throughout the course of the entire project.

Comments are closed.

The Delegated Design Problem

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

AUTHOR

FILTERS

ARCHIVES