The "Lanes" of Fire Protection Pre-Bid Consulting

How do we solve the systematic problem we have with fire protection bid documents?

Some, if not much of the plans and specifications that go out for bid are generally helpful.

A quality set of fire protection bid documents:

• Attempt to clearly define the fire protection scope (highlight what is included, but also identify what is not)
• Communicate clearly, and unambiguously
• Aid the project by answering major questions
• Aid the project by identifying and addressing big challenges early-on
• Provide a biddable scope where contractors can bid “apples-to-apples”

These types of bid sets do happen.

But far, far too often, they don’t.

It’s systematic, and makes every step of the design and installation process far more difficult and far more costly than it could be.

NOT FAULTLESS
I don’t even want to pretend I’m not at fault here.

I’ve designed poor projects. I’ve slacked on coordination, and detailing.

I’ve glossed over parts of a project that I shouldn’t have glossed over. It’s been painful.

But this is something that we can change.

WHAT CONTRACTORS SAY
For some years now I’ve spoken with sprinkler contractors, architects, and consultants about this.

If you’re a contractor, especially if you work in estimating - you could provide countless examples of terrible bid documents. Bid documents that actually get in the way of you doing code-compliant, efficient work.

You could speak to this far better than I can.

In these conversations, over and over, I’ve heard one key feature that I think many consultants in the MEP space miss.

It is far better to have no fire protection bid documents, than to have bad fire protection bid documents.

NO FIRE PROTECTION BID DOCUMENTS?
That’s important, and counterintuitive.

It is far easier for a sprinkler contractor to look at a project and define their own scope, and put a price to it, than it is to try and bid a set of documents that:

• Are inconsistent
• Mandates something that’s not actually code compliant
• Mandates something that’s not actually possible to construct, or procure
• Describes industry methods or materials that are not actually available today

If that sounds too far, ask your closest estimator friend. They see this all the time.

How many projects do we see underground feeds piped 20-ft before rising up? How many times do we see Star, Central, or Gem still specified today, in 2024? How many times do we see projects wanting a fixed-price bid yet have zero information about the water supply?

How are those documents helpful to a bidder?

They’re not.

MY ANALOGY
The analogy that I’ve had in my head and finally am able to bring to life a little is the road, showing the different tiers of fire protection bid documents:

1 - NO FIRE PROTECTION BID DOCUMENTS
There’s the sidewalk on the left, where we have no fire protection bid documents.

Let’s say we have a single-family home with an NFPA 13D system. Scope is simple, perhaps we have no specific owner needs, and it’s unambiguous.

That type of project probably warrants no upfront, pre-bid fire protection involvement.

It wouldn’t have to just be a single-family home though.

What about an add & relocate job for a small retail space. Or a small office building.

Those can, and often do, work just fine without any upfront fire protection bid documentation.

Design-build all the way.

2 - QUALITY "PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS"
Then we skip ahead to quality “performance specification” documents.

These do all the things we’ve talked about. They don’t necessarily show pipe or sprinklers, but they clearly define the scope, they communicate clearly, they answer major scope questions, they address and alleviate major issues or coordination challenges upfront, and they make it easy to put a price to the job.

That’s a quality set of “performance specifications”.

3 - QUALITY "FULL-DESIGN"
For high-end jobs, or high-hazard jobs, or critical function or high-visibility or unique jobs – perhaps we’re looking at a full-upfront design prior to bid.

Full-design isn’t free, nor quick, and isn’t necessarily the answer for every job.

But, as we’ve talked on this topic before; if it’s done well, and thoroughly, then fully-detailed plans can be a tremendous asset to a project. They can eliminate ambiguity and really dial-in exactly what work needs to be done.
 
AND... THE DANGER ZONE
What about the DANGER ZONE?

There’s a gap, and it’s in-between no bid documents and quality “performance specifications”. And that is the Danger Zone.

This is the lane of bad bid documents.

These are all the bad things. Inconsistent, boilerplate, confusing, inaccurate, unachievable, irrelevant, or not actually code-compliant.

What happens when we live in that lane?

We get hit by the proverbial bus.

Change orders. Litigation. Or much worse – a fire happens with major loss.

This is not the spot to be.

WHY DO WE STAY IN THE DANGER ZONE?
I’m fairly confident that those who live in that space don’t want to be there either.

They feel compelled because the client asks for fire to be included. They feel pressure because competitors are offering to do fire protection. They feel they can’t spend enough time on fire because there is hardly any fee there.

Honestly – these are all poor excuses.

If there isn’t enough money in the job to put together a quality set of fire protection bid documents – then don’t do them at all.

It is far better to have no fire protection bid documents, than to have bad fire protection bid documents.

HALF-BAKED DOESN'T HELP
Bad, sloppy, half-baked documents don’t help. They don’t solve anything. They get in the way.

If you’re the MEP who finds yourself in this area, having that conversation with an owner or architect and there’s just not enough fee to do quality work – then just exclude it entirely. If an architect insists that it get thrown in or done on a microscopic budget, then just ask them to hire a fire protection consultant separately.

Half-baking a set of documents is not worth the hassle or the liability. It also doesn’t actually help.

​When you do take it on, do it well. We all benefit from that.
 
YOUR TAKE
If you’re a sprinkler contractor or architect – I really want to hear from you.

Where do you land on this?

When projects have gone south or had major change orders – what happened?

Would being in a different tier have changed the result?

Comment below, would love to hear your take.
 
And, thanks, as always, for reading and being a part of the community here. We will get this right.