Who is Ultimately Responsible for a Design-Build Fire Protection Design?

4/12/2021

My question is more based on principle rather than design.

I have been in the industry for over years and keep coming to the same question lately; who is responsible for the end product on design and install?

I've had several projects in the last year where a "mechanical engineer (plumbing/HVAC)" are doing the layout for the schematic and bid drawings and don't have the complete knowledge of fire protection. I've had to deal with issues ranging from head spacing to pump specifications... and none of them have been close to code.

Specifically, I have a 3-story building with the 3rd floor at 30'-0" above apparatus / grade so there should be no need for standpipes. The plan/specs require an automatic-wet standpipe with a 125 psi @ 500 pump. I sent an RFI on why the need for the automatic-wet standpipes, where we can do away with standpipes or go to manual/wet and I was rejected. Ultimately, we were told to follow the prints....but we are "delegated" design. Eliminating the pump and standpipes, we could have saved the county $110,000+ (electric included).

I now have a church with 36-ft throw sidewalls and the engineer would like to stay with sidewalls and not have any pipe crossing the room; it's not possible with the supply.

In the end, who is responsible for the design and performance of the system?

If the contractor follows the plan/spec, is he liable because he is the "delegated" designer? But if the delegated design needs to change and is rejected, who is liable?

How do you bid plan and spec project if there are multiple issues with the bid plans? Do you redesign and bid it correct? No, you won't get the job. Or, do you bid per prints and then not be allowed change orders because you are the delegated designer?

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

14 Comments

FIREPE25

4/12/2021 08:08:16 am

In my state (MA) the engineer of record would be the individual who supplied the construction control form for the project. He will also be the one who provides the final affidavit. If you are the one acting as the engineer of record then it should be you making the calls. In situations where we are not the engineer of record we submit RFIs informing them that what they did is incorrect. If they disagree we get second opinions and letters from industry experts like NFSA/AFSA, etc. If they still disagree depending on how large of an issue it is we get fire marshal involved. In some instances we will advise them that our company disagrees with there position but will proceed under there direction as the engineer of record, but will not take on any liability for the specific situation.

JAMES

4/12/2021 08:15:28 am

I feel like this is a very responsible position to take as a contractor.

To me if the consultant requires the contractor to provide their own engineer then they no longer have a basis to demand something outside of code. Personally, I feel like it is one or the other; either the consultant must own the project and decisions (including liability) as the EOR, or defer it and cede control for some of these decisions where the actual engineer of record (the contractor's) can provide what they feel and are charged with as being code compliant.

Glenn Berger

4/12/2021 08:12:24 am

There is no one person who is ultimately responsible. Responsibility is on everyone involved. Including the errors made by the bogus design and specifier to the installer and the AHJ. The owner is also responsible to ensure that the conditions of the approved design are maintained.

Mike

4/12/2021 08:15:51 am

In my experience, it's always been prudent to submit RFI's about the obvious mistakes prior to bid. Then you and the other contractors are on equal grounds for scope and cost.

If submitted after the bid, there will be chances of bigger and more costly arguments.

Jesse

4/12/2021 08:20:49 am

That's a tricky question, and the answer would be dependent upon which state you are in.

In Texas, it's a little more streamlined. The design engineer signing sprinkler / standpipe / underground fire line plans must be licensed by the state specifically for this discipline. So, a mechanical engineer or architect can't design water-based protection. same thing with alarm.

As an insurance HPR engineer previously, I've seen some really crazy things in AS design, and it typically stems from people designing these that shouldn't be.

I'd consult your state fire marshal's office, but yeah, it's convoluted

Kelley Stalder link

4/14/2021 09:30:28 am

I think you'll find many fire sprinkler systems in Texas designed by mechanical or even civil engineers. Texas also licenses fire sprinkler contractors to design fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm contractors to design fire alarm systems.

Andrew

11/20/2023 11:19:34 am

Jesse, I know this is very old, but I don’t think this is correct. The Board of Professional Engineers policy for engineers designing fire sprinkler and alarm systems is that they must be “Engineers who are competent in Fire Protection Engineering”. This is the same for every discipline; Texas does not differentiate between degrees or NECCS exams—a PE is a PE. I think your comment was confusing the policy for when these systems are being designed by NICET contractors, not professional engineers.

James Phifer

4/12/2021 08:22:39 am

Where do you find a 36 foot throw sidewall? I've never seen one throw more than 26 foot long.

4/12/2021 08:25:37 am

A 2-1/2" open hose... or a water cannon!

Matt

4/12/2021 08:31:50 am

It depends on who you are bidding to and how well you know them.

If the owner/gc are going to be unreasonable in their demands and you can't get high enough price - then you probably don't want the job (unless you need some install practice).

I have had the situation you talk about come up where the gc tries to lay every possible issue in our lap because it is "design build". I like to say: "I will design-build a car if you want one, but you can't blame me when it is not a boat."

Tell them what you are going to give them and then deliver that. Just be sure you clarify EXACTLY what you are providing for the price you offer. And try not to get into deals with unscrupulous folks who want a bunch of unpaid changes.

Dan Wilder

4/12/2021 09:47:35 am

This is a fun one due to working relationships, reputation, and responsibility.

Firstly, we bid projects per the plans and specifications provided because those documents are contractual and enforceable. However, we do RFI (or other forms of written communication) any large issues we see that would go against an installation requirement. In your example, while not required, providing items above the minimum is not something my company would "go to war" with. The same process of providing an RFI to eliminate based on the lack of requirements would be followed and if the owner (or GC as the middle man) still wanted to spend the money, so be it.....it's getting installed per NFPA. If they want copper piping (and yes, we have 3 current projects with the request), they get copper instead of steel.

Inversely, if we request things like a larger pump (GPM/PSI or both) to handle what will be a future buildout (say a low riser that has future high rise phase or a current office design in what will be a warehouse) and try to give the owner the chance to upsize the pump now vs having to buy another pump for the expansion or retrofit a new pump and that gets denied, then fine, we tried and have documentation (and yes, this also occurred on a project where the owner used the future warehouse as an assembly area and is now needing high piled storage with in-racks in a light hazard space - we specifically kept that RFI response handy and presented it when the owner pulled us into a meeting....while not happy, that focus shifted away from us as trying to be "change order happy", we currently hold all their ITM/Hood/FX & FA contracts because of the relationship).

In the example of the sidewalls throwing further than listed, that is one we will fight unless they want to provide a FPE report defining the allowance for an unlisted installation (it's not unheard of, just rarely used). You as the contractor are not providing design/engineering at this point, just installing what is being specified and as long as its installed per that FPE report, you should be covered.

We see mechanical drawings providing FP design a lot, same process with the RFI's (be it installation requirements, listing issues, coordination and working away from whatever was specified), but along you can also use the notes on the drawings that typically state something like "Drawings are diagrammatic in nature or show design intent only, actual installation shall be the responsibility of the installing contractor..." this is a good out that we use to just show the NFPA section that corresponds with the actual shop drawing creation.

In an absolute worst case, where the engineer is practicing outside there area of expertise, we will ask some of our contacts in their engineering world to "off the record" give them a chance to revise items accordingly. We have also requested and brought in our own FPE to help. We have not taken a PE in front of the board for a formal complaint, but the discussion has been had as a possible next step.

Ultimately, documentation is your best friend, use your sales bids to include/exclude as much as possible - making sure it makes it into the contract language, but if they are asking for more then clarify that's want they really want (and make sure it's priced accordingly), if it falls short of the minimums then RFI and provide the backup. The installing contractor is still required to provide a working, code compliant installation. The design still needs to comply as well but SFPE has been very clear on the roles & responsibilities delegated.

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

David J Branson

4/12/2021 09:52:14 am

There will be only one Engineer-of-Record (EoR) per Project discipline or subdiscipline. If the General Contractor is tasked with providing design along with construction, then the GC's FPE would provide the Fire Protection design. The scoping documents provided as bid documents must be considered as they represent the Owner's Project Requirements (OPR) and Basis of Design (BoD). If the bid documents convey a design that cannot meet code, the conflict should be surfaced immediately in an RFI. If the conflict still remains, the AHJ should be brought into the situation for their interpretation of the code issue in question. The Insurance underwriter for each party should also be consulted to protect their insured.

Alex Abossein, FPE, MPE, EPE link

4/14/2021 04:41:55 pm

There is only one engineer of records and he/she is the one who has fully designed, engineered and calculated and sealed and has signed the construction documents via design drawings. His/her dwgs. can not be deviated without his/her approval and if they are wrong then he/she is the responsible liable party to correct and to reissue them accordingly.

Any other documents issued for bid/construction that is intended to be designed and completed by the bidders/others to define the scope for bidding are considered bidder designed documents and the engineer/architect/owner/etc. who prepared them is not considered to be the engineer or DOR. It is mainly to provide some criteria and preferences that the owner may want as far as aesthetics, heads in center of tiles or lined up with lights, and generic location of piping, etc. that are more provided as a wish list items to be evaluated and incorporated into the design where possible when/if not conflicting with any codes and standards that maybe evaluated by the designer.

If the owner has a consultant acting on his behalf to provide some generic bidding documents that are not considered fully designed/sealed/signed documents then that consultant can only enforce the contractors to do that part of the work that are considered optional and non-technical wish list items such as extra heads to create more linear patterns that it would have normally be needed, or wall vs. ceiling heads, etc.

The ultimate design responsibility and liability will be on the person whose seal and signature will appear on dwgs along with his civil contractual liability to the owner remaining to be providing the extra heads, provisions, etc. that the owner, wanted as a part of the contract wish list when not conflicting with codes, standards and sound engineering practices.

Burnice Bauch link

6/13/2023 05:33:22 am

Interesting read on the responsibility for a design-build fire protection design! It's important to have a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved, including the design-build contractor, the fire protection engineer, and the building owner. This article sheds light on the subject and provides valuable insights into the ultimate responsibility. Thanks for sharing this informative piece!

Who is Ultimately Responsible for a Design-Build Fire Protection Design?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES