Safe and sound

Last year was a watershed year for the UK fire detection industry. For, at long last, a quality assurance scheme worthy of the title has been introduced to form a backstop for individual industry standards.

In today's environment of risk assessment, where the responsibility for fire safety falls upon the employer, the proven quality of fire protection is critical.

The new quality assurance scheme from the British Approvals for Fire Equipment (BAFE) should produce more significant improvements in the quality of fire detection and alarm (fda) systems than updated standards alone, important as all these are.

The revised version of BS 5839: Part 1 is regarded by many within the industry as a step change in quality. But this major alteration to the code of practice governing design, installation, commissioning and ongoing maintenance of fire detection systems won't improve the performance of fda schemes on its own.

People on the outside or the fringe of the fire detection industry would be astonished to know that most fda systems do not strictly comply with the current recommendations of BS 5839: Part 1, but have only a functioning test certificate to satisfy the fire brigade.

So, even after the standards have been updated, unless the BAFE dog begins to bite we cannot expect any changes; a shock to those who take pride in Britain reputedly having the best fire safety application standard in Europe and perhaps the world.

In addition to the major revision of BS 5839: Part 1, there were two other significant introductions in 2002:

• BS 5839: Part 9 is a new code of practice that covers the equipment used for emergency voice communication systems, better known as fire telephones. This will not affect the current code of practice for voice alarm systems covered by BS 5839: Part 8, although this is likely to be superseded when the European version is released in the next few years;
  
• the revised version of BS 6266 code of practice for fire protection within electronic data processing areas or similar critical electronic system installations.

But the major changes are to BS 5839: Part 1, which covers all new technologies that have been introduced over the last few years, for example carbon monoxide detectors, multi-criteria sensors, video fire detection and radio-linked sounders.

The standard is now written in a style that makes it easier to understand and interpret the recommendations. And it removes grey areas and misconceptions, listing the recommendations more clearly and enabling third party audits of systems to be carried out.

There is a general misconception that employing a product supplier’s commissioning engineer will guarantee a full BS certificate

The revision provides a commentary for each section, explaining the logic behind some of the recommendations and adding diagrams to simplify the explanation even further.

It urges a better certification practice that recognises the separate responsibilities of the designer, installer and commissioning engineer, on all new installations. As well as including an acceptance certificate – to reaffirm the end-user responsibility – it suggests a certificate for recording the ongoing maintenance of the system and system modification that records any changes after initial installation.

The standard now adds that a verification certificate should be available. This allows a third party to examine the design and installation to audit the system against the design criteria.

These improvements are all very well. But, unless the certification has some real authority it is not worth the paper it is written on and, as current practice suggests, all the efforts of introducing this certification will be wasted.

There are a number of reasons for a poor end result in fire detection installation. Often it's because of a contractual chain where there is no one person or organisation responsible for system design from start to finish. The outcome will often depend on who is seen as the principal by the end-user.

The key point though is that the quality of the fire detection system should not be compromised and the end result should be identical. For example, on a small project an end-user might employ an electrician to install a system based on a report from the local fire officer or building control officer, with the requirement that the system installed complies with BS standards. What does that mean to an electrician who goes to a wholesaler, buys the product and installs to the requirements of IEE regulations?

The electrician connects everything up, applies power to the control panel and everything appears fine, so they sign the certificate. The fire officer checks the paperwork and sees the certificate is signed and assumes everything is in place. The truth of the matter could be that two detectors are reverse polarity and will not work, the manual call-point is hidden behind a door and the decibel level is insufficient.

In another example, with a larger project, the end-user chooses to employ an architect or building contractor. What can happen is that an electrical consultant employed by the architect or main contractor will consult the professional bodies, draw up a specification and drawings and collect the design fee. The project goes ahead six months later on a six-month term of contract to an electrical contractor who is held responsible for delivering the project on time, at the right cost and quality. At the end of the contract, the electrical contractor will ask for the equipment provider to commission the equipment and expects a commissioning certificate. This will confirm the equipment will operate as it was designed, but it may not confirm, for example, that the equipment is correctly sited or that the sounders are adequate.

People outside of the fire detection industry would be astonished to know that most systems do not strictly comply with the recommendations of BS 5839: Part 1

There is a general misconception that employing a product supplier's commissioning engineer will guarantee a full BS certificate, when in truth the engineer is able only to carry out a functional test to prove the equipment they have supplied is operating correctly. This covers clause 26.5 of BS 5839 Part 1.

However, in order for the commissioning engineer to provide a signature for any other part of the BS certificate, in particular the design, it is necessary to provide the full design criteria, including the list of deviations and cause and effect matrix. Ideally, on final handover of the system, the test should be witnessed by the designer, who should take responsibility for confirming that the system complies with the original design.

Another reason for non-compliant systems is that they are too easily accepted as correct by the licensing authorities and end-users. It should be clear who is responsible for the system design, be it the electrical contractor who installed it or the consultant who prepared the specification and drawings.

Licensing authorities and end-users should clearly understand who has taken responsibility for their system design so if there are any problems in the future they are aware who is accountable. Very rarely is the designer involved during the handover and, more importantly, consulted during the installation period to make any adjustments to the design.

Current national quality assurance schemes fail to resolve these problems.

The only installer certification scheme that currently operates nationally is the LPS 1014 scheme of the Loss Prevention Council Board (LPCB). This scheme offers an end-user a guarantee that the whole scheme complies with current standards. However, the scheme has been criticised because most contracts do not allow one organisation to take responsibility for design, installation, commissioning and ongoing service of a system. The scheme has also been viewed as an additional cost and therefore, unfortunately, is applied in only 2% of installations.

This is where the BAFE comes in. The BAFE quality assurance scheme is administered by accredited agencies and recognises the separate roles of the four main disciplines that go towards creating the optimum fda system: system design; installation; commissioning, including initial testing and handover; and ongoing maintenance. Each separate discipline is to receive its own assessment of competence and certification.

The new scheme was launched by NSI, which is the first of a number of agencies being accredited to manage it. The scheme includes all the disciplines for fire detection and also covers suppression systems. This differs from the LPCB's LPS 1014 scheme, as suppression is currently covered under LPS 1048.