The acid test

In our busy, heavily supplied electrical testing market there’s increasing price pressure for all contractors and specialist testing companies. Every firm has to find its own balance in terms of service and pricing, but in order to be the cheapest option, some contractors are dangerously cutting corners on safety.

This issue first came to our attention when we were asked to match some low-price periodic installation test deals. We looked at what we were quoting against and realised, to our horror, that the clients had been sold ‘100% test and inspection’ deals, but when the small print was examined, it turned out that it only included ‘up to 10% insulation-resistance testing’.

The term ‘100%’ apparently only related to visual inspection, not to the actual electrical testing.

It appears that in this way unwitting customers are being short-changed. For buyers without electrical knowledge or training, the difference in these service offerings is easy to miss, but it has implications not only in terms of value but, more importantly, for safety standards.

The danger is twofold. It could be the case that the customer doesn’t realise that ‘100% inspection’ could mean anything other than ‘100% testing’, and therefore they will wrongly assume that this is what they are buying.

Or a client that relies on the expert guidance of their testing supplier could be misguided into believing that the 10% test rate is an adequate and acceptable safe standard. Either way, the customer is not receiving an appropriate service.

As any electrician will appreciate, the impact of testing less than 100% of circuits is dramatic. Circuits that run from the same board can be in very different conditions, due to degradation over time or inflicted damage. It is entirely possible to find neighbouring circuits where one passes the safety standards and one doesn’t.

Given that the cables are hidden within the fabric of the building and visual inspection alone cannot verify their condition, it is critical to test every circuit to identify any wiring that may be unsafe.

An interesting point to consider is how these contractors select the 10% (or less) of circuits they electrically test. It’s only personal speculation, but it’s possible that they pick the easiest, nearest, shortest routes. It’s also possible that the longer or most complex circuits are the most likely to be ignored.

Furthermore, if only 10% of a building’s circuits are being electrically tested, then even if a different set of circuits is systematically tackled each year, it would take a decade to confirm the safety (or identify the dangers) for the whole site.

There’s a good chance that the same circuits get tested repetitively, and so potentially the majority of the site might never get proper attention.

If a contractor chooses to sell a service at a reduced level, they should at least be required to make their offer explicit

Caveat emptor

The thing that clients may easily mistake is value for money in cut-price deals.

Companies in our market quote on a price-per-circuit basis, and those that aren’t testing all those circuits clearly have greatly reduced costs. When you do the calculations, it’s apparent that they are actually operating at higher margins – because of those reduced costs – than those offering a proper service.

Epsilon has campaigned with the facilities management and health and safety press to warn people buying electrical testing services.

The message we’ve been giving is ‘Caveat emptor’, or ‘Buyer beware’. We’re asking those making the purchasing decisions to compare apples with apples in the services they’re buying, and counselling them to take great care in who they select for this work.

With the impending Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Killing Bill due to become law in April 2008, there has never been such a critical time for employers to fulfil their legal duty of care, and electrical safety plays an important part.

Blowing the whistle

I have written to the chief executive of NICEIC and asked that industry standards be set for periodic testing to offer clarity to the market and stamp out this kind of misleading and unethical practice.

Epsilon recommends that the standard is set at 100% testing of every circuit because this is comprehensive and safe. If a contractor chooses to sell a service at a reduced level, they should at least be required to make their offer explicit so that buyers can make informed decisions.

NICEIC are considering the matter and in the meantime, we are doing what we can to expose the problem.

In my opinion we, as an industry, should take our responsibility for safety standards very seriously and commit to providing the best guidance and support possible to those that rely on our services.