Sprinkler Age A Publication of the American Fire Sprinkler Association
Integrity is an interesting concept and one I try to practice in my daily life. In my professional life as a Professional Engineer and a contractor for over 40 years, I have the Professional Engineer’s code of ethics and my reputation that keeps me grounded in doing my best. As contractors, we also need to have integrity in our company’s performance, but what drives that? Let’s discuss this in some detail.
Many contractors state in their scope of work to perform work based on specifications contract drawings and in accordance with the adopted standards applicable to that specific project. While that is standard language, do your employees follow those requirements? Even if they do, is that enough to prevent liability in case of something going astray?
The first step is to look at the specifications in detail. Many specifications require the use of materials, equipment, and assembly techniques, which might not be what your company prefers and are more complicated and expensive. Does your company provide what is required by the specifications, or do you do it your way since, in most cases, no one will notice? Let’s use the example where schedule 40 black steel pipe is specified for all preaction system piping. The end preparation is specified as cut groove; however, your company’s preference is for roll groove end preparation. What do you do? Cut groove is more expensive. Roll groove is the industry standard and fully complies with NFPA 13.
Contract drawings are typically scrutinized more by field inspectors; thus, most contractors follow the requirements on the contract documents more closely. What if the hangar requirements state a maximum of 10 feet between all hangers for all pipe sizes in lieu of the requirements in NFPA 13? Are you going to follow that? More hangers mean more cost in terms of material and labor, and 10 feet is “over” designed. Most likely, this would never be noticed by the field inspectors as the installation complies with NFPA 13.
Now, let’s review the applicable standards. Let’s assume this project is located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which has adopted the 2016 edition of NFPA 13. The project is a four-story outdoor parking garage, and the contract drawing specifies the building is to be protected with sprinklers designed to an ordinary hazard group 1 hazard. Your company’s proposal is based on that hazard. However, more current editions of NFPA 13 suggest an ordinary hazard group 2 hazard classification. Do you prepare a request for information to clarify the hazard classification or just do what you were instructed to do? The ordinary hazard group I hazard complies with the adopted standard, but it is not the latest information available.
In all the above situations, contractors have to make a decision. Those decisions can make you more money in the short term but can cost you dearly in the long run.
Let me give an out-of-the-box example. Let’s assume you drive 50 miles a day to and from work. While driving, you tend to push the speed limit frequently. Most of the time, nothing happens. But once in a while, you are stopped and issued a ticket by a law enforcement official, or you receive a speeding violation in the mail. Besides the direct cost, you might also be assessed points on your driver’s license. Maybe your insurance company will notice the ticket. Maybe your speeding leads to an accident with personal injuries. We all take chances, but we need to realize the consequences of our actions.
As contractors, our actions are not buried. Even though we have closed the project, the inspectors have signed off, and payment has been received, that does not mean all is good. If the piping in the preaction system example above starts to fail at the joints, the owner, insurance company, or other responsible party will review the specifications to see what occurred. If your “choice” of roll grooves is noticed, you will be in a tough legal situation. In the hangar situation above, if there is a failure of any type of the structure, did your hanger spacing cause the issue? If this was a dry or preaction system, maybe your hanger spacing allowed more water to lay in the piping, which could have led to more corrosion. In the parking garage example, suppose a fire occurred and was not controlled in a timely manner. Would an ordinary hazard group 2 hazard design have performed better? I’m sure the lawyers will find an expert who will state the sprinkler contractor should have pointed out the need for increased protection in newer editions of the standard. In fact, the contractor employs a NICET technician who should have informed the owner.
What brings me to discuss this issue? I have recently been to several field installations and could not believe what I have seen. Statements were made by the contractor’s field employees that they have not provided “General Information Signs” as required by NFPA 13 since the 2007 editions because “the inspector does not tell us to provide them.” I also heard, “We used cut groove piping for all piping fabricated by the supplier, but we use roll groove piping for all field piping because we do not have the equipment nor time to wait for shop fabrication for field changes.” All I can say is WOW. I hope those companies have great insurance coverage because their own employees have just stated that they do not have integrity.
I can hope to keep my integrity in my professional activities, but even more important to me is to teach by example my family and especially my grandson Zachary to do your best even when no one is watching! Words to live by.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
John August Denhardt, P.E., ET, CWBSP, FSFPE, is the vice president of engineering and technical services for the American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA). He is responsible for strengthening AFSA’s engineering and technical approaches to meeting member, industry, and operational priorities, with an emphasis on service, quality, and integrity. Denhardt is a registered professional engineer (P.E.) in the District of Columbia and the states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. He is NICET Level III certified in water-based systems layout, NICET Level III certified in inspection and testing of water-based systems, and a certified water-based system professional through NFPA. Denhardt is a member of the NFPA 13 technical committee on sprinkler system discharge criteria, a fellow in the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), a member of the SFPE Board of Directors, a member of the Board of Trustees for NFPA’s Fire Protection Research Foundation and sits on the University of Maryland Department of Fire Protection Engineering’s Board of Visitors. A native of Maryland, Denhardt holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland College Park in fire protection engineering. Prior to this role, Denhardt was employed by Strickland Fire Protection in Forestville, Maryland, since 1994, overseeing large-scale projects and assisting with design and installation technical issues.
