Sprinkler Age A Publication of the American Fire Sprinkler Association
As I grow older, I have been getting in the habit of looking around, asking the reasons why we do certain things, and why we struggle to see the importance of doing other things. Do we do things that we like to do and put off what we don’t like? Everything in life is a compromise: time needed, costs associated, and the benefits weighed, whether subconsciously or consciously. Sometimes, we do not fully understand the potential risk of inaction. With the above in mind, let’s look at a specific activity we do as fire protection contractors.
Inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) of fire protection systems is a service most of our Contractor members provide. We have Associate members whose products are to provide services to support ITM activities. AFSA has a very successful program for the development of ITM technicians; however, most contractors have difficulty hiring enough qualified technicians, as the labor force is insufficient. Certification agencies like NICET and NFPA offer programs so qualified technicians can earn a certification that indicates their accomplishments. Most owners maintain their fire protection systems to some extent, but usually, compliance with all the regulations is not achieved. Difficulty in determining what is required, cost, and understanding the benefits are all obstacles that need to be overcome. Some owners ignore ITM requirements as the lack of compliance is seen as low risk. AHJs and insurance companies attempt to enforce ITM requirements but often lack the resources to do so. Third-party reporting programs have benefits, but all have negative issues that most people do not understand. So, what does all of this accomplish? In my opinion, a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, when there is a loss due to a fire protection system failure, partial or complete, the injured parties turn to the legal profession to protect their interests. Special experts and forensic engineers look at every possible cause to assist the legal team in determining who is at fault. In most cases, the legal team sues all parties involved to cover all angles. When all is complete, the injured party receives compensation, and lots of others make money in the process. What can we learn from this?
Let me use one of my favorite examples, a Ford F-150 pickup. Suppose you purchased this new truck in December of 2023. You had the oil changed every 5,000 miles or so at the local quick lube place down the street from where you work. You try to follow the maintenance schedule that Ford issues, but you have not memorized or reviewed the schedule in many months. At 52,000 miles, the engine starts making a terrible internal noise. You have the vehicle taken to a Ford dealership. An evaluation by the mechanic determines that a mechanical engine failure occurred due to improper oil viscosity used in the engine. You are disappointed and frustrated as the cost of the repair is over $5,000. Who’s to blame? The quick lube place, Ford, you as the owner, or someone else?
Now, suppose you lend your friend the truck to make a run to pick up some furniture. While driving on the highway, a front tire blows out. The accident results in no injuries but lots of damage to other people’s property. Insurance companies and lawyers become involved. Experts claim your tire conditions led to the blowout and accident. Are you to blame as the owner? What about the quick lube place since they did a free safety check? What responsibility does your friend have?
In both situations, the truck owner is ultimately responsible for the vehicle’s upkeep. When others are hired to do specific work, they are responsible only under the terms of the contract regarding the scope of service, materials, and liability. The maintenance of a fire protection system is no different; except when these systems fail, the losses can be catastrophic. At a minimum, major property damage, or, in the worst case, people die.
What have we learned from this? As an ITM service provider, you must:
- Ensure your sales team understands the fire protection systems in the building and the ITM requirements.
- Ensure your sales team assists the owner in his understanding of the applicable ITM requirements.
- Provide a contract to perform the scope of work that the owner has agreed to have completed.
- Ensure the contract limits your company’s liability for items not in your scope of work.
- Ensure your technicians are qualified to perform and fully understand the scope of work. This might be inexperienced and unqualified individuals you hired who need to be properly trained while on the job.
- Ensure the work is fully completed and the associated reports are complete and filed as required.
- Ensure the sales team follows up on the reports and offers the owner any additional services or recommendations.
If a loss later occurs, the owner and their insurance company will likely blame your company, as you were hired to perform ITM services for the fire protection system. Hopefully, if all your bases are covered, the blame will stay where it started, on the owner.
While discussing ITM on all fire protection systems, I would like to highlight a specific section in NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2026 edition, that is particularly relevant. The following information is taken directly from NFPA 25.
4.1 Responsibility of Property Owner or Designated Representative.
4.1.1* Responsibility for Inspection, Testing, Maintenance, and Impairment.
The property owner or designated representative shall be responsible for the proper inspection, testing, maintenance, and impairment management of water-based fire protection systems in accordance with this standard.
Paragraph 4.1.1 sets the tone for enforcing the standard by stating that the property owner or designated representative (see A.4.1.1.5) is responsible for maintaining a water-based fire protection system. Maintaining a system includes the ITM tasks, as mandated by the standard. The owner should carefully read and understand all of the requirements in section 4.1 to have a full understanding of the responsibilities placed on them by NFPA 25.
In my opinion, the above language should be presented to the owner of any system before a contract is executed. Notifying the owner of their responsibilities may help your company in the event of any future issues.
I pray that everyone has a great and prosperous New Year. May God bless your personal and work families. I know I am enjoying my two grandchildren, and one of my resolutions for this year is to spend more time with my family. Life is too short.
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.