Are the changes to the sprinklers going to vary from the original design? What exactly is he doing by changing out heads? Need to be more specific.
If the changes to the system are significant enough, is he providing a new hydraulic calculation for the system? If he is then he should have the water flow data, that is if the EOR did his job. As far as you asking for bracing, based on what? Is bracing required by the building code or other applicable code? Was that requirement established and defined in the contractor's scope of work as attached to his contract? Just saying to provide bracing per NFPA 13 for the sake of providing bracing with no direction or information is of little value. What are the seismic characteristics of the site? Was that given to him? If he's going to brace then it needs to be completely compliant, not just a brace here or there at someone's whim. Sounds like a big truckload of info needs to be coming from the EOR first. As the reviewer you should not be doing the engineering on the job, and if the contractor is slow in responding according to the GC, that's not your problem. NFPA 13 doesn't specifically define what's part of a scope of work or not, the contract documents do. So you can't enforce NFPA 13 as his contract duty. Obviously he is obligated to install to meet NFPA 13 requirements, but 13 doesn't define the limits of work. If the EOR left vital information off his construction documents, then it's HIS responsibility to learn how to execute a protect correctly and provide the necessary information to the contractor so ultimately you have what you need to do a thorough review. The issue is, are you asking to do things that were not part of his contract? Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [email protected] http://www.ch2m.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 1:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: review of sprinkler plans ends up with GC requesting the reviewer to provide additional plan sheet because contractor don´t want to Am reviewing a drawing set for a medical outpatient facility where sprinkler contractor is doing a retrofit: changing out armovers and over 200 sprinkler heads I asked the sprinkler contractor to A. provide a sheet with information that included enough of the site underground to: tell if the UG was fed by a loop or dead end, location and dimension of underground pipe location and specs on FDC and BFP, where the gauge and flow hydrants were elevation of the same and finished floor include the new waterflow test derate the HC coefficient for existing mains that are to remain in place B. and the sprinkler contractor was asked to brace the existing mains per 2007 NFPA 13. sprinkler contractor refuses to do the above, and GC wants me to draw up the site plan showing UG, because this internationally recognized sprinkler company, simply will take too long and the GC wants the job done. Sprinkler contractor is probably saying it is not in their bid and scope of work, but I don´t see where in NFPA 13, that it is NOT in their scope of work. Am I wrong, dead wrong, or kinda wrong. scot deal excelsior fire _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
