Guys, A few things from UFC 600-1 (2004 version but I think this is still the same in the current version) that Scot may be trying to comply with:
1-6: Requirements for FPEs: Projects involving fire rated construction, fire detection, fire suppression, or life safety systems require an FPE as an integral part of the design team. (FPE’s input must not be limited to design analysis preparation or post-design review!) 4-2.3.4.1: Water Supply Adequacy Calculations: A Fire Protection Engineer (as defined in pph 1-6) must provide flow test data and calculations demonstrating adequacy of water supply for anticipated sprinkler system. Calculations must be submitted no later than “35% design submission.” (For design/build projects, the adequacy of the water supply must be established during the RFP preparation phase. I can't get the table into the message so fyi the UFC requires 0.10gpm/3000 sqft for 60 minutes for light hazard. The table is at the below website: http://www.tpub.com/content/UFGScriteria/3_600_01/3_600_010037im.jpg And the exception: Where listed quick-response sprinklers are used throughout the system, the design area inTable 4-1 may be permitted to be reduced without revising the density as permitted in NFPA 13except for facilities that are required to comply with UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum AntiterrorismStandards for Buildings (although this may no longer be the case in the current version). The problem seems to (without the full document to peruse) squarely rests with the contract due to the crappy spec. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Chris Cahill <[email protected]> wrote: > "I want the government to get a reasonable product" > > Not your job as I understand it. You are to review to the spec of what > someone else wanted. Unless you write the spec you don't get what you want. > > > "Just document the underground and water supply like NFPA 13 asks." > > What does this accomplish? Aside from the snippet of the spec you provided > (I don't know the context) there is rarely a reason to do calcs on an add > and relocate. Yes there are times and I don't know if this is one. I'd also > challenge the thought 13 requires this for A&R if you have no calc issues. > For example going from 225 sqft spacing to 400 sqft probably requires a > calc. But I can do this by just taking the existing back to the main then > the new spacing back to the same point on the main and show it's less > demanding. I think that is perfectly acceptable without going all the way > back to the UG. > > "the contract FPE serves two masters" no not really you were hired to > review to the spec for the GC end of story. If the sprinkler spec doesn't > ask for existing piping to be brought up to modern EQ bracing then you don't > review for it. If you have reason to believe the new layout is more > hydraulically demanding then maybe depending on the spec you look into it. > > Sounds to me you are over thinking your role. Not a bad thing, I know you > are concerned about it being right when you leave. The spec writer may or > may not be concerned with getting it right. Then we may have different > definitions of right depending on our training, education and experience. > And the writer in this case is the owner and might not want to pay for > things and has the legal authority to do what they want. If you have > concerns beyond the scope of the spec'd work you can certainly document > those for CYA. The owner then can decide what to do with those. Your > review letter should probably have two sections - the review to spec and > other issues not covered by the spec but may be important. > > Chris Cahill, P.E. > Fire Protection Engineer > Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. > > 763-658-4483 > 763-658-4921 fax > > Email: [email protected] > > Mail: P.O. Box 69 > Waverly, MN 55390 > > Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW > Waverly, MN 55390 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 1:54 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 > > Again, accept my thanks.to all of you. seriously. > i will take the black and the blue > cause i am learning on you. > I am not out to break the contractor's bank. > working with this national contracting company-- > at least this office of theirs-- has been frustrating > and time consuming. > > the specs are not ideal. > the specs are for the GC, who hires the sprinkler contractor > and then hires an engineer to review the sprinkler > contractor's drawings (me). > > > > I want the government to get a reasonable product, and > receive a water supply description they can refer to in the future, > because these buildings have a service life of 35-50 > years and will probably be > renovated again, like they > were before in '94. > > So, I will let the earthquake bracing issue fall. > I don't want to be unreasonable, just that almost all > military jobs I worked on, seismic is required, > regardless if the job is in Oklahoma or in Northridge, CA. > it seemed like a natural thing to ask for. > > Regarding waterflow, I would be happy with a JPEG of the > UG piping plan splashed on a sheet, or > even hand drawn layout. Just document the underground > and water supply like NFPA 13 asks. The renovation has > a changed wall layout, and new design area. To get the UG > water supply and waterflow information documented, the > GC is forwarding to me the civil engineer's work, and I am going to put the > UG piping > and waterflow on a new sheet with my letterhead and name. > This is the quickest way to get it done. > > The government PE (I am not sure if it is the same one that > wrote the spec, but i got a suspicion) has stated to the GC > that they are concerned the contract FPE (me) has not been > doing his job. > > that was after i went through 3 plan check cycles with this > contractor on another project, over the same things. The > government PE apparently did not have a clue about > what was going on, or the sprinkler contractor gave him a > clue. Earthquake bracing was provided on that project as > it was new construction. same specs were used though. > > I think the military contract FPE model is tweaked. > the contract FPE serves two masters. but only > one pays me: the GC. only thing is, the other master > is the one that pays the GC. > > > > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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)
