There can be a huge difference between minimum consensus standards and what we'd do for ourselves- or what FM Global does for their insured. I worked for Viking of the SouthEast/Crawford & Slaten Co in Atlanta in early 80's and they had corporate standards they held- an example would be that air compressors were installed with tanks. This extends the life of the unit by minimizing short run times and cycling. Sure, added cost. But given the size of most jobs, incrementally insignificant. And one less service call for a compressor running what the customer deems "too often" (find THAT in NFPA's definitions next to often a jockey pump should run) during the warranty period about evens it up.
There are a lot of things that give our customers added value for small incremental cost. Many of them would pay the upcharge once they understand it, if you haven't built it into your job. 13D doesn't require alarms, assuming interconnected smokes, but we've always installed them as a redundant alarm (SD's aren't perfect) and for the odd chance something would activate while they're on vacation. Start thinking like this and next thing you know, best practices don't just make sense, they can make you some extra money and differentiate you from the competition. Travis, thanks for illustrating the math- right on the mark. glc -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of larryshulman Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 8:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: FM rounding and other changes I've always been under the impression NFPA standards were "consensus standards" and not "legal standards". Their use is so widespread that sometimes we forget about that aspect, and this thread presents a good opportunity to remind ourselves. In fact, the NFPA disclaimer states the following..." In issuing and making NFPA Codes and Standards available, the NFPA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity. Nor is the NFPA undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone using NFPA Codes and Standards should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances". FM Global standards raise the bar and represent best practice to minimize property risk to an acceptable level as defined by FM Global and their client owners. That is a different intent from the NFPA approach. FM Global is in an envious position, because of their decades long basic and applied research capabilities in fire protection that nobody can match. Combine this with their loss investigation expertise, and it puts them at a cutting edge and industry leading position. The downside is that it puts FM Global out of sync with the rest of the fire protection industry, and some sprinkler contractors will complain that they're being asked to do more than the norm (NFPA). -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: FM rounding and other changes Except 13 is the predominant legal standard in the US. FM can do whatever they want but no where that I know of are they the legal standard. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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)
