David, Having done work in North and South Carolina, I've always been vexed by this part of Title 40. This is from section 40-10-250. "(2) a fire sprinkler contractor licensed in this State with a qualifying party holding a NICET Level IV Technician Certification in "Fire Protection Engineering Technology Automatic Sprinkler System Layout" if a specific statute, regulation, or ordinance does not require the services of a licensed professional engineer. The qualifying party must be the individual completing the form, and he must place his name on the lower right hand corner on the first page of the form with the words "Qualifying Party" after his name and with his qualifying party certificate number."
Is there a specific statute, regulation or ordinance not in Title 40 where a PE isn't required? >From reading this, it seems that according to SC law, there's no difference between a NICET IV and a PE from the standpoint of filling out the FSSSS. is that correct? On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Blackwell <[email protected]> wrote: > In the realm of civil engineering where I initially started, the PE > generates all the drawings and calculations. The water/sewer-line > contractors bid solely on installation which is very simple and clear > cut lines of responsibility/liability. > > > > My personal opinion is that the system in place is at fault for a lot of > the problems. I believe that the solution involves modeling a new system > after the successful engineer/contractor design/installation model. > NICET designers should work for the PEs with the PE responsible for > preparing a detailed design of design drawings [FP-series], calculations > and specifications prior to bid. The contractors should get out of the > hassle of preparing the drawings and calculations and shed their NICET > designers to the engineering companies who will need them [and who can > use them as NSPE originally envisioned when creating NICET]. > > > > The fire protection PE should be part of the initial design team hired > by the architect of record just like the other engineering disciplines > of civil, mechanical, electrical, structural, etc. > > > > South Carolina State Law requires the PE be involved up front prior to > bid; however, only the basic design information (not detailed drawings > and calculations) is required on a state specific form created by our > office, a Fire Sprinkler System Specification Sheet (FSSSS) which must > be included with the bid documents. South Carolina also requires the PE > review and approve the contractor's shop drawings, calculations, etc. > prior to submission to the AHJ for review and then complete and seal a > Fire Sprinkler System Certificate of Compliance (COC) form. You can > learn more by reading the SC Fire Protection Sprinkler Systems Act at > http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t40c010.htm. > > > > Q - Do you know what you call the Doctor that almost didn't graduate and > almost failed to get his license? > > A - Doctor! The same as the guy that graduated top of his class and > aced his license exam. > > > > As an AHJ, I see the whole "bell-curve" of licensed contractors and > registered design professionals. What I fear most is the "perfect > storm" pairing of negligent/incompetent contractors with > negligent/incompetent PEs and negligent/incompetent AHJs and then fire > sprinkler systems as a whole getting a bad reputation due to incidents > with such improperly designed and improperly installed systems. We are > on the cusp of a sea-change if we can keep the sprinkler requirements in > the IRC and get them adopted in more and more jurisdictions. Once > people get accustomed to the benefits of sprinklers at home, they will > wonder why so many other buildings built under the IBC aren't required > to be sprinklered also... > > > > > > > > David W. S. Blackwell, II, PE, CFI-I, CFPE > > Engineering > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Office of State Fire Marshal > > 141 Monticello Trail > > Columbia, SC 29203 > > Phone: 803.896.9833 > > Fax: 803.896.9806 > > Email: [email protected] > > OSFM Website: http://www.llr.state.sc.us/firemarshal.asp > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > ParsleyConsulting > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: walk in Ovens > > > > Kevin, > > > > Don't let that one hit close to home, because when you ask questions and > > > look for assistance you're steps ahead of many > > PE's who are operating well outside their area of experience and > training. > > > > As for the "making bank" I agree, and I don't. I've heard the old saw > > "bid it low and extra them into the land of profit" for > > many years as an approach to the bidding process, and that bothers me to > > > no end. However, I'm involved with a sprinkler > > contractor here in California who's run afoul of a PE who has made last > > minute demands on the contractor for seismic > > bracing which is well beyond the scope of NFPA-13, and wasn't a part of > > the bid documents that they or their competitors > > used when estimating the job costs. The number of braces on the system > > if you follow NFPA-13 requirements is approximately > > 18-20, however the demands made by the structural PE will increase that > > number to over 190 braces (such as all branch > > lines regardless of size or length to be provided with two lateral and > > two longitudinal braces, braces to be located and 1/4 > > or 1/3 points of pipe - not ZOI but pipe - for all mains, etc.). None > > of that could have been anticipated or known because > > he just made it up, and I don't want to do that to the owner, but I > > don't want to do that to the sprinkler contractor either > > because it definitely isn't his fault. > > > > The hostility is the result of surprises, which "someone else" is > > expected to pay for because "they should have known". > > > > I will say this - I've yet to meet a sprinkler contractor who refused to > > > do something beyond the standard if it was made clear > > to them on bid documents what was expected. > > > > Just my thoughts. > > -- > > PARSLEY CONSULTING > > Ken Wagoner, SET > > 760.745.6181 voice > > 760.745.0537 fax > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail > > www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
