Consider turning the tables.
Instead of telling the sprinker system designer/engineer
what items THEY should do, consider telling the
plan checker/AHJ what items they could do... that makes
the process of sprinkler plan design go better?
If the Middle East can use electronic social
networks to "level the playing field to a fairer
grade", why demand from and expose our sprinkler
plan checkers to a similar level acceptable fairness?
I know it will not happen, but think how easy it would
be if the AHJ/plan checker simply stated on their public web site:
1. what they are looking for in plans. we know most
AHJ's are not going to look, let alone ask for the full monty from
NFPA 13, Ch. 22.1 and 22.2. But, for those precious few review
jurisdictions that do require Ch. 22.2 and Ch. 21.1.3.10 and 21.1.3.43
information,
they should let all designers read about it before plan check submittal---
and not because it is such a rarity to ask for these items (it is), but
because this is
their opportunity to be publicly applauded for asking for these items.
2. lets face it, plan design and plan submittal are risk-based
processes. CAD programs allow us to complete more details, once we place
all the dots and connect the dots with lines, but ALMOST no one has the time
to get every detail completed, manually. If you do take the time, you
usually
get fired. On the other side of the table, few plan reviewers
ask for compliance on every item in NFPA 13, Chpts, 22.1 and 22.2. They
would be asking for a standard of care that few of their contemporary
plan checkers live up to, and as such, the fastidious plan reviewer will
get focus
from city council members that get heat from deep-pocket developers. So,
we
execute risk-based sprinkler plan design where we do what we have to first,
and don't do what we "can get away with." Therefore, if the AHJ/plan
reviewer
would simply state what it is they are looking for (on a public website),
they
probably would get what they are looking for, quicker.
3. If an RFI comes to a plan reviewer and the plan reviewers decision on
this RFI
will set a future precedent and effect other projects, the plan reviewer/ AHJ
could
and should post this decision on a public website and twitter it (for
immediate
circulation).
4. Consider keeping a scorecard. We should have this for medical doctors
by the way (stats for: dead-on-the-operating-table, dead
within-2-days-of-surgery...
...but the AMA is too strong a UNION). The sprinkler plan reviewing
agency should have a publicly available website that is automatically fed
basic electronic
information about each plan review. This electronic information could be
automatically uploaded from
a minimal-level-of-detail electronic summary form (i.e. a MS Word document
that the AHJ summarizes their review comments on). The electronic summary
form
could include :
1. date of plan receipt (entered by contractor into the plan reviewers
web site,
after the plan reviewer gives the contractor a key-code on receipt of
plans).
2. date of finished plan check
3. number of comments
4. category of comments (water supply, hazard description, logic for
arriving at
suppression strategy [RDD, spacing, etc.], hangars and seismic
bracing, administration, etc).
5. submittal of RFI's.
6. decisions on RFI's.
Then running totals and averages for a jurisdictions statistics could be
generated and one
could compare performance across jurisdictions.
The individual projects can be numbered, so as to keep the contractors
"somewhat anonymous".
Sure contractors will share project numbers, and the system adds a layer of
extra work, but,
most plan checkers are paid for their services and many are paid as public
servants. Should not
work of public servants be held up for review to the public who -- if not
paying the plan checker's
salary directly--is directly at risk from the decisions made by the plan
reviewers?
I know this scheme will not be adopted, and not because it is technically
complicated. It would
be easy enough to get some smart Westinghouse scholarship high schoolers to
write the computer
program and debug it through a couple of years of work, building upon the
shoulders of previous
classwomen if need be. The scheme will not be adopted
because it takes courage. Courage to bare what a jurisdiction is looking
for (almost each plan
checker has their pet items). Courage to realize the explicit, "items in
NFPA 13 Ch. 22 not stated on
our wish list are still required), but let these requirements go anyway, as
they currently are done
in the risk-based decisions of getting work done. It is understood that
the contractor/designer/engineer
still assumes the liability for non-conforming design, regardless if the AHJ
inspected and gave a
CoO.
Having the plan review authority have the courage
to state what the AHJ is looking for, would level
the playing field for upfront design preparation,
and posting the plan-revew-authority turnaround
statistics would level the playing field between
different contractors, and between different jurisdictions.
And "leveling the playing field" is a significant part of what
social information exchange can do very well, as some
people are courageously showing us.
Scot Deal
Excelsior Fire Engineering
_______________________________________________
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)
