I think I told this story before but it's a good segue into the weekend. I had an AHJ demand that I show the location of the deluge valve because it was on the list of 44. No amount of telling him that there was no deluge valve would work since if it was on the list you had to put one in (a little misreading on his part). I eventually got a google map from his office to the Viking SupplyNet warehouse. Made a little sketch of what it looked like inside and noted where on the shelf the deluge would be if I needed it. Not a happy camper.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:18 AM, å... .... <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ 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)
