Bobby,

Count yourself lucky.

There's an independent plan reviewer here in Southern California who on their own initiative decided that fire sprinkler shop installation drawings are for the use "of others", and must be signed by the contractor over their stamp.

Only one problem, the state doesn't issue a stamp to sprinkler contractors, or any contractors for that matter. And the state law specifically notes that sprinkler contractors are only allowed to prepare drawings for their own use, and that any drawings for the use "of others" must be signed by a PE or an architect.

The reviewer's response has been the equivalent of the TSA asking you "Do you want to make your flight or don't you?" Sometimes, I weep, you know?

Fortunately, that reviewer only has a few contracts to review fire sprinkler plans.

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


On 8/24/2011 7:47 AM, Bobby Gillett wrote:
To all;



This is not a question in reference to NFPA; however a cry for help to the
industry. Does anyone else run into this?



We prepare shop drawings with calculations for every project, and for some
projects seismic design shop drawings with calculations. Here in TN
(although this scenario has happened on projects outside of TN as well) we
have the standard of care, which means there are to be fire protection
intent drawings created by a registered design professional as part of the
original construction documents and when we complete our shop
drawings/calculations that registered design professional shall review them
for acceptance and stamp them. What we run into at random is what we believe
is a misinterpretation of the code (IBC for instance) and it gets put into
the specifications for the project; It is interpreted as our shop drawings
have to be stamped AND SEALED by an engineer and this is getting applied to
the seismic design specifications now as well. The fire protection
contractors that do not catch this or overlook it, as we did years ago, end
up having to hire (at their expense) a registered engineer so they can
provide sealed drawings/calculations, even though there is one already on
record for the project. Then you run into the problem of the need for the
engineer to create the drawings and calculations themselves due to the fact
they cannot seal anything they did not create. Now more time, coordination
and costs are incurred by the fire protection contractor. We have added an
exclusion in our base bid letter for the cost of providing an engineers seal
on our shop drawings and calculations for a couple of years now and just
revised it to exclude that same cost on seismic design and calculations, as
we are seeing this requirement in specifications more frequently. It is our
interpretation that each project shall have a registered design professional
to set the standard for the project and that professional shall review our
shop drawings and calculations for acceptance with a stamp; not a true need
for a SEALED set. Every time we ask the question to the design professionals
for the project they can't tell us where it came from other than this is
what is required per code and will not listen to our argument/explanation.
Somehow, if our interpretation is correct, we need to get this amended to be
clear to all.



Thank you,



Bobby Gillett

Sr. Project Manager

Key Fire Protection, Inc.

(731) 424-0130 office  (731) 424-9285 fax

(731) 267-4853 cell

  <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:<http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20110824/710401d4/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Reply via email to