agree - didn't take it as a poke -
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]>wrote: > I didn't mean it as a poke at you - this is the same underlying problem > as with ITM. So long as there are one or two service providers that > will do an "inspection" for $250, then it's always going to be that much > more challenging to sell a complete and comprehensive professional > service package into that market. More universally, the standard > practice needs to be that sprinklers be replaced when they are removed > from fittings, period. And this will entail hammering on enforcers to > hold up their end of the equation as well, which is really the only way > that unscrupulous corner-cutters can be held accountable. > > Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Greg McGahan > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop > > "adjust prices" > With all due respect Steve - I said the WE would comply with > code......we are still in the fight every day with those that don't. So > issues like this are business killers for those of us that work with the > unscrupulous and uneducated....Not that we ourselves are unfallible - > but we do at least try. > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Steve Leyton > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I was asked about 4 years ago to assist with a lawsuit as either a > > technical consultant or designated expert that was focused on this > > exact issue. The case was over a sprinkler that discharged in a > retail suite > > that was being remodeled. A sprinkler contractor had relocated a > > sprinkler by wrenching out the drop with sprinkler intact, and > > reinstalling it a couple feet away. After they did the work, there > > were painters and finishers working in the suite over a weekend. > > Sunday night, the sprinkler released and flooded the suite, wrecked > > the new paint and drywall, etc., etc. > > > > Neither side could prove their points. The sprinkie alleged that > > other trades must have hit the pipe and the finishers and painters > > were using pads and rollers on extensions, so that was a distinct > possibility. > > And there were teeth marks on the drop, but it wasn't possible to say > > forensically and with certainty if they were made during the T.I. or > > rough-in. But, there was no way corroborate the fitter's affidavit > that > > he hadn't dropped, wrenched or mishandled the sprinkler. No forensic > > conclusions could be reached regarding the sprinkler, as certain parts > > > were missing and someone (a responding firefighter, allegedly) had > > badly damaged the sprinkler. The bottom line is that if the sprinkler > > > had been new, there would have been no allegation of negligence > > against the sprinkie. > > > > Whatever sprinklers cost, this is the new price of tea in China folks. > > Adjust prices and let's move on. > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Greg McGahan > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:19 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > H > > ave we sufficient evidence that it is the reinstalled heads are the > > ones accidently discharging? > > > > It just seems like a waste to throw a 20 dollar head away because you > > have to remove and reinstall.....or even a 3 dollar head. > > > > We WILL comply with code, but I strongly disagree. > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Todd - Work <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would think that the vast majority of problems in mis-handling > > > sprinklers in this manner come from premature actuation (especially > > > with glass bulb) and not failure to actuate in a fire. I would also > > > think that only in very rare circumstances would you lose a building > > > > due to an accidental discharge of a sprinkler. > > > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > > Stonington, CT > > > www.fpdc.com > > > > > > On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Cahill, Christopher" > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > "then it appears you can re-use sprinklers left in drops or > sprigs" > > > Where does this appearance come from? I don't see it in the Code, > > > Annex or Handbook. Quite frankly, that is the only place that > > > counts in descending order of priority. > > > > > > > > I agree with Todd there is some judgment and risk tolerance. I'm > > > > sure > > > not 'buying' a building loss over what a <$10 device I my current > > role. > > > When I was a contractor maybe we weren't perfect in this regard. > > > When I was an AHJ if asked - new, and lot of don't ask don't tell. > > > > > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > > > Senior Fire Protection Engineer > > > > Burns & McDonnell > > > > 8201 Norman Center Drive > > > > Bloomington, MN 55437 > > > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > > > [email protected] > > > > www.burnsmcd.com > > > > > > > > Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For > > > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. > > > Sornsin, P.E. > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:27 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: removing sprinkler on drop > > > > > > > > I would argue that this shouldn't be an argument as long as it is > > > specified up-front. If the owner or engineer says do not reinstall, > > > > then don't argue, because if you win, it is your butt on the line > > > should the head fail. > > > > > > > > If this is a competitive bid situation or direct work with owner, > > > > with > > > no c > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > > kl > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Greg McGahan > > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > > 1160 McKenzie Road > > Cantonment, FL 32533 > > 850-937-1850 > > fax 850-937-1852 > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er > > .org > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > > > -- > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler > .org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
