So a corollary would be - do you declare your previous jobs to be unsafe or somehow not acceptable if a new code or standard is published? Do you notify your previous customers about this? Somehow I think you don't. All in all, designing in accordance with adopted codes and standards is a defensible standard of care in my opinion. Otherwise, where do you go to search out the safest code approach? Another city, another state, another country?
Bill Brooks AFSA Member -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 12:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: ignoring new standard requirements Thank you all for your response and input. Mark hit the nail on the head for what I was driving at regarding the PE's obligation to society, and how one would deal with this kind of problem. If I'm not mistaken, your code of conduct requires you to lookout for welfare and safety of society. You can only do that by basing your design on the most current information. But if an AHJ doesn't require the newest codes, whether more stringent or less as many have pointed out, then as a subcontractor you may be pricing yourself out of a competitive bid. So you are stuck with the dilemma...meet the code of conduct, or ignore the latest requirements to compete with other subcontractors so you can put food on your plate. Going all dramatic here...but which is the lesser of two evils. Has anyone heard of a legal case involving this type of scenario and what the outcome was? Thanks, Sean Van Gaal -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: ignoring new standard requirements My favorite example of this conundrum goes back to the transition to the requirement in 13 for the use of QR sprinklers in Light Hazard, and the reduction in design area allowed by their use. I believe this occurred in the '96 edition - whatever, our local codes were following earlier editions of 13. So when the engineer specifies to design to the latest edition of NFPA 13 and follow state and local codes, what do you do? QR sprinklers at the time were more expensive; but you could get the reduced design area, which could save money. Meanwhile, since the most recent edition of 13 called for their use, it was implied that QR was superior protection to standard response in Light Hazard occupancies. Galen's response make the most sense, but in my example, we were a contractor competing for a job as a sub-contractor to mechanical - or maybe sub- to a sub- of the general. No one cared about such an issue during bidding. If you won the job, no one was going to listen to your esoteric discussion about the benefits of QR sprinklers unless you were willing to give a deduct change order. It was more difficult after receiving my PE, when I became professionally obligated (not just morally) to provide the best system for our customer. The QR issue was relatively minor and I am certain no one suffered injury because our local codes didn't adopt the latest version of 13 at that time. But it highlights the challenge and emphasizes a common point on this forum: engineers of record need to be more engaged in and take more responsibility for the fire suppression aspect of their job. And if the opportunity is available to contractors (with or without PEs on staff), they should take Galen's advice and propose alternative designs based on the latest standards. Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: ignoring new standard requirements I'm sorry for my grammar and autocorrect as this is coming from my phone. How does the forum feel about ignoring the more stringent requirements of the most current NFPA standards all because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest year? As the standards have evolved with each new addition, they typically try to clarify murky wording of past standards, expand on topics, or add/change requirements based on the latest and greatest tests. So should we be purposely designing and installing and inferior product that more times than not is less safe just because the AHJ hasn't adopted the latest design guidelines. I've heard sometimes the AHJ doesn't adopt the new standard simply due to the financial impact of republishing their amendments and not merely because they don't agree. To me it seems morally/ethically wrong but I may just be on my high horse today. Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
