Interesting Brad. It is just really hard to change old habits.... -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 1:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Preaction Systems Scope
Even when the ME and EE are under the same roof Rod! I work for a consulting engineering company with mechanical, electrical, plumbing, code, and fire protection... Seems like on a project where we had all aspects there would be no coordination problems or contract questions, right? Right- SEEMS is the key word. On Feb 9, 2016 2:03 PM, "Rod DiBona" <[email protected]> wrote: > This does seem like the best way to do it Craig. I wish it was > specified like that so there wouldn't be a problem but as you are very > aware there is rarely much coordination at all and very rarely at this > level between the ME and EE. thanks > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Preaction Systems Scope > > We've had cases in the past where the detection part of the PA system > just got left off the table. Someone assumed someone else would be > doing it and it just never got done. Then at the 11th hour this is > discovered and the finger pointing begins. Then we've had where two > parties were installing detection in spaces and the project ended up > with unnecessary duplicity again due to lack of engineering coordination. > > So to curb that, I spec the detection part of the PA systems in with > the SPRK work, with the intention of it being the sole responsibility > of the sprinkler contractor. He can then self-perform if able or sub > it out to the project FA/EL or whatever contractor as they wish. But > at the end of the day, the sprinkler guy is the go-to guy for anything > related to the PA system. > > This has worked much better in avoiding parts of the systems being > forgotten or not connected. Now when we don't have direct control > over contracts and the GC allows for exceptions and doesn't pay > attention to them, that's when things fall apart and get ugly. > > Craig L. Prahl > Fire Protection Group Lead/SME > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod > DiBona > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 2:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Preaction Systems Scope > > Now that is a great idea Ron.... I think we have a winner.... Would > really give us an out if they didn't take the voluntary alternate and > would also likely have them asking all bidding contractors about their > scope as you pointed out. thank you Ron! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of rongreenman . > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Preaction Systems Scope > > You could have a base bid price excluding the electrics, with an "in bold" > extra for the inclusion electrics. That might get their attention and > still let them compare apples to apples. I know I've done that and > that started someone asking questions about just what the other bids included. > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you all for your help. That is what I thought but we were > > starting to wonder if we were the only ones that seem to > > consistently have this problem. We so clearly, in bold exclude it in > > detail and then still end up with a fight at the end because the GC > > didn't buy it out. We were considering just including all of it in > > all of our preaction bids so they get a complete system and > > eliminate the hassle but felt that this would make us less > > competitive if others weren't doing the same. We will continue to > > exclude and see if we can't find a better way to communicate that > > this is a likely scope gap unless it is > addressed at bid time. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > rongreenman . > > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 11:03 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Preaction Systems Scope > > > > Here it is typically handled like Mike describes too. Everyone > > pretty much knows the general's contracts guy will miss all the > > exclusion clauses unless he's been bitten before. The object is to > > get the building built with all systems working. > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Morey, Mike <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Typically we tried to let the project team work it out, but if > > > they didn't or there wasn't a well defined project team to resolve > > > these issues we'd typically take it out for numbers. Usually we > > > try and get the electrical/alarm bidders for the project to put a number > > > on it. > > > > > > Mike Morey, CFPS, SET > > > Planner Scheduler/Designer > > > BMWC Constructors, Inc. > > > 1740 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46222 > > > O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 > > > [email protected] | www.bmwc.com > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Sprinklerforum > > > <[email protected]> > > > on behalf of Rod DiBona <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:25 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Preaction Systems Scope > > > > > > I am wondering how most of you handle the detection and releasing > > > systems for your preaction systems. We traditionally have excluded > > > all electrical and alarm but find it very common that the fire > > > alarm contractor was just smarts and parts and the electrician > > > doesn't have it in his scope. Not very often have the ME and EE > > > coordinated so that > > it is spelled out correctly. > > > So my question is do most of you include this scope and have an > > > electrical subcontractor that runs the conduit, provides and > > > installs the heats or detectors and programs the releasing panel > > > or do you exclude? Thanks > > > > > > > > > Rod at Rapid Fire > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespr > > > in kl er.org _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespr > > > in > > > kl > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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, WFSC > > > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. > > Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > > > -- > 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, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, > inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
