WA State requires a level I certification from the state FM's office prepare or supervise preparing of plans. Either NICET II or take state test. State test would require much less prep time for person with adequate reading and math skill.
Not normally third party. Only exception I remember is when sprinkler company's owner had heart attack. Another company looked over and put cert stamp on plans for a short time. His spouse studied up and passed test in a couple months. I've never seen a PE stamp on 13-D plans. If I ever did I guess I'd look to see if it was for their own home. Best Bruce Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 14, 2016, at 12:10, Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not a fire official so my perspective is purely from the industry side of > the counter. I am stridently opposed to this level of documentation because > there isn't any value added for the cost of the services. The number one > challenge to adoption of the fire sprinkler code change nationwide has been > objection and highly organized lobbying by the NAHB. The number one reason > they give to underscore their opposition is cost: housing is already so > expensive that home ownership is seeming out of reach of many American > families and adding this onerous requirement is just another burden to the > prospective buyer of the home. Never mind that the actual costs are > exaggerated or comparatively low compared to other elements in a new home > (like upgraded windows, flooring, etc.), this strategy has been working very > well for the opposition. Based on my 25+ years of advocacy and public > speaking and code development work in the effort to effect universal adoption > and applicat io > n of the residential sprinkler mandate, I have arrived at a point of view > that looks VERY closely at any added costs that don't add to the life safety > or overall value of a proposed residential sprinkler system. > > To that end, I have consistently opposed the proposals to add mandatory > waterflow alarms to 13D that we receive every cycle. I'm not opposed to > notification, but we already have that by way of the required smoke > detectors, which are likely to work faster than the sprinklers anyway. What > I oppose is the added cost: In 2008, NFPA published a residential > sprinkler "white paper" that estimated the average cost of sprinklers in one- > and two-family dwellings nationwide to be $1.61. The CPI has risen 9.77% > since then, so let's use $1.77 as a cost per discussion. If we do, then a > 2,000 sq. ft. home costs about $3,500 to sprinkler. In adding an audible > alarm, the flow switch, bell, backing box and cable likely cost about $150 > and the installation and testing likely cost about $200 for the electrician > and sprinkler installer so you have ROUGHLY $350 in added costs and BOOM! > You just added 10% to the cost of the sprinkler system and NAHB just went > running off to your sta te > legislature to harp on the fact that our industry doesn't care about > homeless people ... > > So when it comes to FPE preparation of or 3rd party review of 13D designs, I > have to wonder why? What's the point, what are we trying to "fix", where's > the value or added measure of safety? In my long career in the fire > sprinkler and general fire/life safety industries, I have only met a very few > FPE's who are as expert at sprinkler design as the average NICET-certified > sprinkler layout technician. I have met or seen the work of or heard > anecdotally about dozens of rubber stamp FPE's and ME's who robo-sign > drawings for a fee and it's regulatory layers like this that keep them in > business. Here's the dirty little secret: residential sprinklers aren't > rocket science. More importantly, the market value of the work isn't at the > level of aerospace engineering so we can't price any of the work as if it was > rocket science. If an FPE wanted even a two-hour fee to review and sign a > set of sprinkler drawings (and presumably calc's and a material submittal), > that's $300-400 i > n the North American market. And another 10% added to the cost of the > system. I reiterate the question: What does this fix that's currently > broken? > > Put me down as a NO, Jerry. My opinion only, not representative of the > AUT-RSS, NFPA or AFSA. > > Steve Leyton > Protection Design & Consulting > San Diego, CA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Friday PE Question > > Good Afternoon, All: > > By chance, do any of you know of any Fire Departments/Fire Marshals Offices > (i.e., city, county, state agencies) that currently require a third-party PE > review/seal of single-family dwelling (13'D') fire sprinkler system "shop" > drawings/calc's?? If so, please advise...If not, your thoughts/input would > be appreciated. > > Gracias from Nuevo Mejico!! > > Jerry > [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > > Jerry D. Watts, M.S.F.P.E. > President & Co-Founder > ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.* > Santa Fe, New Mexico USA > (800) 503.1961 nationwide > > *Licensed Architects - Fire Protection Engineers/NICET Designers/NICET > Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS > _______________________________________________ > 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
