100% agree, my last stop our only client was a major FM insured site, it took a lot of prodding but they started pushing back more and more as FMs requirements became more and more onerous to their pocketbook. The real tipping point was the 4'-0" on center heads under non-flat obstructions over 4'. I did find the requirement mentioned in FM datasheet 2-0 Revised in 2014 under 2.5.2.1 (we should always remember to cite "chapter and verse" as my last boss would say, I had to look it up). Interestingly in my 6 years at said FM client, this NEVER came up even once. Underwriters are underwriters, their enforcement power is limited to increasing policy costs, or revoking policies for non-compliance. Owners need to be reminded/taught this and given their options form the contractor cost wise so they can see what if any cost impact the insurance requirement not being satisfied will create.
Mike Morey CFPS 3229 • NICET S.E.T. 123677 Project Manager • Fire Protection Group Shambaugh & Son, LP an EMCOR Company 7614 Opportunity Drive • Fort Wayne, IN • 46825 direct 260.487.7824 / cell 260.417.0625 / fax 260.487.7991 email [email protected] From: "Prahl, Craig/GVL" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 06/01/2017 10:26 AM Subject: RE: Review Comments Sent by: "Sprinklerforum" <[email protected]> FM adherence is not a requirement unless you’re directed by the OWNER to adhere to FM recommendations. Just because FM publishes a Data Sheet doesn’t mean every portion will necessarily be followed. The specifications should explicitly state what is to be followed and to what degree as this should have been agreed upon by the owner and their FM rep. and then communicated to the EOR and included in the engineering documents prior to bids. Some owners will accept all insurer recommendations, others push back and take some and disregard other recommendations made by their insurer. But that’s between the owner and insurer, not the contractor at the end of the line. Any EOR worth his fee should be asking the owner at the beginning of the project who their insurer is and what unique requirements are expected for the project. It’s irritating to get drawings that state something like “Follow FM Global guidelines”. Follow what to what end? FM’s recommendations are based on solid testing and verification of data but some of the recommendations do have an upcharge attached to them. The engineer assigned to producing the fire protection package should be competent enough to understand the ramifications of insurer requirements/recommendations and incorporate those into the design package. Don’t make the contractor do your work or have to guess. This is an issue that gets overlooked a lot by engineers and not just FP engineers. All engineers on projects should understand how to work with the owner’s insurer since FM for example has data sheets on numerous other building systems other than just fire protection. Craig L. Prahl Fire Protection Group Lead/SME CH2M 200 Verdae Blvd. Greenville, SC 29607 Direct - 864.920.7540 Fax - 864.920.7129 CH2MHILL Extension 77540 [email protected] From: Sprinklerforum [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Review Comments [EXTERNAL] Luckily not an FM project. Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. bvssytemsinc.com From: Sprinklerforum [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Travis Mack Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Review Comments Yes. That comes straight from FM. If you have an FM job, you will be held to that requirement. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Damien Shannon <[email protected]> wrote: That is a requirement in FM Datasheet 2-0. Is it an FM project? Was it specified in project specs? Can you use seamless pipe to bypass the issue? Damien Shannon. From: Sprinklerforum [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Harris Sent: 01 June 2017 06:59 To: [email protected] Subject: Review Comments Just got back some review comments for a project we’re doing and one in particular stuck out; “Orient longitudinal pipe weld seam toward building roof; at least 45 degrees in relationship to the floor (for reference, the weld line points to the floor at 0 degrees) to mitigate pipe weld seam corrosion.” Could you imagine the headache that would cause at the fab shop? Brian Harris, CET BVS Systems Inc. Design Manager bvssystemsinc.com Phone: 704.896.9989 Fax: 704.896.1935 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwICAg&c=GKdB6-XpYq_0W-WluyVHtw&r=z4t2hrRBa-JsS06T4X_uuYOSJoclVWgSRO8Nq6TDdsg&m=yzyaR_wTcUN47wSsKMhyb_ze3PfLngCfDQqVpXLZLEU&s=gcC7YInrqa8KtrGsHOm6RMAyxl8Ai7D3ntB2Qttaa5k&e= This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
