There is a simple way to deal with the problem: Include the cost of the flow test in your pricing. The costs gets passed on to your client.
Sure, it’s a pointless cost. But, many jurisdictions have pointless costs that just go along with the costs of doing business. I agree it would be beneficial to get the cost removed because it does not provide any added benefit. However, is this a hill you are willing to die on? If not, just pass the cost on to the client and move on. Have a happy Thanksgiving. Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET 480-505-9271 MFP Design, LLC www.mfpdesign,com Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 27, 2019, at 3:50 PM, Owen Evans via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Review: The water purveyor, after 19 years of providing static pressure only > for the development of 13D calculations, is now requiring a fire flow test > for 13D systems at a cost of $600.00. > > I emailed and asked the operations manager for the water purveyor to provide > me the justification for the change. He emailed back and said: "Our internal > engineering management team and the City's building department determined > that static pressure only was inadequate for official fire sprinkler > calculation purpose". (mouth hanging open) I contacted the fire, building, > engineering, and planning departments, they all denied agreeing to such a > change. > > I emailed the Division Chief for the fire prevention bureau (who is brand > spanking new in his position) about this issue. He emailed back and said; > "NFPA 13D section 10.1.2 allows for static pressure only when from a 4" or > larger main. NFPA does not mandate this method nor does it exclude the more > restrictive and costly flow testing". YES! He said that! The Division Chief > is out of the office until Monday. I hope to speak with him then. > > In the meantime I'm dumbfounded wondering how to deal with this problem. I > feel like I'm dealing with Harry and Lloyd. > > Well, I thought you all would find this entertaining. Happy Thanksgiving and > safe travels to all. > > Owen Evans > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: firstin--- via Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> > To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> > Cc: firstin <[email protected]>; Bruce Verhei <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2019 2:38 pm > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement > > Ha! I was wondering. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 19, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When I say I don’t get it, I mean I don’t get why someone wants a full > > flow test for a two head system. > > > > > > > >> On Nov 19, 2019, at 08:01, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Owen: > >> > >> How long did you work as a fire official? More than a couple years if I'm > >> not mistaken, so I assume in that time you had correspondence with one or > >> more water purveyors, correct? There are several factors here that do > >> not serve the community but DO serve the water company. The cost to the > >> customer is onerous and simply adds to the cost of the fire sprinkler > >> system, which is 180° contrary to the State Fire Marshal's mission that > >> the costs of residential sprinkler systems be closely managed at every > >> turn. The information generated is superfluous as we don't need the > >> residual at a high fire flow. For their sake, they generate a certain > >> amount of revenue and get to exercise one or more hydrants so they're > >> essentially covering the costs of what used to be overhead (assuming they > >> actually exercised the hydrants on their system historically). > >> > >> So you can do two things: 1) Roll up your sleeves and be part of the > >> solution or, 2) Wave your hands wildly and complain in a loud voice about > >> the injustice of it all. Having exercised #2 already, I implore you to > >> try #1. First, verify with the serving fire department that Static - > >> 10% is acceptable to them for SFD submittals. Then, craft a flow test > >> curve and show the two points provided by the water purveyor and add a > >> point where the flow rate of the residential sprinkler system falls right > >> next to the static on that curve. Write a cover letter addressed to the > >> director of engineering for the water purveyor explaining how Static - 10% > >> will provide an accurate basis for these systems and that such a practice > >> is acceptable to the serving fire department(s) and asking them to change > >> their policy. Emphasize that the added cost goes against best practices > >> and intentions and is contrary to the overarching mission of raising the > >> level of fire/life safety in the residential built environment. Then send > >> it to the DOE with CC copies to the Director (if public) or the > >> President/CEO/COO (if private) or General Manager of the water purveyor. > >> Also copy the serving fire marshals. > >> > >> Be part of the solution. > >> > >> Steve Leyton > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sprinklerforum > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> firstin--- via Sprinklerforum > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:45 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; Bruce Verhei > >> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement > >> > >> Bruce, > >> 13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the > >> system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal > >> system. Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two > >> heads flowing) a water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, > >> residual, and flow) is not required. The water company charges $600 to > >> perform a flow test. Our forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a > >> minimal system to keep the cost down to reduce the resistance from > >> developers and municipalities. A flow test for a 13D system is monumental > >> waist of time and money. But try and explain that to the new inspector > >> (who has all the power yet very little knowledge and training) who is just > >> passing through on the promotional track. Very frustrating. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay > >>>> waiting for it to get done. > >>>> > >>>> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different > >>>> positions come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the > >>>> water purveyor provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. > >>>> This was the third party verification for the development of the > >>>> calculations by the installing contractor. > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you have to perform the test or do they do it? > >>>>> > >>>>> Mark at Aero > >>>>> 602 820-7894 > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Need advice on the best way to fight a non required requirement. > >>>>>> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to > >>>>>> require a full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler > >>>>>> systems at a cost of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that > >>>>>> run down residential streets are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the > >>>>>> smallest. Who on Gods green earth thinks that two residential heads > >>>>>> flowing could over-run the municipal water supply, therefore, a flow > >>>>>> test is required to develop supply curve, really? > >>>>>> Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a > >>>>>> money grab? > >>>>>> Owen Evans > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0&s=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw&e= > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
