That is processing 👍🏼 Travis Mack, SET Engineering Manager MFP Design [email protected] [email protected] 480-505-9271 x700 NEW MOBILE : (480) 272-2471
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > On May 21, 2020, at 6:00 AM, Mitchell, Scott via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> wrote: > >  > You might try an informal interpretation from John August Denhart and > company. J > > Scott Mitchell > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of J H via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: J H <[email protected]> > Subject: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > You're going to have to get your ammo, your formal interpretations and get an > audience with the little princess's boss - the king. > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM Rod DiBona via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe look at the contract for dispute resolution. Hopefully push past the GC > to the owner for their decision before it goes to mediation etc. Check the > contract that the GC has with the owner that the sprinkler sub is likely tied > to. May be a case where this tie helps. At the end of the day the owner pays > the bill. Would help to understand the GC’s contract. Is it a firm fixed? GC > plus fee? How is the contingency money handled? Split with the GC? 100% back > to owner. I would know these things before going this route. Good luck, this > clearly isn’t right. > > > Rod DiBona > Chief Operating Officer > R.F.P.G > Rapid Fire Protection Group > 1530 Samco Road > Rapid City, SD 57702 > Office-605-348-2342 > Cell- 605-391-3553 > www.rapidfireinc.com > > > > > > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G <[email protected]>; 'Matt Grise' > <[email protected]>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > Seems like we have an AHJ not backing down. We had the reviewing engineer for > the sprinkler plans write a letter stating that the criteria is in compliance > with NFPA and that limited quantities of combustibles are permitted above the > ceiling and still classify it as non-combustible. This is data cabling and > waste vent piping that the inspector is drawing a line in the sand to provide > protection above the ceilings of a large high school. I have been working > getting informal interpretations from various entities to support our > position. > > GC is telling sprinkler contractor it was design build so no change order. > But, specs say to put sprinklers above ceiling if structure is combustible or > if steel beams are not fire proofed. In this project, the steel beams are > fire proofed. The contract “intent” drawings call out to add sprinklers > below stairs if combustible but no where else in the project. There is > nothing to indicate sprinklers would be required above the ceilings. A > similar school built the next jurisdiction over does not have sprinklers > above the ceiling. I have been told other projects in this jurisdiction have > the same construction and same situation with no sprinklers above the > ceiling. One of them referenced is a hospital. I’m sure the data cabling in > a hospital is far greater than a high school. > > This one is going to get interesting. And probably pretty ugly. > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G <[email protected]>; 'Matt Grise' > <[email protected]>; 'Rocci 3 Cetani' <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > Yeah. That is the conundrum we are in. > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Rocci 3 Cetani via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Rocci 3 Cetani <[email protected]>; Matt Grise <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > Only problem is its vague and I think the committee did that on purpose. > “minor quantities” is up for too much interpretation > > Rocci Cetani III, CET > Senior Designer > Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III > > Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc. > 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A > Morgan Hill, CA 93037 > P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010 > F-(408) 776-1590 > > > [email protected] > www.norcalfire.com > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may > contain confidential information > belonging to the sender. The information is intended only for the use of > individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or > the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or taking of > any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please > immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the documents. > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Matt Grise via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Matt Grise <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > The NFPA13 annex and handbook address this directly. > > NFPA 13 A8.15.1.2.1 “minor quantities of combustible materials such as but > not limited to cabling, nonmetallic plumbing piping… …should not typically be > viewed as requiring sprinklers.” > > Matt > > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Travis Mack, SET, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G <[email protected]> > Subject: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > We have a fairly good sized school project. Plumber ran ABS drain piping. > Electrician has some cabling not in conduit. Inspector is stating the space > is now combustible and requires sprinklers above all ceiling areas. Has > anyone run into this and how was it resolved? > > Drawings and specs do not indicate sprinklers required above ceiling spaces. > But the GC is trying to force it down the contractor’s throat if it is > required and of course it is now holding up the job. > > > Travis Mack, CFPS, CWBSP, RME-G, SET > Engineering Manager > MFP Design > 3356 E Vallejo Ct > Gilbert, AZ 85298 > NEW EXTENSION: 480-505-9271 ext. 700 > NEW MOBILE: 480-272-2471 > [email protected] > [email protected] > www.mfpdesign.com > > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price > is forgotten.” > > Need/Want a faster way to check material pricing? Build a material quote? > Check availability ? Searching for an invoice? > *If you do not already have an account with ferguson.com, click here to > register.* > **Have a Ferguson account? Download the Ferguson app for on-the-go access to > your favorite ferguson.com features. Apple iOS devices or Android devices** > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > Virus-free. www.avast.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
