The appeal process is in place as well. The problem is the sprinkler contractor is being threatened with liquidated damages if the inspector won’t allow cover today in a particular area.
This is where badge heavy inspectors become a real problem. The inspector states he will accept only 3 options: 1 - there can only be a single ABS pipe and no other combustibles in the area. 2 - He will allow ABS and data cabling if a FPE will provide the maximum quantities of combustibles in the space since NFPA is vague. He wants a way to quantify the quantities. The contractor is arguing it is impossible for the sprinkler to police the quantities of other trades and to quantify them. 3 - provide full upright protection across the 280k sq ft space above the ceiling, including redesign and calculations. Beams are about 10’ on center and 28” deep plus fireproofing. So, the best they can get is 150 sq ft per sprinkler. It will likely average out at 100 or so. The GC is trying to state the sprinkler contractor would have to absorb the added costs. All of this for some ABS vent piping and typical data cabling you see in a school. I have a feeling this one is going to get pretty ugly. 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 6:15 AM, John Drucker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Or as in many jurisdictions, file an appeal. > > John Drucker > > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> on > behalf of Travis Mack via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 09:01 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Travis Mack; Mitchell, Scott > Subject: Re: [External] Re: I-B construction - ABS plumbing piping > > 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 >> >> <image001.jpg> >> <image002.jpg> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> <image003.jpg> >> 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
