The host organization of this forum has in the past, and sprinkler industry as a whole, advocated for fire codes that allow trade offs for sprinklers. They got ‘me.
The deal is now each trade-off is a choice that owner-architect needs to explicitly make. This might be surprising to most of you who work in a more specialized field. From before building permit plans submittal through permit review some development teams are regularly pushing, and sometimes strong arming, to defer decisions till later. As in, work it out with the field inspector. Issue us a permit and we’ll decide later if we go one-hour construction or sprinklered. Can’t we build a shell, then convert it? That’s what we do in Texas. Always Texas. I assume in Texas they say that’s what we do in Washington. Now I think the push is past trade-offs to sprinklering everything bigger than a coffee drive through box or a kids’ wait for the school bus lean-to. Best. Bruce Verhei > On May 30, 2020 at 12:19 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > > > This post could be the narrative explanation for why I went into business > as a design consultant. When I was contracting, I lost countless projects > that were under-scoped and thus under-bid by competitors. The sexy allure > of a low price continues to be the siren song of hiring sprinkler contractors > to design and build, but there’s no vetting of adequacy by the GCs and > developers hiring their FP subs. I wholeheartedly agree that establishing > the basis of design should not fall to the installing contractor, and I’ll be > the vast majority of our contracting community family members agree with that > perspective yet, like lemmings at the edge of a cliff, contractors continue > to throw themselves into binding contracts that transfer ALL liability for > the design to them. So many posts on this forum are from contractors and > designers who find themselves trying to climb out of expensive holes that > they’ve fallen into because they’re being compelled to add window protection > and upgrade systems due to building code provisions or equivalency equations > that were not specified or otherwise adequately conveyed through the > construction documents. But until our industry pushes back, the buyers of > contracting services will continue to defer both the submittals and liability > the same way they have since sprinklers became a thing. Think about it: > what other industry is still practicing a 125-year old business model? > > > > Steve Leyton > > > > > > > > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Skyler > Bilbo via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 3:57 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: Skyler Bilbo <sbi...@wenteplumbing.com> > Subject: Re: Covered Parking in 13R > > > > I don't think this has been said yet on this thread, but I think it is > worth mentioning. It is not a fire sprinkler contractor's job to decide > where sprinklers are required, and/or which standard is applicable (NFPA > 13/13R). I know we all probably do this, but we really shouldn't. I would > bet over half of contractors don't know half as much as they should about > this subject (me included; and I think I know a lot about it). > > > > Long story: There are so many caveats to the Building Code, which trigger > different requirements for this, which are different in each year of the > codes/standards, and often different between jurisdictions. We don't know > (and I find that it often isn't listed anywhere in the prints) if the > Architect used a building code tradeoff (larger building area, lower fire > ratings, longer egress distance, etc) that would automatically trigger the > requirement of a NFPA 13 system throughout (not 13R, even though it may be > less than 4 story residential). It could be that the building is close > enough to another adjacent building that it requires a NFPA 13 system, or a > rated exterior wall (which we wouldn't know the option they selected). There > could be separated occupancies (with firewalls), mixed occupancies, or > accessory occupancies, all of which may require a different approach/NFPA > standard to be applied. The building mentioned may or may not be a "podium > building" (IBC 510.2). Chapter 9 of the IBC may, or may not, have minimum > requirements for sprinklers based solely on occupancy. This is just a few of > the things that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm missing > some, and there are too many specific situations to list here: it would be a > novel (like a building code). > > > > Long story short: don't take on the liability by quoting sprinklers in > some areas, not in others, or with NFPA 13 in some areas and/or NFPA 13R in > others/throughout, when you really don't know what you are doing. > > > > What I would do: call the Architect. Get it from them (in writing) where > sprinklers are required and if it is required to be designed per NFPA 13 or > NFPA 13R. It is best to do this early on in the bidding process, and try to > get it sent in an addenda so that your competition bids it the same way you > do. Of course, I have done this, and my competition beats me by still > bidding it incorrectly and against the addenda, and no one realizes that the > sprinkler system is installed incorrectly, except me, when I walk through the > building a year later. That's life in this business. > > > > > > My $0.02, that no one asked for, > > Skyler Bilbo > > 1700 S. Raney Street > > Effingham, IL 62401 > > 217-819-6404 Direct > > 217-347-7315 Fax > > > > sbi...@wenteplumbing.com > mailto:sbilbo@wenteplumbing.comhttp://www.wenteplumbing.com > > > > **new**http://www.beplumb.com > > Like us on facebook http://www.facebook.com/justbeplumb for updates > > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:50 PM Art Tiroly via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > wrote: > > > > > > Residential use above a parking garage changes the occupancy > > requirement to a mixed use and NFPA 13 design criteria is required. > > Therefore protect the garage. Am I on the right track here? > > > > > > > > > > > > Art Tiroly > > > > ATCO Fire Protection/Tiroly > > > > 24400 Highland Rd CLE 44143 > > > > 216-621-8899 > > > > 216-570-7030 cell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Sprinklerforum > > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org > > mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org ] On Behalf Of John > > Irwin via Sprinklerforum > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:55 AM > > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > Cc: John Irwin > > Subject: Covered Parking in 13R > > > > > > > > I have a 3-story, 13R building. Type IIB construction. On the > > “engineered” bid set, no sprinklers are shown in the covered parking area. > > This area is inside the footprint of the first floor, with 2nd floor units > > being located above the parking area. There are no garage doors and the > > parking spaces are not separated. To sprinkle or not to sprinkle? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John Irwin > > > > West Coast Branch Manager > > > > Quick Response Fire Protectionhttp://www.quickresponsefl.com > > > > Office: 844-9QUICKFL > > > > Cell: 727-282-9243 > > > > Main Office: 20545 Independence Blvd. Unit G Groveland, Florida > > 34736 > > > > West Coast: 15201 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 113, Clearwater, Florida > > 33760 > > > > East Coast: 3133 Skyway Circle, Suite 104, Melbourne, Florida > > 32934 > > > > 24 Hour Emergency Service Available 1-844-9QUICKFL > > > > > > > > > > > > “The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of > > low price is forgotten.” – Benjamin Franklin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > [Avast logo] https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > mailto:Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
