Future face of fire

Last month I gave a résumé of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order and the impact it will have on the majority of premises and workplaces in the UK, especially for security installation companies and installers working within the fire industry.

This month we look at BS5839-1:2002 along with the Chief Fire Officers Association policy for remotely monitored alarm systems. Plus - what you need to know about the requirement of proof of competence and third party certification.

BS5839-1: 2002, the Chief Fire Officers Association policy and the soon to be launched Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order calls for Competent People, Proof of Competence, Third Party Certified Companies and Responsible Persons.

In this article we review the standard and the Chief Fire Officers Association's policy, Remotely Monitored Fire Alarm Systems, its implications for installation companies plus the opportunities it produces.

Biggest change in years

When in October 2002 BS5839-1:2002 (inc. amendment No 1) replaced the BS5839-1:1988 code of practice for system design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings, it was the most significant thing to happen in the industry for 15 years.

Not only did it address some of the ambiguities in the previous version, it also addressed certification, responsibilities, competence and limitation of false alarms.

Following two years of use, amendments have been made to the original 2002 code. The amendments clarify certain matters arising from the use of the code. These amendments were considered to be sufficient to warrant the re-issue of the document, and the document was re-issued in December 2004 as BS5839-1:2002 (Inc. amendment No.1).

It is a fact that still a large proportion of fire detection and fire alarm systems installed and/or not maintained, do not meet the requirements of the relevant British Standard, and in some cases verge on criminal negligence not only on the part of the installer but also the owner/user of these establishments.

We all have a duty of care

In a recently published trade organisation article, one of its members has called for the setting up of a "Firestoppers" service based on the anonymous reporting services such as the Police's "Crimestoppers" and the BBC's "Whistleblowers" … Room for thought?

We all visit public places, taking note of the fire protection measures installed and witness first hand fire alarm installations in a state of disrepair, with parts rendered inoperative or genuinely not working. Like this member I believe we all have a duty of care in not ignoring the situation. An interesting idea and one we would welcome comments on.

(What do readers think about having a "Firestopper" service? e-mail ahyder@cmpinformation.com

It is essential that the system is subject to periodic inspection and servicing to identify unrevealed faults, that preventative measures are taken to ensure the continued reliability of the system, and false alarm problems should be identified and suitable addressed.

BS5839-1:2002 states that periodic inspection and servicing needs to be carried out by a "Competent Person" with specialist knowledge of fire detection and alarm systems, including knowledge of the causes of false alarms, with sufficient information regarding the system, and adequate access to spares.

False alarm problem

As most of you will be involved in installation and servicing of intruder alarms you will immediately identify with the problem of false alarms. False alarms from fire alarms are no different in the impact they have on commerce and industry in terms of disruption to production and lost time, not to mention the cost.

Here I want to deal with the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) policy for Remotely Monitored Fire Alarm Systems.

The number of false alarms from fire alarm systems that have passed to the Fire & Rescue Services (F&RS) has been growing steadily year on year. The F&RS attended 448,800 false alarms in 2004, costing industry in excess of £1bn per year. Each false alarm costs the F&RS (local government services) between £300 and £500 and each false alarm costs industry £2,228.

The CFOA policy allows the F&RS to reduce response actions due to false alarms. Consequently insurance premiums will rise, affecting companies, and the policy allows the F&RS costs to be passed on to offending companies.

Drain on resources

The impact on the F&RS of responding to this number of false alarms is also significant and is a considerable drain on their resources, in terms of lost time and financially. It is estimated 98 per cent of the responses made by the F&RS require no fire fighting action at the scene.

The CFOA policy provides the advantage of a consistent standard to industry and commerce. The policy aims to:

• Reduce the number of false alarms generated by requiring Remotely Monitored Fire Alarm Systems to be designed, installed, commissioned and maintained to appropriate high standards

• Improve the fire safety management of the protected premises

• Reduce the impact of false alarms on business and commerce

• Reduce the number of false alarms that are passed to the F&RS

• Enable the F&RS to safely deploy its emergency intervention resources on the basis of risk

• To prevent the complacency of building users that arises when fire alarm systems repeatedly generate false alarms

• Reduce the waste of resources that result from false alarms.

Responsibility is clear

The aims are clearly defined. It is the responsibility of those working within the fire industry to design, install and service correctly to reduce false alarms.

Fire alarm systems that are remotely monitored need to be designed, commissioned, maintained and monitored to standards that minimise the likelihood of false alarms. This policy requires competent persons to be used in such activity and introduces third party certified schemes that CFOA recognise such as the BAFE SP203 Third Party Certification modular scheme.

Certification Scheme Requirements

For RMFAS to be issued with a Unique Reference Number the system shall be designed, installed, commissioned and maintained by persons competent to do so. (Annex "A" Definitions). A person is to be regarded as competent when he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him to carry out the duties required.

I have tried to give an insight into the policies and legislation governing the fire installation market, but I would strongly recommend that you should read each document in its entirety.

Accredited installers only

Whilst the implementation of British Standards, the CFOA policy and the RRO/FSO via the office of the deputy prime minister have yet to be fully introduced, they are starting to gather serious momentum, with schemes such as the BAFE SP203 Third Party Certification modular scheme aimed at providing the end user with a regulated fire installer market.

This will create an environment where ALL publicly funded works on, for example, schools, hospitals, councils etc will ONLY be awarded to companies who are accredited. The specifiers, architects, consultants and building control officers will only use installers who can provide third party certification to demonstrate their "proof of competence".

So whilst it may not be a legal requirement to have third party certification, the end result in real terms will be that work in these environments will be given to accredited accountable installers who can demonstrate they meet the key "proof of competence" requirements with schemes such as SP203 and associated BFPSA courses.

Installers who subcontract to larger M/E contractors will be expected to provide evidence of "proof of competence".

To further enhance its joint BFPSA and Key Supplier/Product Training Courses, Gardiner Fire Division has launched a "Proof of Competence" Roadmap Binder sponsored by BFPSA, BAFE and BSi, three of the Fire Industry's leading bodies. The aim of the "Proof of Competence" Roadmap is to help our customers not only to achieve competence but also to be able to prove their competence.