BIM4Housing Group C Roundtable 24-09-2025

BIM4Housing Group C Roundtable (Fire Doors, Penetration Seals, Fire Walls, Cavity Barriers)

GEORGE STEVENSON Back in 2021 when people were trying to figure out what information was needed for safety critical assets, we were asked to join the Golden Thread Initiative which was informing the government on a whole range of different things that related to the Golden Thread. For example, MBS were running the specification one and various other people. And we took over the responsibility for asset and survey information. And we held lots of roundtable workshops, most of them on Teams, but we also had several in place. We had manufacturers all sitting round the table, some of them competitors, all working together. We had designers and operations people.

And what we were doing is asking them what information do you need to make sure that the building is safe. And the way in which that was structured, the HSE was also part of the team. First of all it was what risks does an individual asset type mitigate? What do people do to the asset to stop it from working? That was an interesting one that actually came out from the discussions that we were having, It wasn’t one of our original questions. Then it dives into the information that’s needed about an asset to ensure it performs as required. And that really got things going because invariably if you ask an expert the first answer that they’ll give is it depends.

It depends on where it is, it depends on what it’s doing. And therefore it is nuanced. So we thought the best way of doing that was to run the workshops. We also asked what procedures are needed to ensure that its been actioned properly. What level of competency? That’s becoming far more transparent now over the last couple of years. And also how do you record changes.The reason I’m saying this is that all of the asset types that we looked at we asked these same questions. And in hindsight that’s a really good thing that we managed to do because we’ve got something that’s consistent across all of them.

We did this obviously for fire doors, penetration seals and things like that which we’re covering today, but it’s also been done for smoke ventilation, for alarm systems, detection systems and other asset types as well, sprinklers and emergency lighting. In addition to that Alan Oliver saw what we were doing and he offered to contribute something as far as residential is concerned. So he’d already done it with the health service. We put together a team and we did this for fire doors and come up with a methodology with some instructions for that. So again, the authorship of this was actually with Golden Thread Fire Delay, but some of the content actually came from us and certainly a lot of the reviews - we had a hundred people working on this.

And more recently we’ve got another one for fire dampers, fire stopping and cavity barriers, this is available to anyone that wants it. In terms of the information what’s important to recognise is that we don’t want information simply on one asset type, we need for all of the assets that go into the building and what systems they’re being used on. So the way in which we’re working this is to look at things from a point of view of what is that particular asset doing? What measure is it protecting against? In this case, let’s say that it’s smoke getting into that stairwell. The purpose of that is to say right, we want information for example about fire walls, fire doors, including closers and things like that.

But we also need importantly information about penetration seals because the fire door may be perfect, but if the penetration seals fail then you may as well have not of bothered. You’ll still get smoke into the dangerous areas. We also need to make sure that the other systems that are in place are all working in concert. So again, i’d like us to be thinking along these lines so that we can look at things in a more holistic way. The other thing with that is that we need to recognise that there’s going to be lots of different software applications that are used to audit this type of information. For example, it may be that we’ve got a BIM model which is connected back to product data, but what’s it actually doing? What is that asset doing? What spaces is it protecting?

And also, that unique asset, we want to be able to create it so that irrespective of what software application may be used to do inspections, it’s all referencing back to that same asset. And over this last couple of years I’ve focused on the fire safety side of things. Not because that’s more important than the others, but it’s because it’s probably the most simple one to actually say that we can join up the Golden Thread. So we need to provide something that’s then auditable. And also there’s regulations now in place where basically both the client and the contractor that’s delivering the information needs to be able to formally confirm that they’ve provided it all. And in my experience, I don’t think that’s being done.

The people are signing them off, but I can’t see that they actually have got all of that information together. So what we’re looking at is the subset of information that’s needed for Regulation 38, these are the things that are mentioned in the regs. and finally what we’re looking at as far as the Golden Thread Taskforce is concerned, which is part of BIM In Asset Management, is to basically have a simple checklist to see whether we’ve got the right information. So, what I wanted to do, that really is closing things off now. We’ve had the guidance in place now for 4 years and we reviewed it 2 years ago. Notting Hlll Genesis were telling me yesterday that they used it very recently just to do something on cavity barriers. So, a lot of people have seen the guidance and that guidance was there with experts saying this is the information that we need.

Now what I would now like to do is just get a poll of whether people actually are getting the information that was considered to be essential. I would like everybody to do this. All of these relate to the asset information for a particular asset type. So in this group we’ve got 4 asset types which i’d like your feel on all 4 asset types just as one answer.

RICHARD FREER Does the asset information you create/receive/retain for this asset type include type reference, classification and unique ID or reference? Do you get that 100% of the time, 75, 50, 20 or less.

GEORGE STEVENSON So in other words to be able to identify that as an individual asset. So, do you get that information?

RICHARD FREER The second question is do you get precise location data, XY coordinates? And if so how often.

MATT TAYLOR Can I ask a quick question on number 1. Is classification relating to say performance criteria? So we’re talking about fire performance, acoustic performance.

RICHARD FREER No, this is about identification.

GEORGE STEVENSON It’s more like Uniclass or NRM.

RICHARD FREER Question 3, are you getting information on the assets relation to the fire strategy in relation to asset types? And how often?

GEORGE STEVENSON There could be another question there saying do you get a fire strategy? But we’re assuming that you get a fire strategy. Just as a sense check on this, what we’re really trying to do is understand how much of the guidance that we’ve given is actually influencing people. And also it’s giving a sense check on the quality of information that we’re actually getting on projects which I don’t think is very good, but I’m skewing it there.

RICHARD FREER Question 4, so you get manufacturer and model certification and test data? And how often? Question 5, do yo get information for an asset type on design, installation and commissioning records? How much of the time do you get that? Number 6, are you getting maintenance and inspection logs (dates, methods, results)? Are you getting those regarding the maintenance of your asset types? And how often are you getting that?

MATT TAYLOR We’re not going to get all of this information at the stage that we’re involved at. I don’t want to corrupt the data here. So do you want me to be answering zero?

GEORGE STEVENSON No, I think just leave it.

RICHARD FREER Question 7, are you getting a cause and effect matrix or system integration data for active systems?

GEORGE STEVENSON Given this is a passive system one, possibly we’re not…Mo, would you say that you would have cause and effect matrix on passive things?

MOE ELMASRY No, it’s not part of passive. Even when we work with fire dampers with smoke control they would need a cause and effect, but our portion of the work is purely the fire stopping around the damper, so it’s not really relevant to what we do in terms of passive.

RICHARD FREER Don’t answer question 7 please, straight on to question 8. Are you getting change history and traceability (product swaps, upgrades, replacements)? And how often are you getting it? Question 9, are you getting any evidence of the competency of the individuals undertaking the works?

MOE ELMASRY The way that I’m answering this question is based on what we submit rather than what we receive because we’re carrying out the works, is that OK?

RICHARD FREER Yes. OK, question 10, are you getting records of works resulting from tasks identified in fire risk assessments?

GEORGE STEVENSON I’ll just explain that. If people have had fire risk assessments done one of the things that we’re finding is that the works haven’t been completed. So even though they’ve had a fire risk assessment done, that’s ticking the box that they’ve got a fire risk assessment done. But the actions from that, have they been completed? So what we’re trying to do is just get a feel to see whether, in your experience, people are actually getting records of the work being completed. And when you see what Richard is going to come on to in terms of normalising things across the different asset types, you’ll understand why we’re asking these questions.

RICHARD FREER We went through 12, 13 fire critical asset types, we’ve got 4 pieces of guidance that we’re going to whizz through now. Many of the answers to the questions that we pose were identical across all asset types which I think is represented in the poll that we’ve just done. The questions are largely relevant right across. So what we’re going to do now is scroll through the document. We’re not looking to reinvent the wheel here, these documents have been through hundreds of people and experts and fine-tuned and finessed and they’ve bene on the website for 3 or 4 years with people putting comments on and changes. So, we’re not looking for the base level information to be reexamined during this meeting.

We’re looking more for situations where something has changed. Maybe there is a new piece of legislation or new guidance coming out from government or a trade body or something. That’s kind fo what we’re looking for more than anything else, rather than to dig and delve and rewrite the whole thing.

GEORGE STEVENSON But if you do see something that you want to comment on, but not in the meeting.

RICHARD FREER Yes, absolutely, always comment on everything. These documents are all dynamic, they’re never ever finished. OK, so what risk does a fire door set mitigate? If you want to have a look through that, the risk of heat build-up, the risk of spread of fire and products of fire, risk of speed of fire and smoke spread, risk of number of unconfined areas, risk of fire fighters access…flick though that and see if there is anything that stands out.

LEE KENNEDY The bit that we’ve concentrated on, what is its operational use. There’s also a risk of it trapping people in the building if not maintained correctly or opening in accordance to the requirements of 8-300. So, that’s also relevant on there.

RICHARD FREER OK, 1b, to what risk is a fire door set itself susceptible? Again, this is not something likely to have changed so there shouldn’t really be any issues on it. OK, let’s move down to the materials. We are still on risks to the fire door itself. And this is around materials, building movement and shrinkage, water damage, lab retesting not having been adequate. Being blocked, propped open. Again, I’m not thinking there will be anything there that would have changed. if you’ve got something that should be changed please put it in the chat.

MOE ELMASRY Yeah, I’ve got something.

RICHARD FREER OK, let's move on to installation in terms of risks to the fire door, refurbishments and upgrades, components missing, has anybody else got anything that they think should be in installation? Let’s move down to question 2. What information is needed about a fire doors to ensure it performs as required? So we've got layman level information for residential users, information for all stakeholder regarding a fire door’s access control, what's permitted, what's not permitted, and primary test evidence, which is often used as an alternative to global assessments. Although primary test evidence on its own is very limited.

OK, in terms of requirements, what information do we need? We need the type of the door, the age, frequency of use, location obviously, relation to spaces. I don't think any of that will be different now than it was 2 or 4 years ago. But again, if you think there’s something that we’ve missed out please put it in the chat. OK, specification - manufacturing, global assessment by a UKAS accredited body. Again, that and the test report are not mutually exclusive. Again, this is not something that’s likely to have changed. The only thing would be of the test reports confirm control of the passive cold smoke to those British Standards. If anybody is aware of any change in that or any updating of those British Standards now is the time to speak.

MOE ELMASRY The only update is BS476 is on its way out from ADB. So all testing will have to be carried out to the unified standard eventually…to the BSEN 1634.

RICHARD FREER Right, so 1634 is more stringent.

MOE ELMASRY Well, yeah, all of the European standards in general for testing are harder to achieve and harder to achieve the fire resistance periods. And it’s more specific, or more tailored for what you’re testing to, So 1634 Part 1 is specific to fire doors.

LEE KENNEDY Don’t move something out because 2029 is the date, the harmonisation, what was going to be going through hardware. So let’s not, it’s in now and it’s still going to be relevant up to 2029.

MOE ELMASRY I wasn’t suggesting to remove it completely, it’s just a note to make people aware that it is on its way out.

LEE KENNEDY I think also to touch on this, to be very clear about this. When we’re looking at BIM for the management around something, we’ve got to stick…a lot of people do that with fire, I hear it all of the time, the new regs, everything. When we’re talking about resistance to fire we’re still BS47622 1987, we can do Part 8 1971, smoke is 83 with 31.1. We have to state because that’s offering more confusion. So keep everything in until it’s there. And also in this, the biggest issue…when we talk about Reg 38 and all of this information that we’ve got. There’s 3 to 5 million of new doors going in a year so we can look at the cradle to grave.

But the biggest problem within the industry is to grave back to cradle. You know where you’re going in the existing buildings and there is nothing there. And within this BIM system we also have to be capturing that way back, we have to be looking at the historic information. Because whether we agree with it or don’t agree with it, this is where, I have this thrown to me all of the time, there’s not a retrospective requirement. Yeah, but there is a requirement to have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in place to maintain your buildings, to adapt Article 10 principles of prevention Section 1d, adapt to new technologies. And I think, you know if we were talking about how we get…

and it’s still not being done, but how we look at getting this information and getting the Reg 38 so it actually contains the relevant information what is required. That’s easier than when we’re working grave back to cradle, but we still need to do it to evidence the buildings are compliant. Because if I give you these stats on doors, 10 million of doors are estimated installed in accordance to current regs with fire safety information, whether it be completed or not. There’s probably 50 million that would fit that what we describe as nominal and notional doors, might still be suitable if evidence to a suitable system and maintenance, so we’ve got some of the older hospitals and things like that with them in.

It was absolutely right, there is new testing, but let’s talk about where we are and then when we get there. Because it won’t be a retrospective requirement to then change everything, it will be in the new making from the date where it actually becomes a legal requirement.

RICHARD FREER Absolutely, I think we’re all in agreement with that.

PAUL WOMACK With regards to item I, and I see that H has been installed and put in, so is it under J?

RICHARD FREER In specification? Yes, compatibility.

PAUL WOMACK Can fire engineers state what can be added to fire doors? Or is it just solely the manufacturer?

LEE KENNEDY So can a fire engineer, as an existing door? Are you talking about a door without fire safety information in place?

PAUL WOMACK To J, so if compatibility, confirmation of a fire door, iron mongery. Can a fire engineer state what can be added?

LEE KENNEDY No, a fire engineer wouldn’t be the person who is best. So when we talk about scep, that wouldn’t be a fire engineer.

PAUL WOMACK So, do we need to remove fire engineer from J then?

LEE KENNEDY Yeah, it would be the person with the relevant scep/scope? 32 mins 31 secs.

MOE ELMASRY I would reference it to the correct documentation rather than the person.

RICHARD FREER Lee is putting something in the chat now Jiss that will tell you what you replace the fire engineer with.

EDWARD COSTER It was really following on from Lee’s comment which is quite right. The majority of everything, t’s not just in our buildings, is old legacy and we need to make sure that we’re capturing that. And we’re spending in terms of doing building safety cases, an awful lot of our work is actually looking at did this even comply with the standards at the time of build. And then form our part of our gap analysis to what does that mean in comparison to the standards that we have now, do we need to do anything? Yes or no. But we shouldn’t be throwing out old standards just because they’re old, we need to acknowledge them and then understand how they differ from current standards and what implications they have. so whether that fits into this or not I can’t quite say.

RICHARD FREER I think we fitted it in when we put that one back that we’d taken out.

PAUL WOMACK K, glazing, does the glazing have to be CE marked? Because as a rule of thumb a sheet of glass turns up with a seal on it and then it’s cut into lots of different piece to put into doors,. So should it have a C marking on each piece of glass within the fire door?

RICHARD FREER Right yeah, because this says within each set, dos it need to be on each set?

LEE KENNEDY It goes back to what you’re putting in. When we repair, so if you’re repairing or changing, I’m presuming if a fire door comes as a set under the criteria of BSEM 12519, it will be a set, everything will be in. If you're changing glass or any repair it needs to be evidenced, but it wouldn’t just be the glass, it would be the glazing system. So the answer is anything that you do to a door you need to be able to evidence because anything that changes or updates the fire safety information is notifiable. So if it’s notifiable8 it needs to have the competent person under section 11F of building regs doing it and it needs to be evidenced that it works.

Now all fire door repairs are best endeavours, they’re not certified unless you’re returning it back to its test of detail. You don’t certify a repair of a door because it’s just a made up, so the likes of the Tradas who put these ARTs out, they’re not certified repairs, it says in there it’s a general rule of thumb. So in answer to glass, you have to evidence the glass that you’re putting in works. If it’s glass that’s in there that you can evidence that it’s been replaced. You can’t just say it hasn't’ got a label on it, it needs to go through it’s reported as sufficient evidence and it would be the risk assessor what made the judgement on that.

RICHARD FREER Right, back to the question should it be CE marked, yes or no?

GEORGE STEVENSON I think the answer is no, Richard.

LEE KENNEDY No, it's no because internal door sets are not required to be CE marked, the internal fire door sets are not…

RICHARD FREER So we’re losing this one…

PAUL WOMACK I think the question should be glazing within the door leaf or door set needs to be evidenced.

LEE KENNEDY Yes.

RICHARD FREER So change CE marked to evidenced. OK, move down to materials. The information on materials used in a fire door. Installation, again, that’s not something that should have changed over the last few years. What tasks or procedures are required to ensure a fire door is installed, commissioned, inspected and maintained properly? So in terms of specification, let's have a look at that quickly. So I think the only thing here would be C which is about the different standards. Is there anything there that's likely to have changed or needs amending or adding to?

PAUL WOMACK Testing regime to fall in line with the fire safety England regs.

RICHARD FREER Right, competency and training, has there been anything out on fire doors in terms of changes over the last couple of years?

GEORGE STEVENSON Can I just say that the conversations that I keep hearing is whether having BM Trada accreditation is adequate to prevent the need to notify the Regulator of changes, And my understanding is that isn’t the case. So rather than open up that debate, should we perhaps write something in here? I don’t know if that’s something that you could write in, Lee, just to say how you qualify that. Because presumably it’s a good thing if people have got third-party accreditation, but there’s a limit to what it can be relied upon to do. Is that valid to the team? What do you think, Moe?

MOE ELMASRY It’s been time and time again proven that having the third-party accreditation on its own is never enough to improve people’s competency and prove that they will make the right decisions and the correct specification. And install things according to how the manufacturers have tested them, how they’ve been assessed and how they’ve been specified and how they should be installed. So I wouldn’t say that in any way having accreditation on its own would be sufficient in lieu of informing the regulator.

GEORGE STEVENSON But should be leave that in? B, should we leave in there that we need to, it would be good to obviously have the third-party accreditation. There’s nothing wrong with it?

MOE ELMASRY No, definitely not, I would never say that we should take out anything that relates to third-party accreditation. Actually it’s the bare minimum of proving a part of competency. It’s not everything, but it’s a bare minimum for competency.

LEE KENNEDY Unfortunately Moe, I don’t think it is. I think it creates a process to show that there’s an auditable process within a company every 6 months. So, having BM Trada and showing things like that in this, I think is misleading because I think it’s got on so many procurement list wrongly under the belief that it’s a form of competence. And we have to stick to what’s in the amendment of the Building Safety Act 22, what’s in Section 11F of the building regulations. Because it’s legally required to evidence, in Article 18 safety and assistance, it’s evidence individuals…

GEORGE STEVENSON What I think we’re saying is that we should leave it in, but we should qualify it heavily to ensure that it’s not being used that way.

LEE KENNEDY But I don’t think a document like this shouldn’t be named as, BM Trada, as an expert witness it’s become the biggest problem I’m dealing with under the belief of it. We could have that just saying third-party accreditation.

MOE ELMASRY Yeah, it does say e.g.there, it’s giving an example, it’s not saying a specific one.

RICHARD FREER Jiss, take out everything in those brackets and then that solves that. Let us move on to the next guidance. OK, so we’re talking about risks that dry lining and fire walls mitigate. Again, there shouldn’t really be any changes in there.

GEORGE STEVENSON Again, if you’ve any other examples of where fire walls are compromised, I’m sure Matt has got some, if you could provide those afterwards that would be great. If the experts could look at those and just say whether there is something in there that shouldn’t be in there. I don’t think so, this was largely done by the Finishers & Interiors Association.

RICHARD FREER Number 2, what information about dry lining and fire walls do we need to ensure they perform as required? We’ve got a headline, the designer should ensure that the fire walls that dry lining have up-to-date and relevant test evidence or third-party certification and detailed installation details relevant to that unique installation.

PAUL WOMACK What about use of correct fixings?

GEORGE STEVENSON That’s probably in construction.

MOE ELMASRY But manufacturers details which should cover what type of fixings there are anyway, and it says manufacturers details.

GEORGE STEVENSON Maybe add fixings to that.

RICHARD FREER Where do you want to add fixings?

MOE ELMASRY That’s in the very top, where it says manufacturer’s details. It’s requirements, it says manufacturer’s details. They normally include what fixings to use.

GEORGE STEVENSON I’ll just make an observation, Richard. If you just consider how much time it’s taking us just to read through these, can you imagine how much work went in by the experts to actually create this in the first place. I don’t think that there’s another set of information like this that the industry has got. It’s very detailed. What we now want to do is then make this more consumable. So the next step after this exercise, once we’ve verified that we’ve got good base information, is start to use AI and Large Language Models to turn that into something that’s more consumable.

PAUL WOMACK have you got anything or do we need to put in there anything about the shelf life of the materials used? As in some of the materials might have to be replaced if you’ve got fire stopping or fire rated battening used.

RICHARD FREER Paul, put that in the chat because I think there will be, but rather than us everybody sitting and waiting for me to find it, put it in the chat. If it’s not there we can put it in afterwards.

GEORGE STEVENSON I would also ask on that particular front Matt, you’re my expert on this sort of stuff. Is it the case that there’s a lifecycle for a fire wall?

MATT TAYLOR Depending on the components. For example, if it’s a fire wall in an area which is considered to be under attack to a high chlorine environment or colloidal resistance then there would be.

RICHARD FREER Tasks are required to ensure they are installed, commissioned, inspected and maintained. We’ve got a reference there to the FIS. Oh look, product lifespan. Ascertain product lifespan within the specific system it’s being used within, which I think covers both of your points. Then, it’s the competency thing primarily. This is pretty standard throughout all of our documents so I don’t think we need to go through that. Unless anyone has got anything in particular in new competency, either in standards or new training systems or bodies that have been approved.

MOE ELMASRY I’m sure Sharon’s going to say what I’m going to say now…it would probably be worth pointing out the ASFP competency framework for passive fire protection. So, it is in progress, the part that’s completed now is fire stopping installation, it talks about skills, knowledge, experience and behaviour of anyone carrying out fire stopping installation. What skills they need to have, what type of knowledge and how they can evidence it, improve it etc. There is obviously a website for the competency framework for the ASFP, I think it would be a very good reference for that. And obviously we’re working through the other activities in passive fire, even including the design and competency of designers.

LEE KENNEDY I’m going to say hallelujah to that Moe, that’s absolutely fantastic. And George, can we do something more around that because it’s what I continually whine about to you. That because there is no national occupational standard, what Moe has done is looked at what’s in building regs, what’s in the Building Safety Act, and then build a framework based around it. So I’d love to investigate that more.

GEORGE STEVENSON Of course, that’s what this is all about. Just one point Moe, this is about fire walls. So, are fire walls part of your ASFP criteria?

MOE ELMASRY Yes, it will eventually cover every part of passive fire and obviously fire walls are definitely part of passive fire. And it’s work in progress, there’s working groups under every activity in passive fire currently.

RICHARD FREER Scroll through, we’re looking at fire penetration seals, what risks do they mitigate? Installation, again pretty standard stuff.

MOE ELMASRY So because this is the first time that I’m seeing this I’ll have to go through it in detail and might add a couple of things here and there, George.

ALAN OLIVER Thanks for the opportunity to say something for a minute. For those who were on time for the meeting you may have heard that although I’ve retired at the age of 70 I am carrying on for a while as an active member of NAAFO. And one of the things I plan to do under that sort of remit is to write a paper or to invite people to help me write a paper on the reference document which Richard and George outlined earlier on. And one of the things that we need to do is look at how, for example, we can bring the reference documents together with these BIM4Housing documents.

For example, it doesn’t mention anywhere that the reference documents recommend that people inspect fire doors or any other passive element. In three different ways: for new build, for existing and for ongoing PPM. And one of the things that I want to do in writing the paper is look at how we can be more effective in actually getting people to read the reference documents. Become aware of the reference documents, read the reference documents, understand its implications and then apply. Because lots of people are saying that these reference documents are fantastic and they are very rightly a legacy for people such as myself and George, Richard and other people such as Sharon and Moe.

But they’re not a true legacy if people still aren’t applying the knowledge and understanding them. And what I want to do is focus on at the NHS through NAAFO and say to people how many trusts are actually using three different types of inspections and so on and so on. So what I want to do is say to people such as Lee who I don’t actually know, that I’d love people such as you lee to get involved because clearly when you say something like BM Trada is the biggest problem that I’m dealing with, that’s obviously a massive issue that needs to be thrown back to people like the ASFP. And that’s one of the things that I will be looking to do.

RICHARD FREER What I suggest we do, if anybody is interested in getting involved with Alan on that paper put in the chat ‘Alan’s paper’ then we will be in touch with you very shortly and probably arrange a meeting with you all to get together to discuss that.

ALAN OLIVER Thanks Richard. I will be at London Build and I will be up and running on this in November and I’ll be looking to engage with people then.

RICHARD FREER OK, keep scrolling. Information, what information is required? Appliance, resistance, location, the usual that we’ve seen many times today.

MOE ELMASRY Point B straightaway jumps at me, fire only, fire and smoke, smoke only. The testing itself 1466 Part 3, doesn’t that account for smoke, that’s a given. But the requirements for building regulation is fire and smoke for compartmentation, so in my opinion that bracket needs to come out. Because it’s always going to be fire and smoke, we always allow for fire and smoke resistance and fire stopping or penetration seals.

RICHARD FREER Do you mean to take everything in it out?

MOE ELMASRY No, os if we’re going to be fire only, fire and smoke or smoke only. Smoke only seal is not for compartmentation. Compartmentation or fire resistance will be fire and smoke always.

RICHARD FREER So take ‘smoke only’ out?

MOE ELMASRY Yeah. And ‘fire only’ as well, so it will be fire and smoke.

RICHARD FREER OK, thank you for that. Scroll down…what tasks are required to ensure penetration seals are installed, commissioned, inspected and maintained properly? Let’s look and see if there is nay legislation or standards that have been…

PAUL WOMACK What about checking for the suitability of the compartmentation following a flood or even a fire for that matter? So has water and smoke and fire affected?

GEORGE STEVENSON Would you mind dropping that into the chat, Paul? I think that's a really good point.

RICHARD FREER Right, this here says there's no statutory requirement for fire penetration seals installers to be qualified. Is that still true? Oh, it says that under forthcoming guidance, some CPD qualification may be required. Does anybody know if that's forthcoming? Guidance is now actionable or is it still kind of coming?

GEORGE STEVENSON I don’t think there’s any qualification.

MOE ELMASRY As far as I’m aware it’s still quite vague, people just need to prove competence and they say prove SKEB, but it doesn’t state how.

SHARON McCLURE Can you repeat that question again?

RICHARD FREER There is no statutory requirement for fire penetration seals installers to be qualified. And it talks about forthcoming guidance, it may be required. But I was just asking is it required yet? Or is it still forthcoming?

SHARON McCLURE In the Scottish regs there’s a recommendation for competence, but I think the guidelines are being tightened and that’s why the ASFP are producing this pathway. Because if there is an incident and the responsibility is on the client to prove that they selected a competent operative or a competent contractor. So there’s no statutory, it’s not a regulated trade, but there is a tightening. But again as Moe says, there will probably be a lot more information coming out, particularly from the ASFP, in the coming months.

RICHARD FREER So it’s a watching brief then at the moment.

SHARON McCLURE Yes.

LEE KENNEDY I think going with Moe as well, there is never ever going to be national occupational standards because you would have to define what the actual role or the building was that you were going into. So competence, as Moe said and what the ASFP are doing, is always going to be done as SKEB. There will be very good courses and all of that, but it’s always going to be the individual, where they’re going have they got the SKEB to do that work at that building. It's always going to be that, so that’s the key that we always refer to what’s in law and it’s always going to be SKEB. Because it’s not linear, it’s soo varied what buildings that you’re going in to.

RICHARD FREER Let’s go right on to the last one. Cavity barriers, what risks they mitigate. Again, I don’t think there’s likely to be anything contentious there.

GEORGE STEVENSON I think we've missed locations, the XY coordinates are very important as far as cavity barriers are concerned. If anybody disagrees then let me know, but I think the location particularly of cavity barriers, because they’re often buried.

RICHARD FREER Jiss, put F for requirements and put location XY in brackets. I don’t know how we missed that out.

MOE ELMASRY So when you say location XY that’s on a floor plan. So does that mean we have identified already which floor? Or do we need to mention Z as well? Is it a given that we know where the Z is?

GEORGE STEVENSON I think in the others we call it XYZ, so Moe is quite right on that.

RICHARD FREER Oh, it says there’s specific location…we can leave both, can’t we?

GEORGE Yeah, because the specific location may just be a room number, a room may have a dozen cavity barriers.

RICHARD FREER OK, tasks and procedures. At the top we’ve got ‘See FRAEW in accordance with PAS 9980 for existing buildings under scope of Fire Safety Act 2021’. Presumably that’s still enacted, so that won’t require any amendment.

GEORGE STEVENSON Is PFPF guidance still relevant, Moe?

MOE ELMASRY Yes, for now, but it is on its way to becoming a British Standard, I am told. So for now that’s the only thing that’s available.

RICHARD FREER OK, but now we can only talk currently, we don’t want to take something out that is still current.

MOE ELMASRY Yeah, but eventually in the long term we would definitely want to reference the BS rather than PFPF guide because PFPF is not a legal entity at all. So we would definitely need to update it once the BS standard is out.

RICHARD FREER Absolutely, we’ll reference it. Well, perhaps you could let us know when that happens and we'll update it. OK, scroll down. The competency piece, that’s all standard. BSI Flex 8670.

GEORGE STEVENSON Is that still relevant?

SHARON McCLURE Yes, it is still relevant.

RICHARD FREER OK, well done, we’ve got through that. If there is anything that you want to add or subtract to that, put it into the chat and we’ll update accordingly. If you want to look through this afterwards at some point just bung us an email and we’ll make changes where relevant. We’ve had quite a lot of very good input actually by email from people who couldn’t come along.

So, poll results. Do you get information on type, reference, classification and unique ID or reference for an asset? And 40% are 505 and below on that which is quite a lot. 2 saying yes, they’re getting it all.

GEORGE STEVENSON Which is great. It may be that the 2 that are getting it all are the ones that are actually providing information.

MOE ELMASRY Exactly that.

RICHARD FREER Are you getting precise location data? It’s roughly the same, 50% are 50% and below. The assets relationship to the fire strategy, that’s marginally better. Manufacturer and model certification and test data, who’s getting that? Ah, that’s not good, that’s marginally worse than the others. Design, installation and commissioning records, that again is a bit worse.

MOE ELMASRY If I could just comment on test data. Again, just the differentiation between test data or certification and the test report. It needs to be taken into consideration because if people are expecting a test report, a single moment in time, to be provided for them for every installation that they get they’ll be waiting a really, really long time, that’s not going to happen. But the certification, manufacturer data, model, that should always be provided.

MATT TAYLOR In relation to Moe’s comments there, that’s unfortunately not happening at the moment. We’ve got s situation currently with a fire damper going through a wall construction. it’s been tested on a DIN standard wall which is a German standard of construction and we want to have a look at it because we want to make sure that it’s going to work with the British Standards specified construction.We’ve been asking the fire damper manufacturer for it for about 4 or 5 weeks now. It’s not provided on the basis that it’s considered to be confidential information, so unfortunately…it should happen Moe, I completely agree. We need the information to view it to check it.

MOE ELMASRY It’ difficult, they might get you to sign an NDA to provide you with the test data. But a lot of them won’t even bother, they’ll say no you’re not having it.

MATT TAYLOR And we’ve signed NDAs before for that purpose, that’s not a problem. And we’ve had that typically with, this is a German company so it’s slightly more complicated. But we’ve had that with fire door manufacturers in the UK, they’ve been very helpful, we signed an NDA and they provided us the information, that’s fine. But in some cases it’s still not happening unfortunately.

RICHARD FREER OK, design installation and commissioning records. And again it’s about 50/50 between…this is remarkably consistent. My guess is the people who are in the top half of the receiving end or the giving end are the same on all of these questions. 6, maintenance and inspection logs, dates, methods, time, results. Again, over half and not getting that. Cause and effect matrices or system integration for active systems. So we’ve not even got 100% from people who are supplying that on the call.

MOE ELMASRY You probably only have passive suppliers here, so they didn't answer the question.

RICHARD FREER Yeah, that will be it. Evidence of the competency of the individuals undertaking the works, yeah again. Records of work resulting in tasks identified in FRAs being completed. That’s a bit better. OK, excellent.

PAUL WOMACK That was a great poll and I know that it’s only 8 people responded. Is it worth doing this poll in for future some of the roundtable meetings and for the working groups? And following on from the discussions and the poor results that we’re getting, is it worth reporting this as a group to cross-safety.org?

RICHARD FREER George writes a report on the polls as we do them. Normally we only do polls in the monthly forum because there is a couple of hundred people there and the results are rather more meaningful. We just thought that might help warm people up and get an idea of where we’re coming from for this meeting, that was the purpose of it, not in terms of something that we would use the results for anything. That said, yes, I totally agree with you and we will certainly do this poll in our next forum in October. Because when you’ve got 200-330 people there and 50-60% do it from across the industry, all different levels, you’ve got quite a good cross-section then.

GEORGE STEVENSON We are going to carry this out for the other groups. And I actually think Paul’s suggestion is not a bad one. We could perhaps have a word with maybe the construction or the operations group, Richard, because I think the point is it’s having it targeted. But as far as Cross is concerned we’re already talking with Cross, so we’ve already issued the ones that we’ve got from the BIM In Asset Management meetings Paul. So you’re quite right that that’s a good way of looking at it.

I was just going to say a couple of things on where we go next. So, what we’re trying to do with this is to basically look at how we can make this all a lot more consumable and turn it into more structured information which can then be machine-readable. That’s always been our intention to make it machine-readable and that was before AI rally started to get everybody’s interest. So what we want to do is to take this base information of all of the different asset types and then relate it to a series of other questions so that we can create prompts for that process.

So my question is, is there anybody here that wants to take it on to that next stage? And start to apply AI principles, apply it to Large Language models and also look at this from a point of view of preparing agents, so prompts and things like that, to be able to look at the information and interpret it in more meaningful ways. Our idea at the moment is to be able to set up some AI entities or people roles who can look at the information from a particular perspective. And then to be able to say has the information, for example, that’s been handed over, is it actually going to satisfy what we need? So, if you’re interested in that AI and data engineering piece, not to do the technical side, but really just to share your knowledge and experience. If you could put your name in the chat.

RICHARD FREER Put ‘next stage’ in the chat and we’ll be in touch with you shortly.

GEORGE STEVENSON Just to give you an example of what we’ve done there. Jiss has gone through and just used probably ChatGPT to look across all of the asset types that we’ve done, and we’ve done a dozen. And I think Rob is going to help us. That’s the other thing, if you’re interested in lifts and escalators that’s one of the ones that we’ve missed out, that we’ve not done. And Rob Chambers from Blueprint, he’s a lift engineer and he’s willing to coordinate a meeting on that. So if you are interested in lift engineering, put ‘lifts’ in the chat and we’ll get in touch with you on that.

The point about this is what this has done, it’s gone across all of the guidance and we’ve then got very similar things that have been coordinated. And that’s fantastic because we can then use that to start informing training and competence and the like. So, that’s just one simple example of what we’re able to do, once we’ve got really good knowledge and data that we can then apply. So if you’re interested in participating in the next tranche then put ‘next stage’ in the chat. And if you want to talk to us about what we’re looking at with that, the intention is that we can then use that as part of the Golden Thread Taskforce.

So if you’re interested in understanding how your services, for example, could fit around that type of platform, then again let us know. Because we’re also tying together lots of different software companies, like Rob’s company Blueprint, with that so that we can then have more integration between different systems.

ROB CHAMBERS Just to interject, my company Blueprint handles Building Safety Act compliance. My other hat that I don is a technical lift consultant, so it’s two different companies, but I can help you on either side.

RICHARD FREER So if you’re interested in getting involved in the lift working group, just put ‘lift’ in the chat. If you’re interested in helping with Alan’s paper, put ‘Alan’s paper’ in the chat. If you’re interested in getting into the next stage of what we’re doing here today, put ‘next stage’ in the chat. And if you’re interested in the Taskforce, put ‘Taskforce’ in the chat. What we’ll probably do with anybody who does put that, we’ll book in a quick 15-minute call with George or one of the other members of the steering committee for you to have a chat with you one-to-one.

MATT TAYLOR I think it'd be helpful to just go through certainly the specific points again, relevant to any trade baggages were involved in, George. So if, for example, the firewall queries, we went through them on the screen, but just sort of go through the updated list once that's available. Is that possible?

GEORGE STEVENSON Absolutely.

RICHARD FREER Once it’s all updated you’ll all get a copy of the updated guidance or links to where they are. So, you’ll get all of that when it’s done.

CHAT

Moe Elmasry (External).. Materials: Incorrect selection of the door specification for the location it's fitted

Paul Womack (External)… Adding items to a fire door such as a drop seal or fire rated letter box bag

Matt Taylor (External).. Installation: Incorrect components used; damaged components installed

Matt Taylor (External)… Installation: Gaps between frame and formed opening incorrectly filled, or not addressed.

Jeremy Malet (External)… specification - to be reviewed in conjunction with FRA / Strategy?

Lee Kennedy (External)… Replace Fire Engineer with person who posses the relevant SKEB

Andy Cumberpatch (External)….. Would it not be on each piece of glass from the supplier

Paul Womack (External) …. Fire rated letterbox bag Testing Regime for fire doors to fall in line with the fire safety England regs

Matt Taylor (External)…. Q2: Fire compartmentation information/interface formation in accordance with fire compartment 'lines'.

Lee Kennedy (External)…. Installation and maintenance, needs to be concentrate on the SKEB of each individual completing the works under Building Regulations 11f notifiable works, not the 3rd party accreditation held by the company of employment

Jeremy Malet (External)… is installation (i) include staggered joints ?

Paul Womack (External)…. Shelf life of materials used

Jeremy Malet (External)… fire stopping cyclical inspections

Matt Taylor (External)…. JM, this is system dependent. Some drywall systems require mirrored joints. This should always be aligned with the manufacturer's system guidance.Previous comment (staggered joints)

Lee Kennedy (External)… Product life span and maintenance requirement should be in the Reg 38 submission.

Paul Womack (External).. All documents produced should align to the Golden Thread of information

Moe Elmasry (External).. https://asfpindex.org.uk/competenceframework

Sharon McClure (External)… We would also ask anyone who is an ASFP member to find out about the Technical Groups that are formed to encourage all of the experience around the table to be incorporated into these. Working closely with FIS, BESA etc for interface with other building elements.

Lee Kennedy (External)…. Allans Paper

Paul Womack (External)… Checking fire stopping materials following a fire or flood ,Cavity barriers - as above

Andy Cumberpatch (External).. Location is always critical

Paul Womack (External)… Cavity barriers - Compatibility with existing materials

Sharon McClure (External)… please refer to "Products Critical to Safe Construction" as per the Green Paper : https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/construction-products-reform-green-paper

Michael's Notetaker….Takeaways from the meeting 👉💬

[ ] Incorporate feedback on the need to include information about the shelf life of materials used in firewalls. (Paul)

[ ] Investigate the ASFP competency framework for passive fire protection and explore how it can be referenced in the guidance. (Mo)

[ ] Engage with Alan Oliver to support the development of a paper on the reference documents and their integration with the BIM for Housing guidance. (Richard/George)

[ ] Update the guidance to clarify that the requirement is for fire and smoke resistance, rather than smoke-only resistance. (Mo)

[ ] Ensure the guidance reflects the current status of any forthcoming competency requirements for penetration seal installers. (Group)

[ ] Add the requirement for specific location data (x, y, z coordinates) for cavity barriers. (Group)

[ ] Confirm the relevance and st...
See full summary - https://otter.ai/u/KJzHcLmbUznnHrL7Hr6GBZR0kXU?utm_source=va_chat&utm_content=wrapup_v4&tab=chat&message=b4107590-dab3-49aa-a14f-d3aec2e1e3fc
Q

Academic Structured Summary (Bullet Point Format)

1. Golden Thread Background

George Stevenson recalled BIM4Housing’s involvement since 2021 in shaping Golden Thread guidance on safety-critical assets, developed with manufacturers, designers, and regulators.
Workshops asked consistent questions: What risks are mitigated? How can the asset fail? What information ensures performance? What procedures/competence are needed? How should changes be recorded?
Stevenson: “Unless the penetration seals fail, the fire door may be perfect, but you’ll still get smoke into the dangerous areas.”
Emphasis on holistic, system-based approach to ensure all interconnected elements (e.g., doors, seals, barriers) work in concert.

2. Regulation 38 and Information Verification

Requirement: contractors/clients must confirm complete handover of fire safety information, but Stevenson noted many sign-offs occur without actual evidence.
Proposal for a simple checklist under Golden Thread Taskforce to test compliance with Regulation 38 deliverables.

3. Poll Results on Asset Information

Findings consistent with earlier groups: asset type references, IDs, location data, and fire strategy links frequently incomplete.
Richard Freer’s poll questions spanned asset identification, XY(Z) coordinates, fire strategy integration, manufacturer data, commissioning, maintenance logs, and competence evidence.
Moe Elmasry: “The way that I’m answering this is based on what we submit rather than what we receive because we’re carrying out the works.”
General outcome: over half of respondents reported missing data on key elements such as test certification, installation records, and maintenance logs.

4. Fire Door Guidance Updates

Discussion of risks: heat/smoke spread, blocked or propped doors, water damage, poor installation, inadequate materials.
Updates needed for standards: BS476 being phased out, to be replaced by BS EN 1634 by 2029.
Lee Kennedy: “The biggest problem within the industry is grave back to cradle…we have to capture historic information.”
Debate on third-party accreditation: Moe Elmasry argued it is the bare minimum; Lee Kennedy warned it is often misused as proof of competence.

5. Fire Walls and Dry Lining

Consensus that base guidance remains valid but additions suggested: fixings specification, product shelf life, manufacturer detail clarity.
Recognition of ASFP’s passive fire competency framework as an important reference under development.
Kennedy: “Because there is no national occupational standard, ASFP’s framework is critical.”

6. Penetration Seals

Clarification: guidance should emphasise fire AND smoke resistance; ‘smoke only’ and ‘fire only’ options to be removed.
Recommendation: consider checks post-flood/fire to verify compartmentation integrity.
Competency: still no statutory requirement for penetration seal installers; ASFP pathways being developed but remain incomplete.

7. Cavity Barriers

Location data (XYZ coordinates) critical due to barriers often being concealed.
Reference to PAS 9980 (FRAEW) for existing buildings under Fire Safety Act 2021 remains current, though PFPF guide may be replaced by BS standard in future.

8. Competency and Accreditation

BM Trada accreditation debated: some see it as useful minimum evidence; others warned it is often misinterpreted as full competence certification.
Consensus: third-party accreditation should be qualified carefully, but not removed entirely from guidance.

9. Future Directions – AI and Collaboration

Group discussed AI and LLMs for summarising and normalising asset information into structured, machine-readable formats.
Opportunities: improve training/competence guidance, integrate with software providers, support cross-industry standards alignment.
George Stevenson invited participants to join next-stage AI/Taskforce workstreams, including lifts/escalators focus group and Alan Oliver’s reference documents project.

10. Conclusion

Meeting reaffirmed persistent gaps in asset data quality, inconsistent competence pathways, and challenges in evidencing Regulation 38 compliance.
Action points include refining guidance for fire doors, penetration seals, and cavity barriers; referencing ASFP frameworks; and pursuing digital/AI solutions for data integration.

Key Risks & Action Points – Group C Roundtable

Key Risks Identified

Incomplete Regulation 38 compliance – sign-offs often occur without full evidence of required fire safety data.
Missing asset information: IDs, locations, commissioning records, and maintenance logs remain inconsistently delivered.
Outdated standards: BS476 still widely referenced despite phased replacement by BS EN 1634 by 2029.
Third-party accreditation (e.g., BM Trada) often misused as proof of competence rather than minimum evidence.
Lack of statutory requirements for penetration seal installers; competence pathways remain vague and inconsistent.
Cavity barriers often hidden, making location data (XYZ) critical but frequently absent.
Risk of poor adoption of reference documents; legacy standards often ignored in practice.
Industry hesitancy in sharing manufacturer test data, limiting validation of product/system performance.

Recommended Action Points

Strengthen Regulation 38 verification via checklists, photographic evidence, and independent audits.
Mandate structured asset handovers covering design records, commissioning, test data, and maintenance logs.
Standardise reference to BS EN 1634 while acknowledging historic BS476 installations in compliance checks.
Clarify third-party accreditation role: retain as minimum assurance, but emphasise SKEB-based competence (skills, knowledge, experience, behaviours).
Support ASFP’s competency framework for passive fire protection, embedding into future guidance and training.
Update penetration seal guidance to require fire + smoke resistance only, removing outdated options.
Require cavity barrier XYZ location data in all documentation and BIM models.
Encourage collaboration with software providers, AI pilots, and cross-industry integration for structured, machine-readable data.
Promote adoption and integration of legacy reference documents into BIM4Housing outputs (Alan Oliver’s paper).