{"id":528,"date":"2023-12-18T15:55:32","date_gmt":"2023-12-18T15:55:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/?page_id=528"},"modified":"2023-12-18T15:55:32","modified_gmt":"2023-12-18T15:55:32","slug":"q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/","title":{"rendered":"Q1 – How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings - Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

RICHARD Here is the question: How do we prevent incorrect design selection and installation of fire safety products? We\u2019ve got a number of answers from people already, there\u2019s 25 there. We're not going to get through all of those, but we don\u2019t need to because I have a grid of the top three from a number of people who are in this meeting, so we\u2019ll go through the most popular ones. George, do you want to put this into context?<\/p>\n

GEORGE What we\u2019re trying to do here is address the conundrum that we\u2019ve come across a lot, that we might have the right product, it might be perfect, but it\u2019s then put in the wrong context or its fitted in the wrong wall, so therefore that product selection is really important. I think under the new gateways we\u2019ve got the opportunity, from a legal and contractual perspective, to get that right because certainly on some of the key things like dampers and things like that which can be the source of problems, those have got to be selected prescriptively before you move into construction. In other words, by gateway 2 you\u2019ve got to have picked the products that you\u2019re actually going to install and not simply swap them out during a value engineering exercise.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a massive change for the industry, but it\u2019s one that in our experience at these meetings, it\u2019s been welcomed to a great extent because it is the source of a lot of problems. I\u2019ve got an example I can show when we get underway that Paul McSoley has given as an example.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Let me explain what we\u2019re doing in terms of the process here. We\u2019ve had a lot of input from people on these answers already, I\u2019ve not had the time to collate and include that in these answers. Ron Burns has made a number of comments on the actual answers themselves, all of which I agree with. But that will come later once I come down to putting it all together.<\/p>\n

The most popular in terms of which people think are the most important is number 4: a regulator should prevent companies from using uncertified products by providing clear guidelines on compatible options.<\/p>\n

GEORGE How could the Regulator do that?<\/p>\n

RICHARD I\u2019ve no idea. I\u2019m going to ask Ron how the Regulator is going to do that, since you put it as one of your priorities, Ron.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS As I said before I\u2019m new to this country, but from where i come from the certificates that are used to prove a product is certified is very weak. It's a one page item, it doesn\u2019t contain complete information and you never get to see the supporting document which underpins the ventilator. For example, if you\u2019ve got a ventilator, it\u2019s very difficult to get 67%, 70% efficiency all the time, but some vents achieve that, but when they open the blades sit inside the ambient airstream which means that they can\u2019t function properly because the wind will change the aerodynamic area. So I think that the Regulator should make sure that the information that goes out into industry on the certificates are more detailed than a one pager which is then underpinned by a salesman\u2019s schedule of areas, and that\u2019s just using the vent as an example.<\/p>\n

GEORGE There is more detailed information available though, isn\u2019t there? Through the test evidence and all that stuff.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS The difficulties we have is that that is deemed proprietary information and it\u2019s very difficult to get that information from a manufacturer. Whereas if there was, take a ventilator and if you want to put burglar guards on that ventilator, the geometric area doesn\u2019t change but the aerodynamic area changes because you\u2019ve put a restriction about the discharge of the vent. Further to that, if you have a grain store that you\u2019re protecting and you have burglar guards for people and bird mesh for birds, because birds can fly through burglar guards, you can lose 19% on the efficiency of the vent using those two products. But not all of the vents are tested with those components in, so how do we accurately determine what\u2019s the correct aerodynamic area of that vent dependent on what\u2019s put on it?<\/p>\n

GEORGE The interesting thing about that is that that\u2019s potentially made up of several different manufacturers who\u2019ve each got their own tested products and it\u2019s then brought together into a fabricated solution, who you might also say is a manufacturer. I don\u2019t know whether I\u2019m saying something to your example, but certainly as far as doors are concerned a door set can be made up from the products that several manufacturers are producing and have tested. And then the door set itself can be tested, but then that isn\u2019t what sometimes gets applied because the information then goes through to a fabricator and the fabricator will put together a door set of a number of different tested components.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS I would then say that that product that gets soled that\u2019s put together by various tested components does not comply with the regulation because if we went to Mercedes Benz and we bought all of the components for a Mercedes Benz and we built it in my garage at the weekend, would I have a Mercedes when i\u2019m finished? The answer is no because there\u2019s other requirements that take place. I just want to stick on the vent, because I understand the vent and not the fire door, I can go as a vent manufacturer and I can source different components, build a vent, and then the vent gets tested. I can\u2019t go and then buy those parts that are individually tested and build a vent that\u2019s not tested as a complete component. so when you buy a certified product it\u2019s tested from start to finish, it\u2019s not just a whole lot of certified products put together to make it complete.<\/p>\n

JOHN FIELD I\u2019ve just moved into this area with regards to specifically fire doors and I\u2019d suggest we look at things holistically, it\u2019s not just that the items that we\u2019re sticking together have been tested individually, it\u2019s that they\u2019ve been tested together so that they are appropriate and they work together. So you have a selection of materials you could use, but they are tested together at some point to certify that they\u2019re all OK to fit together like a piece of puzzle. It\u2019s not just getting random stuff off a shelf that is acceptable and then putting them together in the hope that it will be compliant.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE It\u2019s a good point, I was going to ask Ron a) what type of vent? Was he talking about an AOV vent for a smoke control system, or was he talking about a louver that essentially just lets air in and out? Because they have different functions. But the aerodynamic free area of a smoke vent as a for instance and also the free area of a damper is quite important, certainly in natural systems. And then of course the other point about adding those things is you also have the issues with Part L potentially of the building regs in terms of energy because if you haven\u2019t designed it with it in there and you add it in there you\u2019ve added pressure drop. You might need to change your fan, you\u2019re changing all of your characteristics.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re absolutely right, if you\u2019re buying an AOV, most AOVs for some vent probably don\u2019t have bird mesh on because they probably wouldn\u2019t be open, unless there was an incident or they were being tested. But if there was some reason why they were open a lot (I\u2019m not sure what that would be) then they would need burglar mesh or even insect mesh which would be even worse, and that certainly would change the\u2026and the manufacturer, if they\u2019re planning to have it used with that then they should test it with that and give you a comparison.<\/p>\n

CLIFF I just wanted to mention about LABC, the Local Authority Building Control, have details that are registered and these are different components that are bought together to create a system. I think that moving forwards this might be the answer to some of the questions. The example given was for a vent, there are many different instances where different products are brought together, but if you were, for example, trying to give some kind of warranty or assurance that a door is fire proofed sitting in a wall, you could get that door in a wall built into a system and get it tested and approved and it becomes a robust accredited detail. I think maybe that\u2019s the way that the industry will move because that system is already in place with LABC, just at the moment they focus quite a lot on thermal bridging and things like that. But there is no reason to say that that can\u2019t be used for other junctions in the building.<\/p>\n

RICHARD The process is there, it\u2019s just got to be implemented.<\/p>\n

CLIFF Yeah, it is there, and if you use the robust detail LABC approved, you don\u2019t actually need to have building regulations because it's already been approved. Like I say, you\u2019d have to build the thing you need, the whole system, and get it tested so that it becomes certified as a robust detail. Seeing as the industry is becoming a bit more robust and there is a regime in place now LABC will start to test more common junctions, but you\u2019ll always get new junctions using different products as the come on the market. But quite often we\u2019re using the same type of products and the same situations.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, and I think there should be more standardisation of that type, that seems to make sense to me.<\/p>\n

COLIN WHITE I think Paul\u2019s already asked the question, the initial question related to ventilators and the mention of a grain store suggests that it is industrial ventilation and process handling. Paul\u2019s right when it comes to CE marked or UK CA marked smoke exhaust ventilators, they wouldn\u2019t have bird mesh on them necessarily, or insect mesh, and he\u2019s right that in theory they only operate in an emergency. The question is quite valid because you often see, particularly in shopping centres and commercial buildings with atria where the building owners start hanging down advertising boards or acoustic pods underneath the ventilators and I\u2019d suggest that has more impact on the efficiency of the vents.<\/p>\n

A lot of people don\u2019t understand or realise the difference between geometric area and aerodynamic area. For example, if I take the doorway in my office, if I take the door off at the hinges and I\u2019m just left with a frame, I\u2019ve got a clear opening of 2 metres by 1 metre, that is defined as the geometric area. If I stick the door leaf back on the jib and the door is 15 degrees open, the geometric area of that doorway is still 2 metres. If I open the door 60 degrees it is still 2 sq metres geometric. An aerodynamic area can only really be derived from tests and it works out the resistance that a door, depending on what position it\u2019s in, creates to the air flow through it. So there\u2019s a lot of confusion everywhere, even within the industry, about free areas, geometric areas, aerodynamic areas, and then all of the other stuff. If you\u2019ve got smoke control dampers, whilst there is no specific aerodynamic test for smoke control dampers, but fore example if you have a decorative grill that\u2019s going to go in front of the damper, if it\u2019s within 200 mm of the damper it actually has to be tested with the damper, but there is nothing in the test that give you any air flow through it.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Putting the grill within 200 mm is actually to do with insulation, but the actual point about if you put a grill in front of a damper with a nominal 1 1\/2 sq metres free area that\u2019s the damper, but you have to take into consideration that if you put perf in front of it and it\u2019s 50% perf then it\u2019s 50% of the free area that\u2019s gone. There\u2019s also implications with regard to that, natural it probably won\u2019t work and mechanical you\u2019ve increased you resistance.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER I don\u2019t think that the Regulator will be able to prevent companies from using uncertified products. Coming back to fire doors, for years the construction industry has through ignorance or for cynical reasons has bamboozled Building Control. You can buy a fully certified door set, but the majority of building projects over the years have brought in a certified fire door leaf and then they\u2019ve sourced door frames or the wood to make door frames from other sources and they\u2019ve brought in various ironmongery. And in theory they can create\u00a0 a fully certified door assembly, but in practice even this year it\u2019s been proved that 70% of fire doors have not been installed in a fully fire compliant state.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t really think the Regulator wants to take on that role, I don\u2019t think they\u2019ve got the level of expertise to be expert at every product. I think they\u2019re looking for people to say this is fully certified, but the devil is in the detail and some people will claim that everything is fully certified and they\u2019ll find that people are buying door blanks and they\u2019re cutting apertures in it and fitting their own vision panels and all sorts of things. I think it would be the wrong approach to expect the Regulator to pick up all of those sorts of issues.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS I want to make a comment on the damper. As soon as you put the damper in front of a grill and we expect it to work in a natural environment, then we\u2019ve created a natural ventilator. And then it needs to go through an aerodynamic test that doesn\u2019t involve forced ventilation. When we use the damper inside a duct system the damper doesn\u2019t come with airflow rates because it\u2019s controlled with the velocity of the air moving through the cross-sectional area. As far as the Regulator goes, the Regulator is there to control. If the Regulator doesn\u2019t set up a controlling certificate to validate the tests the person purchasing the equipment doesn\u2019t know if it\u2019s tested or not to what it\u2019s tested.<\/p>\n

Just like if we put a tyre on a car, the tyre is tested to a specific speed, so you can\u2019t put a lower grade tyre on a Mercedes that can do 180 km per hour because it\u2019s unsafe. And the Regulator needs to have a standard set of certificates that have the correct information on it and people selling the products need to comply with those minimum information criteria.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I agree with you Ron, but in practice that isn\u2019t what the Regulator in the UK is doing.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS Yes, nowhere I\u2019ve been does the Regulator put out enough control to prevent ambiguity and as long as we\u2019ve got ambiguity strange things happen.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE The issue is that we\u2019re now talking about flow design, we\u2019re not necessarily talking about fire safety and if the flow design doesn\u2019t work that\u2019s not necessarily critical. However, if the fire safety doesn\u2019t work then it is and at the moment if it\u2019s a damper free area seems to e OK, if it\u2019s a vent to outside, because you\u2019ve got a certain expansion, then you use aerodynamic free areas. But at the moment there\u2019s no requirement to measure aerodynamic free area on dampers. I\u2019m\u00a0 not saying it can\u2019t be done because I know it can, but there is no standard that requires you to provide it.<\/p>\n

CLIFF I just reread the question and wondered if it could be clarified a little bit because it says a regulator should prevent companies. Does that mean a control body? And are the companies the manufacturers of the products? Is this question about, because Ron gave the example of different products being brought together to create a system and nobody has tested the entire system. is that what the question is driving at, that the Regulator should prevent that from happening? Or is it for each product? It says a regulator should prevent companies from using uncertified products by providing clear guidance on compatible options.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think the companies would be the contractor or the client, that\u2019s my reading of it.<\/p>\n

CLIFF Yeah, so I don\u2019t think a control body would be giving clear guidance on compatible options. I was thinking about what Ron was saying about the ventilation system and thinking that are we still answering this question? And then does the question need to be clarified?<\/p>\n

RICHARD Anybody feel free to suggest changes to the answers, they\u2019re certainly not set in stone.<\/p>\n

GEORGE The purpose of this really is we\u2019ve got 20 or so different responses from people that have got a lot of knowledge in this area, but what we want to do is filter that back to three or four so we\u2019ve got something to fight with. There is a degree of replication in these as well.<\/p>\n

Paul McSoley, who\u2019s one of our BIM4Housing colleagues, is a technical director at Mace. He has a passion about the right products being selected. I\u2019m just going to show Paul\u2019s slides. (shares screen<\/em>). I won\u2019t be able to deliver this in anyway as well as Paul does. Fortunately Paul White is on the call, who knows a lot more about this than I do. The point that Paul McSoley has explained is that all of that conversation that we\u2019ve just had about whether the product has been tested as an assembly, for example, and you\u2019re buying let\u2019s say a smoke damper. He\u2019s saying that the right product, a product that\u2019s perfect in terms of compliance, can then be put in the wrong situation because of the wall it\u2019s going into, for example. He\u2019s tried to work through a process, a decision tree, that shows how those decisions do need to be taken.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s very complex, but it\u2019s complex because it is complex and what we need to perhaps do is figure out some way of simplifying it. What Paul\u2019s saying is that really you start off with a specification that is descriptive and that descriptive specification is great, but you then need to, before you go into detailed design, make it prescriptive and you need to have a product that satisfies that requirement and then be able to manage it going forward. What he\u2019s done here with great diligence is he\u2019s gone through and looked at a particular scenario of saying we want to select a fire damper, and just for selecting a fire damper and installing it all of these different steps, that you can\u2019t read because there\u2019s too much detail in here, actually have got to be considered at different stages. And whatever decision you take, it can then lead onto a selection of a solution. So in principle if we can get this right we could turn this into some sort of AI process, a decision tree anyway, that could follow through and then suggest the right alternatives.<\/p>\n

Paul has tried to simplify that very complex decision structure into saying, well, what is it that we\u2019re actually trying to achieve? What purpose is that particular fire damper being selected for? And we initially need to identify what the safety risk is for that space and then look at how that fire damper will fit into the system that is supposed to be delivering that particular safety. But then we start to look at what the classification of the product is and then moving on from there what wall it\u2019s going into, what substrate etc, so you\u2019re then making sure that you\u2019ve got a tested product that\u2019s the right product for the right requirements (it could be a good product, but not for the right requirements). And you\u2019ve then got the complexity of what wall it\u2019s going into and then you\u2019ve got the complexity of was it installed properly.<\/p>\n

What Paul\u2019s been trying to do is to work this through a series of different steps that then allow us to understand what the sophistication of this process is so that it can then be more easily tracked, and there\u2019s a range of different elements in this.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE What you\u2019ve explained is exactly right. So you go through your space risk, you go through the building type, you determine what classification of damper you need. But then the next thing you have to do, before you get too far, is what type of wall it\u2019s going into and then that gives you the type of product and the type of testing that you need. The point that Paul is also trying to make here is that this whole process is actually exactly the same for flues, pipes and trays, fire doors, the wall types themselves in fact, busbars, fire curtains and ducting. So you have to go through this process and pick out your wall at some point because once you\u2019ve determined your space risk and the property that you\u2019re in, then you can go on to select the actual product.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s just to show people that it isn\u2019t easy at all, even fire dampers which seems relatively straightforward, as soon as we get onto the doors, as a for instance, if the door is a different shape you might not be able to but this door from this person. And this is the point, certain people will have tested certain things and you can\u2019t assume that everybody has tested every different type of wall because it\u2019s not physically possible to do that. That\u2019s the area where we fall down, it\u2019s that there\u2019s more and more walls and floors every other week and you can\u2019t keep up with\u2026installing the products.<\/p>\n

GEORGE And it\u2019s an iterative process. For example, it\u2019s not unusual for somebody to start off by saying this is going to be the internal wall structure and they\u2019ve designed it around maybe a British Gypsum solution and then for whatever reason it then gets swapped out for a Knauf solution. And that Knauf solution, when the fire dampers were selected they were perhaps selected to go in a British Gypsum solution and that type of iteration is something that we need to understand. I suppose that\u2019s why the new legislation requires change control to be more robust.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE That\u2019s exactly the point. if you choose the product and the holes are the wrong size and you can\u2019t put it in that hole anymore, you\u2019ve got to get the hole size changed and then that becomes a warning or a major or whatever it is.<\/p>\n

GEORGE If anybody is interested in drilling into this in anymore detail then put your name in the chat because it\u2019s certainly something that we want to try and pick up in the early part of next year.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Paul is working on, the idea is perhaps as you see at the top right it says \u2018passive code\u2019, but actually we work with a passive code first and then we start looking at the individual products that are going to go through it. And then we look at the wall types, so we actually follow through a full design route, because that\u2019s the next thing, you might have a damper going through and then some pipes and cables and they shouldn\u2019t be in the same hole, which is the first thing. But then you find that there isn\u2019t a test for the pipes and cables through this wall, but there is one for the dampers. And it is just such a circular process that you have to just keep analysing it and going backwards and forwards.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, so here, for example, you\u2019ve got the workbook for a fire damper, you\u2019ve then got the pipework and then the ductwork. I think that process, he\u2019s now looking at smoke control.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Paul is doing a lot of this under something called the Passive Fire Knowledge Group which is all of the Tier 1 contractors, so if there are contractors at whatever level then you can find their website https:\/\/pfkg.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

RICHARD Let\u2019s look at the answers again. Number 13: early engagement with manufacturers during the design phase, regular checking and inspection during the construction and commissioning and testing before handover are important steps for a proper installation of fire safety products. I\u2019m not sure anybody would disagree with that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I certainly wouldn\u2019t. I suppose the question is how does a manufacturer get engaged in that way.<\/p>\n

COLIN WHITE I\u2019m an<\/em> importer. They wouldn\u2019t necessarily get involved in the case of smoke control dampers that I\u2019m involved with because primarily the damper is a quite important component in a smoke and heat exhaust ventilation system, a naturally ventilated one or a mechanically ventilated one. And those systems tend to be designed and the components selected to suit the requirements of a fire strategy report. And I wouldn\u2019t necessarily be involved with the selection of our equipment into a specific system. I can\u2019t actually see how that would happen. All we can do, we can offer a DOP and we can back that up with a classification report on the testing that will let the specialist who we hope would be using our equipment to make the selection of the right product for his application. But I can\u2019t recall ever being involved in or engaged with the client on this.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I support Colin\u2019s statements, he\u2019s exactly right and the engagement usually comes later when it doesn\u2019t fit, but in fact all the information is generally available in the public domain. And it\u2019s not engagement necessarily, it\u2019s competency and learning about this stuff and not just assuming there is a solution to your problem. And there always has been because people have hidden it, and now we\u2019re finding people can\u2019t hide things for you. I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s engagement with, but it\u2019s learning about the products and listening and building your own knowledge. This one I just thought was a statement of fact, to an extent, and it didn\u2019t appear in my top 3. Mine was more about competence because if you\u2019re involved in this, you should know this, that\u2019s the point. You should know this because if you don\u2019t you shouldn\u2019t be doing this job.<\/p>\n

ADAM HEATH I guess we\u2019re slightly different in that we\u2019re doing cavity barriers and things, so not necessarily smoke and dampers etc. I think we\u2019d see a fair amount of early engagement in design phase for product specification to go onto detailed drawings. And then in terms of regular checking and inspection during construction, we have an app we provide to installers so that they can catalogue the installation phase of the products, or they can call our site services team and they can come and do a report as well. We\u2019re supportive of regular collection of information on installation progress of the quality of install, it\u2019s pretty big from a golden thread perspective in terms of handing over documentation that proves that what you\u2019ve done is compliant with the building regulations.<\/p>\n

I think fire stopping and things in that vein, showing that you\u2019ve met the functional requirements, you need to be able to prove that your compartmentations in the right place with the right spec and installed to the right level of quality as well. less so on the commissioning and testing of the installed things for us because the only way you could do that would be to set the building on fire, which we\u2019re obviously trying to avoid, but I think capturing that installation phase is key from a golden thread, both for evidencing the eventual competency of the installer, but when you get to the handover stage giving the end client confidence that what they\u2019ve got is actually installed in terms of the project drawings and installed to the right level of quality.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER I did have answer 13 as one of my top 3, but I did suggest that it should be changed to early engagement with manufacturers and installers during the design phase. If an installer has been nominated to do the work, I\u2019ll give you an example of that, you can look at a fire tested detail and say whether the design is compliant or not, but from a practical point of view if you\u2019re installing fire dampers in walls where the ductwork is very big you might want to be sealing around fire stopping, around the damper, before all of the ductwork has been installed.<\/p>\n

Simply because you might not be able to access it once the ductwork has been installed\u2026the whole length has been installed, you might want to get at the actual damper when there is a chance to actually access it and fire stop above it. I think what\u2019s coming out here is that a lot of manufacturers won\u2019t necessarily want to get involved, but the installers will want to and they\u2019ll want to make sure that it actually works from a practical point of view.<\/p>\n

CLIFF I tend to agree with what Alan\u2019s just said. We\u2019ve had this before in the design office where things go to site and the contractors say \u2018why don\u2019t you guys get us in earlier in the design process?\u2019. And the answer is because we hadn\u2019t selected the contractor at that stage, we didn\u2019t know who was going to be building it. But the answer to that is you could get a consultant in, you could get a contractor in a key meeting early on in the design stage, just pay them their hourly rate and say what do you think of this building we\u2019re trying to do? What are your suggestions? They\u2019re highly likely to attend these meetings because they\u2019ve got their foot in the door. That was the answer and that actually worked very well, you could do the same with the installers obviously. So there is a way around it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE On a session we had last week we had Waites on and Paula from Waites said that\u2019s exactly what they\u2019re doing. They\u2019re bringing the contractors in and also selecting products much earlier. So we\u2019re seeing a significant contractor changing the way that they are procuring which is really encouraging.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Not just changing the way, but proving that it actually works.<\/p>\n

CLIFF I think that the latest RIBA plan of works does actually call for a more collaborative way of working. One of the checklist items is to have the proposal reviewed by the contractor at least.<\/p>\n

JOHN FIELD Where it says manufacture it could be pre-fabricated, it could be bespoke, it\u2019s obviously important that manufacturers stay on top of what\u2019s going on in the outside world, so it\u2019s always handy to feedback to manufacturers what it is that the industry wants. So, to me that\u2019s what the design phase element is, regular checking before, during and after photos inspections is key. Too many times I\u2019d go and witness test an element, it could be a dry riser or a fire alarm, but what the contractor is doing is actually commissioning it at the same time, when it fails that\u2019s just a failed bit of time. So these things need to be taken in a sequence properly to make sure that there is a robust process and each element is taken seriously, which is why I voted for this one.<\/p>\n

RICHARD I want to quickly run through a couple. Question 24: Insurers can play a significant role in driving fire safety standards.<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s obvious\u2026it\u2019s one of the things I think we need to more widely recognise that it\u2019s not the threat of the Regulator that should be driving a lot of this, it\u2019s that for client organisations or contractors , if you can\u2019t evidence what you\u2019ve done then you\u2019re probably not insured, which is really significant. I was talking to somebody yesterday and they believe that something like 80% of the projects are actually breaching their\u2026if they were a claim, they wouldn\u2019t be able to claim.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I have a slightly more cynical view of this. There\u2019s been insurance guidance around ever since I can remember and nobody every actually does the additional stuff that they want and I\u2019m afraid, like everybody else. For insurance people go out for three quotes and they probably take the cheapest one, so it depends on whether the insurer wants to win the business for that building or not. I think if they\u2019re hiding behind the fact that if it\u2019s a new job, they should probably have a role in actually checking that things are up to standard, rather than only insuring on something that they balance the risk on one thing when they probably ought to know full well that it\u2019s a bigger risk. So is that fair to actually be insuring something that you haven\u2019t checked.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019m sure insurers do that all the time because they\u2019ll put into their terms and conditions that you have to be open and honest and all that sort of stuff. And therefore if you\u2019re not providing them with some information about a potential risk, then when you go and claim on that they are in a position to be able to refuse it. I was talking to a fire engineering company last week who were saying they\u2019d taken over another scheme, they were installing sensors and things like that. They took over something that somebody else had already installed all of the sensors in and they took it over on the basis of making it work and they discovered that the sensors themselves weren\u2019t working. They went back to the manufacturer who said you didn\u2019t buy them from us, so therefore you\u2019ve got no warranty.<\/p>\n

They ended up getting in the middle of a situation where they had a \u00a3750,000 claim on them and when they tried to get their cover under their insurance they were left high and dry. So they recognised the criticality of that and they\u2019ve taken it very much from an insurance perspective. I\u2019ve now had that conversation with several different organisations and insurers could be a major driver in terms of getting this right. I think it complements what the threat of the legal action from the Regulator which I think most people think is unlikely that it\u2019s going to happen, but insurability is going to be likely. if you\u2019re the CEO of a large construction company or you\u2019re on the board of a housing association you\u2019ve got some responsibilities there to make sure that the processes that are in place are actually reflecting what\u2019s needed.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I agree George, I think it\u2019s more the fact that the insurer should play a bigger part in helping people comply with their insurance requirements.<\/p>\n

JOHN FIELD When I worked at Imperial College London, obviously multimillion pound buildings, they took a massive part in ensuring that everything was as it should be. What we\u2019re talking about here is some insurers will put in the small print that certain things are required, but there\u2019s no, perhaps, insistence until they\u2019re making a claim. It\u2019s too late then, if you try and get your car insurance with no claims discount they will insist in seeing that no claims before they allow you to progress with the insurance, otherwise they\u2019ll charge you more.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve only ever been asked to do a fire risk assessment by someone because their solicitor had advised, they\u2019re trying to sell it, trying to rent it, you need to get a fire risk assessment. I\u2019ve never had someone come and say my insurer is insisting that you get a fire risk assessment, so I think they could go a step further and insist in seeing certain documentation as part of that insurance, rather than wait for it to burn down and say we\u2019re not paying out, but it is related to cost and how much things are insured for.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE That was exactly my point.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS Would it not be good if the insurers gave cost saving incentives to the clients who\u2019s buildings had passed risk assessments? If you incentivise, the insurance guys are the biggest people we have because they control the money. The control who gets paid when the building burns down and who doesn\u2019t. So imagine if you had a sticker on your building saying when it was last serviced, then shoppers could decide to go in or not go in.<\/p>\n

GEORGE There is a separate thing I could perhaps share at some stage. There was something called the Housing Association Property Mutual that ran for about 20 years because housing associations, when they were first established during the Thatcher period, were uninsurable. Because they\u2019d come out of local authority control and the track record for building failures was so high that it was too big a risk for any insurance company to take on because when they were part of the councils they were self-insured. An organisation called the Building Performance Group and the Housing Association Property Mutual were set up to address that whole process. So there is a historic, very successful way of addressing this. It\u2019s just when the actually managed to iron out all the problems, the risks dropped and therefore the insurers came into the market and therefore squeezed HAPM out. Anybody that\u2019s interested in the insurance thing, it might something that we set a workstream up on because it\u2019s really significant.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Let\u2019s go on to competence now. A number of the answers we\u2019ve got involve competence. Question 1: competent individuals should be trained for their specific roles to ensure efficient planning and delivery of design work. Maintenance personnel should also be involved in the planning process to handle unforeseen events. Question 9: competence should be ensured across all roles in design, specification, installation and maintenance. Accurate and reliable product information is necessary for proper selection. This was put in by our competence specialist, Debbie. Competence is influenced by ethics and behaviours requiring a cultural change in the industry.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE We\u2019re at a stage where competence or knowledge is so low outside of certain individuals that in terms of designing and selecting products it\u2019s just not there. Fire dampers is pretty bad, but when we get into things like smoke control which basically starts in the fire strategy it\u2019s really concerning when the fire strategy for the entire building just says speak to somebody else. I\u2019m also concerned with some of the designs that I see that they\u2019re maybe not quite as safe as they should be. This is what I was saying that early engagement with manufacturers, people have got to realise that if you\u2019re dealing with the fire safety or the smoke control in the building how can you design and specify it if you don\u2019t know how to check it and what you\u2019re doing with it?<\/p>\n

You can\u2019t just keep relying on pushing it down the contractual chain. I came across something the other day where somebody told me that somehow or other the ductwork contractor was responsible for the smoke control. I said that\u2019s not actually legal because you know full well that they have no competency in that area, how can you make them responsible for it? Under contract, you can\u2019t actually ask somebody to do something you know that they can\u2019t do.<\/p>\n

COLIN WHITE The semantic spin there is that it\u2019s within the ductwork package.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Yes, so then they have to go and\u2026but it\u2019s too late because it\u2019s in the fire strategy and it should be in the building specification. There\u2019s levels of competence in certain areas that they just aren\u2019t there.<\/p>\n

KATHERINA THOMAS I work in servicing and maintenance so I deal with a lot of contractors, in terms of installing stuff and having that competency we do sometimes struggle.<\/p>\n

RICHARD So how do you judge competence? By certification or experience? How do you make the call?<\/p>\n

KATHERINA THOMAS For me the call is already made through procurement standards, we procure out contractors and then that\u2019s then followed through and they go to site and do the work. Obviously we make sure that they\u2019re certified through our procurement process, so it\u2019s done at the beginning stages of the procurement, we make sure that they\u2019re certified to which ever fire safety products that they\u2019re qualified in.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s interesting Katherina has just said that because what you\u2019re dealing with is an organisation that\u2019s actually carrying out the work, so you\u2019re almost one step away from the person that is actually doing the work. And in fact you could be two steps away because it might be that your maintenance contract is with an organisation that\u2019s maybe doing all of the M&E and the they let the electrical work to a third party. Then that work has been carried out by an individual electrician, so I don\u2019t think we\u2019ve got adequately that track through of expertise.<\/p>\n

KATHERINA THOMAS Yeah, that\u2019s true, we do have a lot of third parties, depending on specialist equipment. We do have a lot of AOVs and also dry risers so they are through third party contractors.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Do you have your own workforce? Or do you outsource it all?<\/p>\n

KATHERINA THOMAS We have to outsource it, we haven\u2019t got the competency within the business.<\/p>\n

JAMIE HALL I just wanted to echo that as well because I come from a small\/medium-sized housing association and because there is only seven of us in the entire property team responsible for day repairs and planned maintenance and property safety, we are quite reliant on contractors and outside agencies. While we do our best, we\u2019re quite reliant on what they tell us.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So therefore you need to make sure that you get the right digital evidence from them, Jamie, that\u2019s what I\u2019d recommend, because that\u2019s critical.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN My concern with that as well is often you can actually make sure that you do have somebody that\u2019s competent, or at least a company that\u2019s competent could be UKAS accredited or whatever, it doesn\u2019t mean that the individuals going on-site are competent to do that piece of work. But even if they are and they go on-site and they install something what usually happens is that a different trade will come later and they\u2019ll need to install something in place of that or next to it and they\u2019ll alter it. And what\u2019s been done then, the product isn\u2019t right even if the person was competent.<\/p>\n

So we can go as far as we can in trying to make sure people are competent, and there\u2019s nothing out there to say for what type of work they\u2019re doing what competency looks like. So we need to make sure the person that\u2019s judging that is competent, and how do we make sure they\u2019re the right person as well. So, it seems like a bit of an impossible situation, really.<\/p>\n

RICHARD There are people who would actually say, well, how do we check that the people who are framing the laws are actually competent?<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE It\u2019s not the laws, it\u2019s the guidance, but anyway that\u2019s a different thing. This is the problem, third party certification doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that individuals are competent. It does mean that they\u2019ve been trained at the moment, but it doesn\u2019t mean necessarily that they\u2019ve been assessed. I cannot give you a certificate to say that I\u2019m competent in anything that I\u2019ve spoken about today, so i hold my hand up for that, but i think I\u2019ve got plenty of experience and i do a lot of research and a lot of CPD like doing things like this. You can\u2019t necessary rely on the third party certificated company yet, and if we\u2019re looking at smoke control, at the moment there are no qualifications for smoke control installers.<\/p>\n

So a lot of them will be sparkies because they have to run a lot of cable and join things together, but they couldn\u2019t demonstrate competency in installing a vent or a fire damper or some ductwork, so we\u2019re still in the chicken and egg situation. The other point is in terms of looking at training and assessing people, I\u2019ve got to do a trainer course and I\u2019ve got to do a five day assessor course and somebody then comes to assess me to see if I am capable of being an assessor. So it\u2019s not even just the hoops of the people, there aren\u2019t enough assessors out there. There is loads and loads of training, but as i always say, I don\u2019t know which particular animal I should pick or not, but I could stick a load of animals and a load of people and train them for eight hours.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re all trained, but if I let the animals out on-site could they fit a smoke control system? And the answer is no. Could the people who have been trained go out and do it? The answer is possibly, but somebody needs to go and see them do it. And this is the competency hoop that we\u2019re going through at the moment and it\u2019s going around and around in circles because we\u2019re now looking at fire damper competency and fire resisting duct and duct competency, but we haven\u2019t even started on smoke control yet. And the first part is trying to find out how you get started on this ladder.<\/p>\n

COLIN WHITE I agree with what Paul said. Are we expecting Victoria to make a judgement on the actual person who is attending her sites to do this work? Or should she be looking for an accredited contractor, for example? I know Paul mentioned there is no specific training for smoke vent systems, but there is an installer scheme that\u2019s not mandatory, but its been recognised but the Smoke Control Association. And whilst it\u2019s not perfect it is actually starting to check on-site checks of installs, it\u2019s more from the point of view of making sure that they\u2019ve got the right equipment there and the company have gone through their process. If you use a company that have gone to the expense of obtaining this third party installer certification, that\u2019s a starting point. They do send their people down, we have people down in the epicentre of the world the West Country and we have their installers come in for half a day and we teach them as much as we can about the product and we tell them what to look out for, what to do and what not to do.<\/p>\n

But that doesn\u2019t make them competent. They\u2019re trained, they\u2019re given knowledge and information about a particular product, and that product is a component in a smoke vent system and there are other components equally as important. So how do you judge somebody being competent for the whole system? Paul mentioned they\u2019re targeting fire dampers and then there is going to be fire resisting ducts, so to make a system are you going to have all of these five different competent experts in judging all parts of the components? I don\u2019t know, it\u2019s strange.<\/p>\n

WILL COUSINS I\u2019m from MTVH, quite a large housing provider. In terms of the fire doors we generally have technical requirements which we say that the contractor needs to get their own third party fire consultant to sign off the door sets and things like that, and then we do a benchmark on-site. And we get our own fire consultant to check that and look at the doors as a benchmark and then it goes on from that process.<\/p>\n

Talking about competency, this is quite big at the moment. Obviously with the new gateway changes we can\u2019t start on-site next year without gateway 2 submission so the problem that we have at the moment is that we\u2019re tendering to contractors and as the client we need to show the competency in order to submit gateway 2. So that obviously comes down to PAS document and there is a document called a Flex document, so we\u2019ve created a set of questions that go through all the characteristics and tender. It basically looks like it goes back to CDM, most contractors are doing it anyway so that they need to prove it in a different way\u2026for high-risk buildings there\u2019s a different Building Control body to sign all of this off.<\/p>\n

I had a question as well. One part of it is we\u2019ve drafted a whole load of competency questions that I can\u2019t find anywhere and I don\u2019t think anyone has done, about new tender process, but what is really baffling at the moment is when your tendering on a design & build do you appoint the design team yourself as the client through a standard JCT? Do you do a PSA to appoint the design team? Or do you ask the contractor to do that? Different solicitors or whoever tell you different things and a lot of that comes down to competency because you need to assess the competency before you get into contract. I don\u2019t know if anyone\u2019s got the answer to what is the better route now that everything is shaken up.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN I wouldn\u2019t say I\u2019ve got the answer to it, it\u2019s an observation that I feel in the last couple of years looking at building safety to go-to is design & build contract. To me now I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s the right contract to look at on the new products. Often it\u2019s because perhaps cutting corners or doing VE exercises on products and we probably need to be more specific, especially with regards to maintenance going forward. Perhaps we should have maintenance people in at the beginning as well to have a look at what product we\u2019re going to need and how we\u2019re going to use it in the end. And that\u2019s part of the gateway process anyway, how is it going to be used, when it\u2019s occupied how\u2019s it going to be used in a fire strategy situation? But part of that is also how we\u2019re going to maintain those products, so what should we be using?<\/p>\n

The competency comes in making sure that when we get people on board, the manufacturers, suppliers and installers, and we look at the competencies that\u2019s not changed. And I think a design & build contract is sometimes maybe not the way to go because it gets changed too often.<\/p>\n

RICHARD One of the answers I read out actually stresses having the maintenance people in at the get-go, right at the beginning.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I\u2019m afraid I keep looking at this, it\u2019s well know that if you start out on the design process you spend a lot of money at the start and then it dwindles away. The point is that if you then change your mind part way along then your costs go up again and you end up instead of having a nice depleting curve it goes up and up and up. The other point that goes with that is that the project gets out further. There is some thought that says do the design first and just get the contractor to build it because there shouldn\u2019t be any issues and if there are issues they should be small ones because the design is complete.<\/p>\n

The issue that we\u2019ve got as an industry is that nobody wants the design responsibility, and they think that solutions are always going to be there and they\u2019ll be simple, the only reason they think that is because people have been hiding them for years and hiding the problems. So if you look at it from the point of view of cost benefit, get somebody to design it and then get somebody to build what the design is. With a building, it\u2019s not like building a product where you build a load of prototypes, you have one go at this, so there\u2019s no point in having loads of areas within the building that are essentially prototypes because you\u2019re having to solve the problem on the job.<\/p>\n

The issue is will you get somebody to actually take the design onboard for you? Because it\u2019s not happening at the moment because one of the questions I keep asking is who has design responsibility? And then suddenly it\u2019s down to the contractor. Well, then you\u2019ve got to question all of the information that you\u2019ve been given to date, you\u2019re now responsible so you\u2019ve got to start the design again. And it should have been done with the fire strategy and the specification and the consultant, but it isn\u2019t. And I\u2019ve sat in meetings, well, you\u2019ve got a design responsibility now, you do what you want and it\u2019s like, oh.<\/p>\n

LIAM WHEATLEY Competence from our side, I suppose it goes hand in hand with compliance. Orbit being a housing association, we look at it from the operation and maintenance side, fire being one of the largest risks to a building. I suppose the question, the view we look at it from is the holistic idea of competence around work that\u2019s happening on a building. So you can have a contractor in that\u2019s making penetrations in a wall, a plumber, a sparkie, they may be competent in the job that they\u2019re doing, they may not be competent in making compartmentation correctly. And that\u2019s where the difference lies.<\/p>\n

So the way we\u2019re looking at it is that we\u2019re getting the exact people on-site that we can, so we\u2019ll have validation of not just the company, but the individual. We\u2019ll have their qualifications, what they\u2019re competent in and also digital evidence of what they\u2019re sending as the evidence of the work that they\u2019ve done. So it\u2019s not just showing the work they\u2019ve done, but also making sure that nothing else within that area has been affected. That\u2019s it in a nutshell, competence from our perspective, it\u2019s controlling the employment and the maintenance of the contractors, rather than just the work that they\u2019re doing on-site.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What you\u2019ve raised is an interesting one in that I think all of the landlords are going to be looking at that at the moment because it\u2019s so fundamental. We\u2019ve got a very expert person, Debbie Carlton, who is an expert in competency. We\u2019ve also got people like David Jones from the ICM (Institute of Construction Management) and they\u2019ve been doing a lot of work on competency as well. I\u2019m thinking, Richard, that it might be useful to draw together another session\u2026it might be those drafted competency questions, how confidential are those? Are they things you might be willing to share with, for example, Liam from Orbit? So that we can actually end up with something that\u2019s been\u2026it would be great if contractors were being asked the same questions, wouldn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

WILL COUSINS Yeah, absolutely. The competency questions are all out there on the PAS, the contractor competency, and then there is the Flex document. We\u2019ve just tried to digest it all into tender questions that make it clear, into four different characteristics of what we\u2019re looking for in competency. Certainly I think all different HAs and groups should have a consistent mindset. I think a different meeting would help because the golden thread is the big one and retaining the CDE, its massive, that\u2019s key to it all.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Are there any other landlords or housing associations or councils on the group that might be interested in that? If you are put your name in the chat and just put competency and we can we can pick up on that.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Yeah, we\u2019ll set that up for end of January\/beginning of February. Has anybody got anything they particularly want to say on the competence? Or anything else we've discussed? Or anything out from left field that has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about?<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER Just to take the opportunity to give the BIM4Housing reference document a plug. Obviously competency and getting installations and design right first time, the BIM4Housing reference document on fire doors covers all of that. Obviously it\u2019s just focused on fire doors, but I am aware that there\u2019s a number of people in this group today who haven\u2019t been involved in creating this reference document. For those who don\u2019t know anything about this, over the last 12 months BIM4Housing has had a working group that\u2019s created a reference document on how to inspect new doors, existing doors and how to manage and maintain them. We\u2019re just about to have it signed off and I\u2019m aware that there will be a number of people here who I think would like to have the opportunity to read it and pass comments on it before we do get it signed off.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve got a new draft that\u2019s going to be ready on Monday and I\u2019ll send it across to Richard and George and then if it can be forwarded on. Were looking to have it signed off and issued by the end of this month for issue in January, so if people could read it and then pass comments through to me.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Thank you very much everybody for their contribution this year. To be frank, it\u2019s just growing and growing.<\/p>\n

RICHARD We had 300 active members last year and we\u2019ve got more than 1000 now.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Alan\u2019s also started work on other major elements, dampers etc, so that\u2019s something that\u2019s going to kick off in the new year.<\/p>\n

CHAT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

[14:08] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

agree with this point, the outcomes can be manipulated.<\/p>\n

same with spandrel panels where each element can be A1 rated but the full system hasn't got A1 testing or non A1 glue has been used.<\/p>\n

[14:12] Emma Swaffer<\/p>\n

Its the system, that should be the result of the test<\/p>\n

[14:16] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

sometimes a supply issue<\/p>\n

[14:24] Adam Heath<\/p>\n

2024 we should be expecting new secondary legislation under the Building Safety Act specifically for construction products. We are also still awaiting a full response from the government to the Morrell-Day report.<\/p>\n

[14:36] Ron Burns<\/p>\n

Ron Burns<\/p>\n

[14:37] John Field<\/p>\n

John Field I am interested as is very relevant to my work.<\/p>\n

[14:37] Cliff (Guest)<\/p>\n

Cliff Kneale<\/p>\n

[14:38] Joe Stott<\/p>\n

Always interested in following this thread of work<\/p>\n

[14:38] SCD (Guest)<\/p>\n

Yes Please.<\/p>\n

[14:38] Adam Heath<\/p>\n

Passive Fire Knowledge Group \u2013 Leading Culture Change Through Collaboration (pfkg.org)<\/a><\/p>\n

[14:41] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

is this about a supply issue and making sure manufacturers can supply in the timescales required, especially for products that lots of people want<\/p>\n

[14:42] Ron Burns<\/p>\n

Here, Here, Paul White!!<\/p>\n

[14:51] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

we are already seeing that with the amount of questions coming from insurers<\/p>\n

[14:57] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

the FRA is a snapshot in time though isn\u2019t it<\/p>\n

[14:57] Ron Burns<\/p>\n

I think an old snapshot is better than no snap shot<\/p>\n

[14:58] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

agreed<\/p>\n

[15:27] Will Cousins<\/p>\n

fire doors<\/p>\n

[15:27] Liam Wheatley<\/p>\n

fire doors<\/p>\n

[15:27] Jamie Hall<\/p>\n

fire doors<\/p>\n

[15:27] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

thank you.<\/p>\n

[15:27] Paul White<\/p>\n

competency<\/p>\n

[15:27] John Field<\/p>\n

John Field Fire Doors<\/p>\n

thank you guys for all your hard work.<\/p>\n

[15:28] Ron Burns<\/p>\n

Ron Burns Competency<\/p>\n

[15:28] Katherina Thomas<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

[15:28] Will Cousins<\/p>\n

competency<\/p>\n

thanks<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings – Q1 – How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? RICHARD Here is the question: How do we prevent incorrect design selection and installation of fire safety products? We\u2019ve got a number of answers from people already, there\u2019s 25 there. We’re not…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span>+<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-528","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nQ1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings - Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? RICHARD Here is the question: How do we prevent incorrect design selection and installation of fire safety products? We\u2019ve got a number of answers from people already, there\u2019s 25 there. We're not…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Fire Safety\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\\\/\",\"name\":\"Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-18T15:55:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Q1 – How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Fire Safety\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","og_description":"BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings - Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? RICHARD Here is the question: How do we prevent incorrect design selection and installation of fire safety products? We\u2019ve got a number of answers from people already, there\u2019s 25 there. We're not…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Fire Safety","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/","name":"Q1 - How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-12-18T15:55:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q1-how-do-we-prevent-incorrect-design-selection-and-installation-of-fire-safety-products\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Q1 – How do we prevent incorrect design, selection, and installation of fire safety products?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/","name":"BIM4Housing Fire Safety","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=528"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/528\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":529,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/528\/revisions\/529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}