The subject of meeting the intent of the code often comes up when designers and authorities having jurisdiction discuss “performance alternatives” to prescriptive requirements in the code. NFPA 72, the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, was used in the case below. 

The story begins at one of those meetings that occur at the end of a large project where change orders from the contractor are discussed. The contractor was looking for compensation for materials and labor costs he felt were caused by design changes either in the building construction or the fire alarm system design.

In this specific case, the contractor asked for compensation because he had to install additional equipment and perform more programming to monitor the integrity of the power circuit wiring to smoke detector sounder bases. These devices were designed to comply with the single-station smoke alarm requirement in the hotel’s guest rooms, with the added benefit of transmitting the device alarm and trouble information to the front desk and the on-site security monitoring center. In addition, the sounder bases became the notification appliance for each guest room and would be actuated under a general alarm to ensure audibility in each room.

An old plan and a new plan

The specifications were clear in their requirements for the device location and operation. The specifications also required compliance with NFPA 72-2022, i.e., the edition of the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code enforced in the jurisdiction.

The original plan the installer submitted for review showed the power circuit for the sounder base notification appliances as a trunk line feeding a series of control modules. These then fed the sounder bases. This arrangement, according to the installer, would then meet the specifications requirement for the sounder to operate in a general alarm. The designer rejected the submittal because the wiring was not monitored for integrity from these modules to the notification appliances. He resubmitted with a code-compliant wiring configuration that was subsequently approved for installation.

At no time during the submission process did the installer question why the designer enforced the requirement. He also never stated in his original submission that what he sent was a performance alternative to the code requirements. During the submittal process, he never took exception to any specification requirements.

At our meeting, the installer claimed that what he originally submitted would meet the intent of NFPA 72-2022 and my enforcement of the “letter” of the code caused him additional costs. But he then admitted that an open circuit between the module connected to the trunk line and sounder base notification appliance could occur and no trouble indication would appear at the fire alarm control panel.

I quoted the code requirement from Section 12.6.1 of NFPA 72-2022 that states, “Unless otherwise permitted or required by 12.3.1 through 12.3.7 and 12.6.3 through 12.6.13, all means of interconnecting equipment, devices, and appliances and wiring connections shall be monitored for the integrity of the interconnecting conductors or equivalent path so that the occurrence of a single open or a single ground-fault condition in the installation conductors or other signaling channels is automatically indicated within 200 seconds.”

Upon hearing this, the installer agreed that his alternative did not meet the exact  code requirement. But he continued to argue that only a small portion of the wiring from each module was not monitored as required. His definition of “a small portion of wiring” turned out to be anywhere from 10 to 21 feet of unmonitored wiring, depending on whether the guest room was a standard unit or a suite.

It was obvious to me that this gentleman either did not understand the code requirements or was simply trying to redesign the system to keep from losing money on his original low bid. When he was not allowed to use his “redesign,” he tried the alternate approach of asking for extra compensation because the engineer (me) required him to be code-compliant.

On top of this first request for additional compensation, the installer made another request. 

He wanted to get paid for all the resubmittals he had to make to get approved (i.e., to get it right)!

I think you can guess the outcome of this meeting. His requests were not approved. 

This is not an isolated case, and these conversations happen all the time. We all need to be vigilant and ensure the engineers designing these systems understand the need for thorough submission reviews and consistent enforcement of their specifications and the code.

If you have the expertise to interface with your peers and system designers, you should provide the guidance and training.

stock.adobe.com / daniiD