It never ceases to amaze me just how many people in our industry have been either mislead or misinformed concerning technical and code information. I often encounter installers, authorities having jurisdiction, engineers, owners and architects who believe that what they think they know about fire alarm systems or the code process is truth. It starts when the owner of a building meets with an architect and engineering team. The owner describes what he wants and makes the statement that he wants this building to “just meet code.” Do you think that anyone in that meeting understands what that really means?

What do you think it means? First, the owner thinks that by asking the architect and engineering team to “just meet code,” he will get a fire-safe building while avoiding all those “frills and extras” that could be added by the design team to “gild the lily.” What the owner will actually get is a building that has been designed to be minimally safe. Should fire occur, it will not cause a conflagration (like the Great Chicago Fire). But there is a higher likelihood of substantial damage.

A common misconception 

The architect will have little knowledge of what it takes to make the building fire safe. That is not their concern. After all, when they went through architectural school, not one course discussed fire safety. The overriding position was (and is) to simply follow the building code—and hope the building code requirements will not affect the fabric of the design, so to speak.

The engineering team will normally interpret the owner’s request to “just meet code” as a mandate. They must make their fire alarm system design meet the barest minimum requirements of the building code enforced in the jurisdiction. Hopefully, they will also know that the National Electrical Code and the National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code are a necessary part of the design requirements.

The next person in this chain is the authority having jurisdiction. Most everyone in the chain assumes this person knows the various code requirements, understands the operation of all fire alarm systems and will have a few “extra” requirements. All the individuals involved thus far have no real concept of what the owner wants. The owner may tell the architecture and engineering team that they don’t not want any of their services after the design is approved and the permit is issued. The owner again assumes they can save money by not paying for engineering follow-up services. After all, they assume the city building, electrical and fire inspectors will ensure everything meets code.

What a common misconception! Indeed, these inspectors will help ensure the building and fire alarm system meet code. But each inspector will base his inspection on what he knows or believes to be true. The owner assumes the inspectors have been trained to understand the myriad of building fire protection systems and are qualified to thoroughly inspect those systems. The inspectors will not do the engineer’s job and ensure the contractor has followed the specifications the engineer developed. They will only protect the community from this new building causing a conflagration. Nothing else is or should be required of them. So we’ve gotten this far, and now the contractor gets to interpret how the installation will “just meet code.”

Again, we hope the contractor realizes that there is more than one code to meet and will at least perform to the minimum requirements of the applicable editions of the NEC and NFPA 72.

What can be done differently?

Obviously, I have taken a long time to get to this point—and believe it or not, there is a point to this! What could have been done differently given the initial scenario? The architect and engineering team could have asked one question that would focus the owner’s attention to fire protection goals rather than the “just meet code” syndrome. They could have asked, “What do you want to have left after the fire?” Such a question will surely make the owner stop and think before going forward.

The other important issue is the lack of knowledge of the professionals involved in the process. You and I assume the design professionals and inspectors would not allow a situation like I’ve described to happen. That is a wrong assumption. 

So, what do we do about these common misconceptions and misinformation? We have an obligation to teach ourselves, and the other professionals mentioned above, what codes affect fire alarm system installations. We have an obligation to obtain qualified interpretations of codes and standards and share that information with other professionals in our jurisdictions. And we have an obligation to ferret out and dispel these common misconceptions that exist in our industry.