黑洞社区

To the tier one contractors among you 鈥� how confident are you that, when you inherit designs for a building, you can give technical assurance that all passive fire components meet building and fire safety regulations?

In around six months鈥� time, it is expected that gateway two of the landmark 黑洞社区 Safety Act will come into effect.

This 鈥渉ard stop鈥�, which replaces the building control deposit of plans stage, requires clients to gain approval from the new 黑洞社区 Safety Regulator before construction can begin. Clients, helped by dutyholders including the principal contractor, must satisfy the BSR that the design will meet building safety regulations.

The principal contractor must be able to provide technical assurance that the designs are correct before work can begin on the project. But among some of the largest contractors in the industry there is concern that providing this assurance would often prove tricky because of issues inherited from the design stage, where different components may not be compatible with each other.

鈥淲e are inheriting so many problems that we鈥檙e just going to be blindly walking into a situation where we can鈥檛 technically assure at gateway two,鈥� warns Will Pitt, technical leader at Laing O鈥橰ourke.

A group of 10 major contractors are so concerned about this that they have come together to form the Passive Fire Knowledge Group (PFKG) 鈥� see box below) along with trade bodies the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP), 黑洞社区 & Engineering Services Association, Finishes and Interiors Sector and consultancy ADDC. 

So, what exactly is the issue the group wants to tackle?

Pitt says: 鈥淭he problems we are finding can be traced back to the early design stages, where architects and engineers work together but are often not aware of the spatial implications that affect how we are able to demonstrate compliance or install compliant solutions.鈥�

As a simple example, he says it is no longer acceptable to 鈥渂lindly select a fire damper and install it and hope for the best鈥�.

He says: 鈥淵ou鈥檝e got to be able to demonstrate that particular fire damper will achieve a certain rating, and that will have been tested in the certain type of wall. You can鈥檛 specify a damper without specifying the wall system 鈥� and they are done by different people.鈥�

He adds: 鈥淲e鈥檝e got projects at the moment where the architect has specified 14 different types of dry wall system 鈥� you are never going to have dampers that have been tested in [all] those walls, so from the get-go there is a compatibility problem.鈥�

Simon Tolson, senior partner at Fenwick Elliott and a commissioner on 黑洞社区鈥檚 黑洞社区 the Future Commission project to improve the built environment, recognises the problem.

You鈥檝e got to be able to demonstrate that particular fire damper will achieve a certain rating, and that will have been tested in the certain type of wall. You can鈥檛 specify a damper without specifying the wall system and they are done by different people鈥�

Will Pitt, technical leader, Laing O鈥橰ourke

He says contractors may face challenges in ensuring that passive fire components comply with regulations 鈥渄ue to the complexity of the systems and the need for close coordination among multiple stakeholders, including architects, engineers, specialist subbies and fire safety consultants鈥�.

He says contractors inheriting partial designs at gateway two 鈥渃annot advance safely on assumed cases鈥� because passive fire protection systems 鈥渋nvolve the use of multiple materials and components, which must be tested and certified to comply with regulations鈥�. He stresses that this cannot be done in isolation.

For Pitt, we are entering a world where the construction industry will have to think about buildings as entire systems, with passive fire protection emerging as a new multidisciplinary role.

鈥淭he PFKG has come together because these problems can鈥檛 be solved by one company on their own,鈥� says Pitt. Tolson says he hopes that thinking of buildings as systems 鈥渋s a given in 2023鈥�.

Paul McSoley, sector design leader at Mace, who is leading the PFKG working group on competence, ownership and timing of design, says: 鈥淓veryone looks at passive fire in the same light when actually, if you鈥檝e got duct pipes or a fire curtain, how they鈥檙e actually tested is completely different. They are not actually that relatable.

鈥淭hey may run to the same temperatures and times on the tests but the way that they are put together for assurance purposes is completely different. So, if you can鈥檛 get an assured system that has been tested to install it, you can鈥檛 really do your quality control either.鈥�

Under the 黑洞社区 Safety Act, dutyholders, including contractors, will be responsible for maintaining a golden thread of information about a building, and this too, may prove tricky.

Pitt says: 鈥淚n my view, the golden thread of information is: can you prove that what is installed is installed in accordance with the design? And that the design is in accordance with the regulations? But we can鈥檛 do this because a lot of the time we are inheriting designs that aren鈥檛 tested or testable.鈥�

So, what is it the PFKG is hoping to achieve?

The group has set up three working groups. One, led by McSoley, will look at process, including the competence, ownership and timing of design.

Another group is led by Andrew Taylor, technical officer at ASFP, and will focus on testing, including the lack of fire testing data on common applications such as shaft walls.

While a third, led by Niall Rowan, technical and regulatory affairs officer at ASFO, will look at ways to improve the education and competence of those designing, specifying, procuring and installing passive fire protection, including fire engineers and clients.

Tolson agrees that education is key and says the technical knowledge of many in the construction industry when it comes to the application of passive fire protection measures is 鈥渓amentable鈥�. He says courses should be developed to ensure those involved in designing, specifying, procuring and installing passive fire protection measures have the necessary skills, with minimum standards (see box).

Mace鈥檚 McSoley says the PFKG may look at developing a code of practice for the industry for passive fire. 鈥淎 code of practice would tell people how to behave around the management of the commissioning process for the job.鈥�

Rebecca Rees, partner at Trowers & Hamlins and a 黑洞社区 the Future commissioner, agrees. She says a code of practice is more likely to achieve the systems-based approach needed than legislation (see box below).

She adds: 鈥淎 code of practice 鈥� which breaks down traditional communication flows 鈥� is underpinned by collaborative procurement principles and allows all project team members to understand the part they need to play in the overall project- is likely to be much more effective in achieving safe and quality outcomes.鈥�

However, Pitt stresses that for now the group鈥檚 aim is to raise awareness of the issues. 鈥淭he first objective of the group is to start vocalising these problems, but a lot of the solutions don鈥檛 lie in this group, they lie with manufacturers.鈥�

However there is arguably a great deal that tier one contractors themselves need to get better at also. Tolson says collaboration and communication is key.

He says tier one contractors need to work closely with all those involved in the design and construction of passive fire protection measures to ensure components are specified and installed correctly. 鈥淭hey will need to invest in training and education programmes to ensure that personnel have the necessary knowledge and skills,鈥� he says.

One senses that what the PFKG really wants to do initially is to kickstart a discussion about the problem. Eventually, by focusing on solutions based on collaboration, training, sharing information and perhaps recommending ways to improve testing and certification, the PFKG is hopeful the situation can be improved.

If it isn鈥檛, the big fear is that projects will be delayed and sent back to the drawing board at gateway two once it comes into effect later this year. 

What the commissioners think

Simon Tolson

There are a variety of ways to improve passive fire testing and the education and competences of those involved in designing, specifying, procuring, and installing passive fire protection, including fire engineers. First a true understanding of the building envelope is required, then I see:

1. Standardisation of Testing Methods needs to happen: It is crucial to standardise testing methods for PFP systems to ensure that the test results are consistent and reliable. Achieved by following international standards such as the British Standard BS476: 1997, Part 7 (current BS EN 1634-1), ISO and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.

2. Continuous improvement of Fire Regs: Fire safety regulations must be continuously improved to keep up with new products and knowhow and changing building design and construction practices. This can be accomplished by regularly reviewing the regulations and updating them to incorporate new technologies and construction practices.

3. Education and Training: courses should be developed to ensure that those involved in designing, specifying, procuring, and installing PFP systems have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so effectively via the institutions, seminars, and workshops etc. Minimum standards such as say IFE Level 3 Diploma in Fire Science and Fire Safety, see .

4. Certification and Accreditation: such programs can be developed to ensure that those involved in PFP have the necessary qualifications and expertise. Establishing certification programs for fire engineers, contractors, and other professionals.

5. Collaboration and Communication: among all stakeholders involved in PFP design, specification, procurement, and installation can be focussed upon by likes of PFKG etc establishing communication channels among stakeholders by fostering collaboration among them.

Rebecca Rees

I agree with Simon and PFKG that the built environment sector does need to adapt and look at buildings as systems 鈥� particularly in relation to passive fire protection.

But isn鈥檛 it more than incoming legislation and regulation? We already have Regulation 7 of the 黑洞社区 Regulations that obliges the project team to use 鈥渁dequate and proper materials, that are appropriate for the circumstances, installed to perform the functions for which they are designed in a workmanlike manner鈥�.

If the whole team (from the client to the specialist trades) adopt a new 鈥渟ystems-based鈥� approach to how they view a building then that would transform the current, siloed, approach: it would encourage communication between the professions, the re-professionalisation of the client and the early engagement of the specialist supply-chain members.

It would also change the method of procurement: clients would see it as completely undesirable to structure a design and construction process that is carved up into a series of binary works packages: this blinkers each profession to the outcomes and performance of the design. Conversely, a systems-based approach facilitates a holistic, whole team approach to the required performance of both the individual components and the use of those components in the building as a whole.

Legislation is not going to achieve a systems-based approach. A code of practice (which breaks down traditional communication flows, is underpinned by collaborative procurement principles and allows all project team members to understand the part they need to play in the overall project) is likely to be much more effective in achieving safe and quality outcomes.

It is great that passive fire systems so starkly show the benefit of systems-based thinking, but really it is something that should develop to define the sector as a whole.

Andrew Melllor

• It is often difficult to obtain the appropriate fire test evidence from manufacturers.
• Due to test methods and the manufacturers鈥� reluctance to test all permutations, available test evidence may not match the proposed construction.
• Smaller design practices may not have the expertise/resource available to assess test certification properly.
• Many contractors do not have the expertise to a) check certification or b) verify that design proposals have included all that is required.
• BS476 is proposed to be replaced in ADB. This will result in some products not having the required test certificates until the test houses and manufacturers catch up.
• The contractors do at times change specified items due to lack of availability, costs, ignorance as to the importance of the specification being maintained etc.