Incorrectly, or non-installed, passive fire protection is often described as a building’s “hidden” risk. A hidden risk that doesn’t always present itself visually to building users, occupiers, and owners.
Indicators of these issues often only present themselves at the fire risk assessment stage, and even then, it is habitually the case that a more extensive compartmentation inspection or fire door inspection becomes necessary to fully understand the extent of the problem.
Dangers of a Building’s “Hidden” Risk
To an untrained eye, a fire door does not readily show the risk it presents, and a riser cupboard can have poorly protected pipe/cable penetrations hidden from public view - these need to be expertly searched for to realize the in-situ dangers.
The solutions are less obvious too. Other than when a fire door is fully replaced, the extent of work undertaken is not as obvious as shiny new signage or a bright red fire extinguisher.
Need for passive firework management
First accreditations started in the early 2000s and have developed into current schemes such as LPCB, Firas, and BM Trada
Often, when a client finds the need for passive fireworks, the common observations tend to be; “this is a new thing”, “we have never had this issue before”, and “the building is years old, how can this be an issue?”!
Too frequently, these are the standard reactionary responses to long-standing construction or building management failures. If not, the problems clients face would have been surely been sought years previously…wouldn’t they? Contrary to this opinion, the first accreditations started back in the early 2000s and have developed into current, well-established schemes such as LPCB, Firas, and BM Trada.
Raising the Bar in Building Safety
Largely, it has taken the industry as a whole, rather than legislation alone, through an array of assessors, surveyors, installers, accreditation bodies, and trade associations, to drive awareness and key improvements to the fire safety of our built environment.
Although users would think industry awareness is at an all-time high with all this activity, unfortunately, it has taken devastating high-profile fires to accelerate legislative change and focus on passive fire protection. Time and time again, users see reactivity, instead of proactivity.
Fire safety awareness
Through undertaking CPD seminars to raise the awareness of fire doors and fire-stopping
Industry awareness is talked about and considered at every level, but really, is it? Through undertaking CPD seminars to raise the awareness of fire doors and fire-stopping, feedback sometimes shows there is a sense of client frustration.
Attendees leave courses better informed, but often say it is the board of directors who need to be on the course, not just those attending. This is because to make a difference, they now face climbing the almost-impossible budgetary approval mountain.
Protecting Buildings Starts in the Board Room
Do the board rooms of private businesses, the civil servants, finance directors, procurers, CEOs, decision, and policymakers, really know how important getting passive fire protection is for their business? Does the M&E business completing PPM or reactive works understand the risks of not fire-stopping the pipe or cable they have just put through the compartment line?
Do corporates know the irreparable damage a fire could do to the finances of their business not to mention the potential loss of life when a total loss occurs?
PFP works
It would be unfair to suggest that all organizations follow this pattern some stand out from the crowd, firmly placing PFP works as a priority within their overall fire strategy.
Over the years, many clients who are very active in undertaking wholesale improvement projects over a long period. Social housing, student accommodation, and the NHS are good examples of sectors where investment in PFP has steadily increased over the last few years.
Some of the likely reasons why corrective action is not always forthcoming in occupied buildings;
- Education is the obvious one - not knowing the risks posed in the first place, and therefore unknowingly not acting upon early indicators of issues.
- Understanding the role of the fire risk assessment; taking issues found as literal, rather than systemic within a building – for instance where there are passive fire defects found on 4 fire doors in an FRA, the client instructs for the 4 doors to be rectified to satisfy the FRA. However, an FRA is only a snapshot report, and there may be another 100 doors in a similar condition within the building.
- Obligations: Often contractual obligations of a building management company may only extend to “surveying” or “checking” fire doors at a prescribed frequency, such as inspecting the same fire door every 6 months, simply adding to the list of issues without actual rectification
- Qualification– better than ever numbers of third-party accredited companies, with variable weightings shifting between price and quality.
Breaking the budget taboo
Priorities in budgets are different through stakeholder levels leading to decisions that are simply not made
Whichever way the news arrives, a not-so-popular decision needs to be made. The “hot-topic” is not agreement that there is an irreparable “problem”; when assessed by a third-party accredited supplier, correctly in line with the building use, construction, and fire strategy it is rarely the case that a solution cannot be found.
It is also rarely the case that the problem is simply ignored; frequently, it tends to be that the improvements cannot be afforded, or priorities in budgets are different through stakeholder levels within organizations, leading to decisions that are simply not made.
Embracing fire safety
Fire is still a sensitive topic. While some organizations embrace change openly, disclosing the need to spend more to improve, for many, the idea of a sudden unquantifiable change in the budget is difficult to understand, and admission of any fire safety failing may not be palatable to share in the public domain.
When faced with a significant rectification cost, decision-making can take years. Contractors in some instances reviewing aged surveys point to “kicking the can down the road”, or the potential lack of leadership and action.
Approach for PFP budget
Fire risk assessors and contractors allow for pragmatic approaches to budgets, prioritizing higher risk concerns
Should the PFP contractor be helping in this prioritization embracing a consultative approach, and taking the view that delivering some work is better for building safety than no action at all?
Whilst all areas of defective passive fire protection create a risk to lives and buildings, working closely with building engineers, fire risk assessors and contractors allows for pragmatic approaches to budgets, prioritizing higher risk concerns, and reducing the impact of the budget by setting in motion remediation plans over time.
Fire Safety Bill changes
Emerging changes from the Fire Safety Bill, through the elevated understanding of the responsible person and the introduction of building safety managers, should remove budget from being a “hot” topic to becoming “the” topic.
It is time to embrace the challenge of passive fire protection as an investment opportunity, protecting a building’s life cycle, off-setting rising insurance costs, and treating PFP as another essential part of a building's critical PPMs. Until recent pandemic times, a fire could be the single most impactful and devastating event to occur to lives and a business.