I am the property manager of a multi-unit commercial plaza in Massachusetts and not a fire professional. I am currently having a dispute with a tenant. Upon completion of a NFPA 25 inspection many deficiencies were found within one unit which is a restaurant. These include mixing standard response and quick response heads in the same compartment, sprinkler heads that are 4 feet apart when the minimum is 6 feet, a closet and 3 walk in coolers missing sprinkler coverage, sprinkler heads that don’t extend far enough below the ceiling, painted and corroded sprinkler heads and finally missing escutcheons. My tenant has had their own inspection done which only revealed 8 corroded sprinkler heads. Although I am sure that corroded heads are a violation, I’m not sure why the other deficiencies were missed from my tenant's inspection and what really is required by our municipality. I am hesitant to get the fire marshal involved. I, of course, want the premises to be safe but I also don’t want to place a heavy financial burden upon my tenant if these are not required to be fixed. I would really appreciate another professional opinion. Thanks in advance for your help.
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Help with a tenant's deficiencies
- Thread starter PropMgr
- Start date
Coug Dad
Platinum Member
Welcome to the board. Most of the items listed seem like legit issues.
Prop
welcome welcome welcome
how did you find us??
""""These include mixing standard response and quick response heads in the same compartment, sprinkler heads that are 4 feet apart when the minimum is 6 feet, a closet and 3 walk in coolers missing sprinkler coverage, sprinkler heads that don’t extend far enough below the ceiling, painted and corroded sprinkler heads and finally missing escutcheons"""""""
these sound like valid violations.
when there is a sprinkler inspection done by different companies, it is hard to say who is correct
what you can do is find a fire sprinkler company you trust or recommended to you and give them both inspections and have them walk the space with you pointing out the violations noted, or finding out that they are not violations.
How long has the tenant been in the space???
does it look remodeled since they originaly moved in??
do you know if the fire department does an annual inspection of the place???
but iw ould say the company the found the most violations is more than likely correct on most of them
welcome welcome welcome
how did you find us??
""""These include mixing standard response and quick response heads in the same compartment, sprinkler heads that are 4 feet apart when the minimum is 6 feet, a closet and 3 walk in coolers missing sprinkler coverage, sprinkler heads that don’t extend far enough below the ceiling, painted and corroded sprinkler heads and finally missing escutcheons"""""""
these sound like valid violations.
when there is a sprinkler inspection done by different companies, it is hard to say who is correct
what you can do is find a fire sprinkler company you trust or recommended to you and give them both inspections and have them walk the space with you pointing out the violations noted, or finding out that they are not violations.
How long has the tenant been in the space???
does it look remodeled since they originaly moved in??
do you know if the fire department does an annual inspection of the place???
but iw ould say the company the found the most violations is more than likely correct on most of them
If replacing a few sprinkler heads is a financial burden, I am sure that you can renegotiate the tenant's lease to cover the expense. Then you can sleep better knowing that you didn't put personal financial gain ahead of the safety of the public.PropMgr said:
Coug Dad: Thanks for the warm welcome. Which don't sound like legit issues?
cda: Thank you too for the warm welcome. I stumbled upon this site doing a general search and found the members here very knowledgeable.
So that's my quandary, who do I believe is correct? The tenant has been there for over 20 years and they have remodeled a few times. The FD and building inspector does an annual inspection for their occupancy permit but I'm guessing that not everything gets noticed.
brudgers: Unfortunately it's more than a few sprinkler heads that is causing this dilemma.
Big Mac: We are required to do annual water flow tests and the FD and building department does an annual inspection for the tenant to get their certificate of occupancy. As I stated above, I guess not everything is noticed.
cda: Thank you too for the warm welcome. I stumbled upon this site doing a general search and found the members here very knowledgeable.
So that's my quandary, who do I believe is correct? The tenant has been there for over 20 years and they have remodeled a few times. The FD and building inspector does an annual inspection for their occupancy permit but I'm guessing that not everything gets noticed.
brudgers: Unfortunately it's more than a few sprinkler heads that is causing this dilemma.
Big Mac: We are required to do annual water flow tests and the FD and building department does an annual inspection for the tenant to get their certificate of occupancy. As I stated above, I guess not everything is noticed.
permitguy
REGISTERED
Welcome!
If the whole complex is on the same system, it is rarely only one tenant having such problems (my experience). The escutcheon's are generally of no consequence unless the ceiling is part of a fire-resistive assembly (rare in a strip mall). The other concerns are very legitimate and sound like they should have been caught long ago. It seems someone was too worried about maintaining the service contract to bring up problems that would be expensive to fix. Now that an ethical contractor is involved, the story is changing.
Better late than never, I always say.
If the whole complex is on the same system, it is rarely only one tenant having such problems (my experience). The escutcheon's are generally of no consequence unless the ceiling is part of a fire-resistive assembly (rare in a strip mall). The other concerns are very legitimate and sound like they should have been caught long ago. It seems someone was too worried about maintaining the service contract to bring up problems that would be expensive to fix. Now that an ethical contractor is involved, the story is changing.
Better late than never, I always say.
Just wonderedPropMgr said:
Normaly the owner is responsible for having the system inspected, and each tenant is responsible if they do something to throw the coverage off, but Normaly the inspection should cover every tenant, and they should be walking the entire sprinkler system looking for any problems
Like I said get a fire sprinkler company that you trust, give them the two inspection reports and walk with them.
They can show you if there is a violation or not
You should be getting any inspection reports concerning life and safety from all of your tenants. That way you can protect your investment and your other tenants investments. It is not unusual for tenants to lie about have inspections done. And, if you pay for the inspections, you can hire contractors you are comfortable working with. Not all contractors are equal in knowledge and workmanship.
My comment was not meant to impune any one. It was meant as more of a question to point out that these items probably did not occur within a one year cycle. if annual confidence tests and inspections had been done on an annual basis by a qualified company then the repair would alos have been incremental. Since there appears to be a possiblity that either the certification company or the tenant were not forth commming about the annual inspections, they now face a larger repair bill all at once. This is the old story of pay me now or pay me later. It's usually more expensive later. That does not however mean you can continue to ignore something to which you are now aware. If you do and there is a fire, the insurance companies will have a field day. Guess who is going to be left holding the bag.
Builder Bob
SAWHORSE
PropMgr.... It may be wise to dictate to the tenants which sprinkler company will perform the inspections. That way, Bill the bar owner who is good friends with Sam the sprinkler guy, don't have an opportunity to save a buck which may cost you a fortune IF a situation occurs.
(No offense meant to people names Sam or Bill - just used for examples)
Also - Fire Marshals, Building Departments, etc. often rely upon the experts (certified individuals/companies) who perform the annual inspections. If our plate is full (Our office lost 2/3 of its inspectors this last year), we may not spot check the locations as close as was possible before the economic downturn.
Also, Legal Issues may arise when a Fire Marshal Challenges an "Expert's" opinion such as a sprinkler inspection report - It really depends on the political environment as to how far a government employee is able to challenge an expert.
(No offense meant to people names Sam or Bill - just used for examples)
Also - Fire Marshals, Building Departments, etc. often rely upon the experts (certified individuals/companies) who perform the annual inspections. If our plate is full (Our office lost 2/3 of its inspectors this last year), we may not spot check the locations as close as was possible before the economic downturn.
Also, Legal Issues may arise when a Fire Marshal Challenges an "Expert's" opinion such as a sprinkler inspection report - It really depends on the political environment as to how far a government employee is able to challenge an expert.
Insurance Engineer
REGISTERED
Prop Mgn,
Welcome to the board. I will approach this from an insurance company point of view since it is my background. You may want to call your insurance company and ask them what they think. They may have a “loss control” department and may help by giving you feedback on what should be corrected, and what is nice to do. I will do this below based on what you noted.
Here is my take on what you listed.
These include mixing standard response and quick response heads in the same compartment.
Comment: If they are separated by a wall this may not be a problem. A partition extending 2-3’down from the ceiling may also work. Nice to do if you have what I noted on the separation, if not, they should be changed out.
sprinkler heads that are 4 feet apart when the minimum is 6 feet,
Comment: How many heads? What is the occupancy in this area?
Nice to do.
a closet and 3 walk in coolers missing sprinkler coverage,
Comment: Unsprinklered areas are the biggest concern, since no water will be going onto the fire, worse than the stuff listed above. Should be corrected
sprinkler heads that don’t extend far enough below the ceiling,
Comment: Need more detail, do you they mean the sprinkler deflector is not below the ceiling? If it is a suspended ceiling the wires that hold up the ceiling can stretch and result in the ceiling dipping below the sprinkler deflector. If this is true then the sprinkler pattern will be affected and may not put enough water onto the fire.
painted and corroded sprinkler heads and finally missing escutcheons.
Comment: Painted heads CAN be a big problem IF the fusible link, the thing that gets hot, melts and/or the cap, the thing that holds the water from coming out, are painted, they can prevent the head from operating and should be replaced. Corroded heads should be replaced since they may not operate.
Escutcheons missing, could be a problem if the space above the sprinklers is great and can let heat flow by and not activate the sprinkler. Nice to do.
Welcome to the board. I will approach this from an insurance company point of view since it is my background. You may want to call your insurance company and ask them what they think. They may have a “loss control” department and may help by giving you feedback on what should be corrected, and what is nice to do. I will do this below based on what you noted.
Here is my take on what you listed.
These include mixing standard response and quick response heads in the same compartment.
Comment: If they are separated by a wall this may not be a problem. A partition extending 2-3’down from the ceiling may also work. Nice to do if you have what I noted on the separation, if not, they should be changed out.
sprinkler heads that are 4 feet apart when the minimum is 6 feet,
Comment: How many heads? What is the occupancy in this area?
Nice to do.
a closet and 3 walk in coolers missing sprinkler coverage,
Comment: Unsprinklered areas are the biggest concern, since no water will be going onto the fire, worse than the stuff listed above. Should be corrected
sprinkler heads that don’t extend far enough below the ceiling,
Comment: Need more detail, do you they mean the sprinkler deflector is not below the ceiling? If it is a suspended ceiling the wires that hold up the ceiling can stretch and result in the ceiling dipping below the sprinkler deflector. If this is true then the sprinkler pattern will be affected and may not put enough water onto the fire.
painted and corroded sprinkler heads and finally missing escutcheons.
Comment: Painted heads CAN be a big problem IF the fusible link, the thing that gets hot, melts and/or the cap, the thing that holds the water from coming out, are painted, they can prevent the head from operating and should be replaced. Corroded heads should be replaced since they may not operate.
Escutcheons missing, could be a problem if the space above the sprinklers is great and can let heat flow by and not activate the sprinkler. Nice to do.
TheCommish
SAWHORSE
As building official and fire inspector profession rise with education, like wise as sprinkler contractors become more cognizance with the codes because of the increased education of inspection officials asking more question about report, the sprinkler contractors are cover their bases better (and their derrieres).
A common problem is as the versions of NFPA 13 change (every 3 years), older system do not meet the current version, even if they have met the version in place at the time of insulation. It is assumed in my opinion that if the system was properly installed and maintained the older system is compliant with the addition of NFPA in place at the time of installation.
The next problem as tenant space are changed, altered painted, misused and what was thought to be a simple remodeling with or without a permit and/or properly plane review can get you into a no complaint situations, such as mixed head types.
As suggested, contact your insurance company and see if they have loss prevention to help you out. Or find a 3rd sprinkler contractor to look over the reports and the spaces.
Beware once the possible violations have been identified by the 2 sprinkler contractors and if something goes wrong the issue will mount.
A common problem is as the versions of NFPA 13 change (every 3 years), older system do not meet the current version, even if they have met the version in place at the time of insulation. It is assumed in my opinion that if the system was properly installed and maintained the older system is compliant with the addition of NFPA in place at the time of installation.
The next problem as tenant space are changed, altered painted, misused and what was thought to be a simple remodeling with or without a permit and/or properly plane review can get you into a no complaint situations, such as mixed head types.
As suggested, contact your insurance company and see if they have loss prevention to help you out. Or find a 3rd sprinkler contractor to look over the reports and the spaces.
Beware once the possible violations have been identified by the 2 sprinkler contractors and if something goes wrong the issue will mount.
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
Welcome to the forum!
You have received some good advice. You as building owner are responsible for ALL repairs to a non-compliant system. All those deficiencies cited sound ligit but I would have to see the heads too close to ceiling. Not trying to be a smart $#@ but the owners would be getting a call from my office if it was in my jurisdiction and the report was reviewed by us as required. I'm a bit suprised the local FD has not received or reviewed this particular report.
You have received some good advice. You as building owner are responsible for ALL repairs to a non-compliant system. All those deficiencies cited sound ligit but I would have to see the heads too close to ceiling. Not trying to be a smart $#@ but the owners would be getting a call from my office if it was in my jurisdiction and the report was reviewed by us as required. I'm a bit suprised the local FD has not received or reviewed this particular report.
I think he is trying to find a reputable fire sprinkler company that will do a good inspection, not over look stuff, not just do a windshield inspection , or come up with a list of things not needed just to make an extra dollar
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
Let's not get carried away here. I believe some things may have been taken out of contex so lets not remind me of a song I once knew.....take it to the limit!
PropMgr,
I believe in the area where your managing this property, the code is the same as mine, where as the people you work for are responsible for repairs (unless it is in the lease contract???) therefore based on what I've seen so far....the company citing the deficiencies as described seems to be a ligit company versus the report indicating only eight corroded heads. I would be interested in the root cause of the corrosion also. There is no law or moral objection against contacting the local fire inspection division and seeing what their opinion is. Set up a inspection to verify the report's findings without pointing fingers at any one party.
If I miss things I have no hard feelings that it was caught by someone else...makes me better actually. As a poster mentions, it's better to repair the deficiencies then to remain exposed to the alternative...just saying.
PropMgr,
I believe in the area where your managing this property, the code is the same as mine, where as the people you work for are responsible for repairs (unless it is in the lease contract???) therefore based on what I've seen so far....the company citing the deficiencies as described seems to be a ligit company versus the report indicating only eight corroded heads. I would be interested in the root cause of the corrosion also. There is no law or moral objection against contacting the local fire inspection division and seeing what their opinion is. Set up a inspection to verify the report's findings without pointing fingers at any one party.
If I miss things I have no hard feelings that it was caught by someone else...makes me better actually. As a poster mentions, it's better to repair the deficiencies then to remain exposed to the alternative...just saying.
Hot dogs. The FM should require the owner to buy hot dogs for when the bonfire starts.brudgers said:
If a fire starts in one of the areas in question then the place will be a torch, and the rest of the system will be useless.
I agree with FM Burns comment/query. If the OP is the building owner, looks like he is the party responsible for fire protection systems and overall building issues. Don't see how it is the tenant's job, unless it is just the cooking hood suppression.