• 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.

Liability when "taking over" someone elses system and/or vice versa

J

JosephWilcox

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6
Recently a major competitor of ours in the area has made an issue of a certain system we have installed. The system installed is a proprietary system however, we are certified in these panels and they are our main source of business for the company. The other company also installs and services these panels. Yesterday it was brought to my companies attention that the competitor was attempting to take over the system that we just recently installed. As much as it disappoints me to see lost business I feel there isn't much we can really do about it. However, the owner of my company feels that it is a code issue and that the other company should not be allowed to do this. The owner of my company went on to site a section from the NFPA 72 handbook in chapter 23 referring to Software and Firmware Control. After reading these couple pages my opinion is that this is more or less trying to focus on companies that work on one proprietary piece of software from working on another, like someone from Simplex working on a Siemens panel.

I can't seem to find a place in the handbook or anywhere else that states basically that as long as you are certified in working with the specific equipment or competent in one way or another that it is what it is. The owner of my company seems to think that he is the one to be held liable is someone were to come in and take our system over. Once again, the way in read the code book is that if work is done to a panel a NFPA 72 completion form would be filled out siting the date and site specific software revisions. If there isn't a completion form in the panel from your company that matches the panels revision levels then I don't see how you could be held liable. Furthermore, if there is a copy in the panel from another company with accurate dates and revision levels, I don't see how they wouldn't be held liable moving further.

I'm sure someone out there has come across this issue. Let me know what you think. Thanks
 
Your perception is correct... the code won't regulate the people who can be certified or factory trained to work on equipment. This isn't any different than a carrier HVAC system. The code required compent people to work on it, but it doesn't matter if Joe's AC or Bob's Heating and Air Works on it or installs it. The only thing code people are going to be worried about is who certifies the install and provides the documentation?
 
Welcome and please come back

On a inspector side

With the bosses thinking, your company would be the only one that could ever work on that system

Also, as you say if the other company is certified and has the computer program, they should be able to work on it

Also, this applies to any brand of fire alarm

Also, following the boss, your company could not work on another panel someone else installed

Finally, yes your company could be held liable no matter what. If something goes wrong, they will come after anyone that ever touched the system
 
I guess I understand being able to be held liable at anytime but once someone else touches that system I would imagine that they "own" any of the programming within that system. One revision higher than a previous is all it takes to make massive changes with any of these programs. The code book says something about password protecting the system which I can understand. If the only thing standing between you and being able/capable of taking over a system is a password then so be it. My opinion is that once a customer purchases a system, its their decision if they want to have vendor A or B maintain the system. If this means giving a password to a competitor I don't see how you can say "no, I'm not giving you the password."

Do either of you know a place in the code book it specifically states anything else that would support my opinion or interpretations?
 
you might look at 10.4, 10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3 and the appendix that goes with those sections

does a fire alarm company have to be certified, registered or what ever in your state??? and if so d oes the state say anything about what you are asking?????
 
As far as a company being certified I don't think we have any state regulations. I believe we just follow the NFPA 72 guidelines when it comes to designing systems, inspecting, maintaining and installing. When it comes to the specific software and panels being installed the majority of them have some type of factory training that is required or someone that is factory trained has to oversee the programming after its completed.
 
I would suggest your company document the changeover and keep records of the last configuration of the system.
 
Documenting a known take over is a possibility but what happens when a competitor comes in and works with the system and we aren't aware? It seems like all to often a system will be installed and then whether a service contract isn't taken or they don't want it, contact is lost with the customer for a year or 2 or more. If something happens in between there then what? We keep all of our NFPA 72 completion forms on file and there is always one on site.

The section of code that the owner of my company seems fixated on is 23.2.2.2 "All software and firmware shall be protected from unauthorized changes"

My question is what constitutes "authorization?" Is it my company authorizing another company to do work on our system? Obviously we wouldn't want to give permission and won't at all costs but what happens when the customer doesn't want our services anymore? Do they own the programming and the program that we have installed in their facility? Is authorization allowed to come from the AHJ or the customer themselves? NFPA 72 doesn't really spell all of these things out, just kind of gives some general guidelines and keeps most things nice and gray.
 
Sorry but

The owner of the fire alarm system owns everything!! And can give permission for whatever fire alarm company to work on it.

Kind of says who can do what in A.23.2.2.2. 2010 edition
 
JosephWilcox said:
The section of code that the owner of my company seems fixated on is 23.2.2.2 "All software and firmware shall be protected from unauthorized changes"
Click to expand...
I interpret this to mean that no parties- whether it be the property owner or the alarm system vendor/installer may not make any changes (without authorization from the AHJ) that will affect the proper function of the system. not change of ownership or change of vendors who tend to the system.

As a Fire Marshal and BCO, I dont give a cr%p who maintains the system, as long as it functions properly and is monitored as required. If two vendors want to go at it over ownership rights, thats between them and I am not getting involved- and when I do it will be to serve the property owner with an order to correct violations or vacate the premises.
 
The owner is responsible for compliance to the code. As stated above the AHJ is only concerned about the state of the system.
 
TJacobs said:
I would suggest your company document the changeover and keep records of the last configuration of the system.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that the company include a service agreement in their bid.
 
Mark K said:
The owner is responsible for compliance to the code. As stated above the AHJ is only concerned about the state of the system.
Click to expand...
Greetings,

That would work here in Tx as well. I had a similar conversation with our city atty awhile back.

I'm surprised that the state doesn't have any regs on this. These guys are covered pretty well in Tx for alrams and so forth. What I saw recently is that another contractor would not even work on anothers proprietary system. The end result is that the proprietary system is coming out. The plans are on my desk right now. Go figure. I expect that the installer of the new system doen't want the liability.

BS
 
I forgot about this post and I came back and there was all kinds of info haha..

Regardless it sounds like I was on the right path and the owner of my company is just being a little ridiculous. We have never come across a situation where things got very heated. Occasionally you do come across other companies that sell our proprietary stuff and are capable of making program changes. In this scenario we have been told we had to give them our program or password. This is always a tough one to swallow but I believe that if a company is doing what it's supposed to then it wouldn't have to deal with a customer going else where.

The one thing that has been brought up is horror stories of scenarios like this happening and then down the road having a fire or some type of issue in the building. After the fire apparently the attorneys came back and held everyone who had touched the system liable in some way or another. Seems a little crooked that you can be held responsible for a program that someone else had since taken ownership of. Maybe some type of document needs to be signed by the competitor stating that they take all responsibilities from that point on?
 
Good luck with that one

Not sure if somehow in the program it is recorded when and somewhat who enters the program and either works on it or changes it, like on some software ????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top