Re: Setting Off Alarms During Compliance Inspections?
To clarify, I'm not referring to quality control of the fire alarm contractors. That would be impossible for us to accomplish. Our staff is very familiar with the required testing and how to review the reports for completeness. We are diligent in reviewing these reports, and cite it as a violation if they are not on site when we perform the inspection. We also require documentation of repairs when deficiencies are found. I'm only talking about setting off the fire alarm long enough for the signal to go through, then waiting for a call from our dispatchers to verify the monitoring agency performed appropriately. Neither the IFC nor 72 speak to the issue of testing the monitoring agency as a matter of routine, at least not that I can find.
We are discussing starting this procedure because that's how some did it in a previous jurisdiction. If we set aside the business disruption and the fact that the we're going to piss off every business by starting this after decades of not doing it, I still see more cons than pros.
Cons: Adding to complacency from yet another false alarm, scheduling inspections (after hours requests will become commonplace), extra time spent on each inspection (Guestimate: 1,000 alarm panels per year if we start this procedure times 10 minutes minimum per alarm), liability if we cause a problem (or, if we make the RP perform the actions, we would ALWAYS need them present during inspections - a real problem with some occupancies), physical building changes that must be dealt with (fire doors, smoke control sytems, etc).
Pros: We verify that the monitoring agency receives the signal and calls the FD instead of the RP. I see a few problems with the logic in this. First, there is no guarantee that identifying and fixing a problem from one test means you've solved the problem permanently (we're only in there once a year maximum, and we're likely dealing with different monitoring agency personnel for each alarm). Second, I don't see how we can cite and RP for the actions of the monitoring agency even if we identify a problem. Third, if semi-annual and annual testing wasn't enough to verify system operation, I think the IFC and 72 would require more.
I'm still torn. I wonder what percentage of systems we'd find with monitoring agencies not contacting our dispatch? I'm guessing it would be pretty low based on the number of false alarm calls we already run! :lol: