The document is available free of charge

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order was thought by many to be a 'consultant’s charter'; legislation that will allow fire safety professionals to undertake assignments, charging extravagant fees, on behalf of willing 'Responsible Persons'. Some years on, many now realise that this situation is far from reality.

Just over a year ago, I wrote an article entitled The Dangers of Cheap and Cheerful Fire Risk Assessments. This was due to my increasing concern that many Responsible Persons i.e. those who could face fines and/or imprisonment, were simply looking at employing the cheapest possible option to meet fire safety law. Fire risk assessments were and are, in many cases, seen as a commodity with cost being the only determinant in winning the work. Furthermore, I believe that the following holds true in more than a few cases:
 
 

• 'Cheaper' assessors fail to identify the real risks and concentrate on what they know best. Examples include the highlighting of discarded cigarettes at the same place where a kitchen formed part of a 'protected' escape route (which was not picked up) – yes, an actual example!
• The use of ticksheets or scoring systems without any supporting information: Does a tick against 'fire alarm installed?' mean that the system is fit for purpose or even working? What does a score of nine out of 15 mean?
• The belief that the actual undertaking of a risk assessment is sufficient in itself to comply with the law. How many times are reports just filed away without acknowledging and acting on the significant findings?

The article proved to be of interest to many, and the basis of the article was used to promote the cause via other articles following the same line. It is, therefore, obvious that many in the fire protection industry are concerned about the quality of fire risk assessments, especially because they are the cornerstone of current UK fire safety legislation.

A poor assessment is potentially dangerous for any premises but when it comes to larger or more complex premises, the consequences could be disastrous. Furthermore, more complex buildings, in many cases, will incorporate a more complex fire protection strategy; something many solo assessors would not have the knowledge or ability to properly assess. There is a lot more to fire safety and protection of complex buildings than perhaps many realise.

It was because of this that Kingfell published a new Code: KF913 – Fire Risk Assessments for Complex Buildings. This document contains considerations to assess the suitability and effectiveness of fire safety and protection measures for buildings, or other sites, where provisions may not be straightforward or where a more thorough analysis is required. This will mostly be the case for those buildings or sites that can be described as complex based on size, layout complexity, internal processes and occupancy profiles. It also includes considerations for fire risk assessments for buildings that have used a performance based/fire safety engineered approach when determining fire safety and protection.

Typically and within the UK, the primary purpose of the fire risk assessment is to ensure that fire provisions have been or should be applied, commensurate with the life safety risk of the building. Some acknowledgement of other aspects are given in the UK legislation. But in the case of complex buildings, the assessment is an ideal opportunity to look at the wider objectives of life safety, property protection, business continuity and protection of the environment against the impact of a fire. Advice on such considerations is contained within the Code.

Other aspects covered include:

• Recognition of the additional expertise required for assessing complex buildings. It will not be sufficient to simply note the existence of, for example, a fire detection and alarm system but to interrogate further to determine if the system is effective and comprehensive. This also applies also to fire suppression, compartmentation and smoke control.
• Assessment considerations included for performance based/fire safety engineered buildings. An assessor may determine that certain escape routes do not comply with building regulations. But he/she may not be aware that a fire safety engineered solution could have been applied as part of the building fire strategy that shows that all persons can evacuate safely within a given time. Knowledge of Required Safe Egress Time /Available Safe Egress Time (RSET/ASET) parameters would therefore be advantageous.
• Assessments may incorporate the opportunity to consider wider issues than those required by legislation alone. As highlighted above, the assessment could also consider how fire and smoke spread through a building could impact on, for example, asset protection or business continuity.
• Assessments may consider issues such as the 7(2)(d) requirement of the Fire and Rescue Services Act to reduce duplication of effort and thus help fire authorities meet their compliance requirement at less cost.
• Because of the likely resource intensity of such assessments, it is recommended that a full assessment is undertaken every three years with an annual follow up and partial inspection.

The Code includes three tables:

• Guidance on MIP (Mobility Impaired Persons) provisions given in tabular form
• Process flowchart
• Assessment questionnaire for complex buildings

Even though the Code highlights standards such as BS 9999 and BS PAS 79, it can be used internationally as it can stand alone as guidance for any complex building, wherever it may be.

Paul Bryant is ceo of Kingfell plc. KF913 – Fire Risk Assessments for Complex Buildings is available in pdf format free of charge by contacting publications@kingfell.com. Paul Bryant is offering free one-hour workshops on the guidance - you can contact him at paulbryant@kingfell.com.