Passive Fire Protection "PFP" is fast becoming a kicked hornets’ nest with significant issues arising in new construction and serious impacts on existing buildings.

When did all these new PFP regulations come in, you ask?

Documented regulations surrounding PFP have been part of the NZ Building Code since 1991 (though also earlier) and recent changes to the Building Act 2012 have only reinforced them further in terms of Fire and Smoke separations being required to be signed off annually by an Independent Qualified Person (IQP.)

The latest amendment to section 14 of the Building Act makes all parties accountable for the building (Owners, Designers, Builders, Regulatory Authorities and Suppliers). The first stages of accountability have already begun and are propagating with vigour. We are currently involved in several litigation processes surrounding incorrect PFP. These will prove to be very expensive to rectify.

So why has majority of New Zealand building industry been installing PFP incorrectly for so long? The main issue is lack of correct understanding and knowledge of PFP systems. PFP has never been correctly taught in any of our building trade sectors.

The omission of precise information from designers and engineers has contributed to the confusion, where the industry believed this area was being performed by others, therefore overlooked and then left up to the trades to decide.

Many builders and sub-trades have sincerely believed, because they are using a recognised brand of product, from a reputable merchant, they have installed correct PFP systems. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth, and many companies have signed Producer Statements binding them to this. A single manufacturers’ products will not provide all compliant systems to correctly deal with the various PFP requirements on a building. This is due to limitations surrounding FRR, construction methods, substrates, size, service types, quantity of services, orientation and the big issue, smoke leakage.

We conduct audits on a regular basis, to help builders and building owners achieve their compliance obligations, and in all cases we have found varying levels of incorrect systems and installation methods been used.

Everyone involved needs to understand that lack of knowledge is not accepted as an excuse, and will not remove you from your accountability. We understand that in legal case the main contractor will be held accountable for their sub-contractors' work and would then seek recompense from the sub-contractors.

HOW DO WE GET IT RIGHT?

Let’s start with Design: If we can get a clear and precise design that communicates the correct information in the specification, you will have a sound beginning to building a safe and compliant building. PFP is not simply squirting some gunk or foam around services passing through fire separations and requires a realistic budget allocation. We are now working with a number of proactive clients, nationally, along with their design teams to help them provide correct information to produce a compliant end product and keep cost down associated to non-compliance. Unless the design stage has enough correct detail, you will end up with a myriad of issues and significant costs to rectify them.

Construction: Sub-trades may perform their respective fire sealing as requested in the tender documents, though most have installed price-driven products that are either not tested or not fit for purpose, and also install them incorrectly. This may sound harsh, but it’s an unfortunate reality.

There are specialist contractors who provide PFP installation services, however again, beware of those who only use a single brand of products, as they are very likely to install these outside the system's tested parameters and limitations. Engage a company that can provide you with trained installer certificates from multiple manufacturers.

If your company is considering performing fire stopping of service penetrations in-house, or you wish your sub-trades to continue providing PFP, then make sure you fully understand the systems being used in their entirety and the relevance of associated accountability. Education surrounding the fundamentals of PFP and regulatory/legal requirements is the best starting place. From there, you can ascertain whether you wish to proceed to the next levels of installer training, or chose to abstain from it.

Owners and Main Contractors: Keeping your PFP on track: This will require an experienced, independent company to check and inspect these systems being installed are correct and also installed as per the manufacturers' specifications. If you only rely on the contractor's PS3 you are likely to be caught out, either by the Building inspectors on the project or when the annual inspection of "Fire Separations" is undertaken by the IQP for the next due BWOF. Remedial cost to correct will likely be ten-fold of what it would have cost if planned and performed correctly during construction.

This now brings me back to the area of Litigation: Unfortunately for those trades responsible, this should not be taken lightly, as with any potential legal proceedings, they be will be very costly.

Education from NZQA qualification in Passive Fire Protection, aimed at inspectors, along with the associated training of many councils and IQPs is increasing the knowledge. We have some 20 plus years’ of commercial building stocks that are emerging with PFP issues. Mostly from BWOF and insurance inspections, though some from consented works associated to the building. As confirmed by an Auckland lawyer in a recent article and In conjunction with some leaky building claims there are also some claims regarding incorrectly installed Passive Fire Protection. The results are these claims will set the way forward for other claims and we are sure the recovery of costs may be far-reaching. IQPs are becoming more aware of the risks of signing a Form 12A for Fire and Smoke separations and they are signing a legal declaration under the Building Act.

“If you perform Passive Fire Protection by half, it will come back and burn you”.

Frank Wiseman

Fire Group Consulting Ltd