Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report for Information

1) Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Panel about the cost of servicing new fire sprinkler systems and to consider risk assessed options for managing such installations.

2) Contextual Issues

2.1 At the Panel meeting in July 2008, Members asked for further information about the costs of servicing and maintaining sprinkler installations and for consideration to be given to risk based approach to future servicing.

2.2 In 2004 the County Council introduced a policy for the inclusion of sprinkler systems in buildings.

2.3 To date there have been 22 new systems installed, 12 in Adult Services properties, eight in schools and education centres and two in Discovery Centres.

2.4 Each system needs regular maintenance on a quarterly, six monthly and annual basis. Depending on the design of the system this will include:

· An inspection of the system including pipe work, sprinkler heads, pumps and associated equipment

· The water supply and associated alarms

· Electrical supplies to the system including any batteries used to start diesel powered pumps

· Flow switches

· Alarm valves

· Automatic pump flow test

· Float valves and storage tank inspection

· Link to Fire Service/remote monitoring station.

2.6 The British Standard relating to the design and installation of sprinkler systems has been used to set the standards for the maintenance regime which has been incorporated into the term engineering contract and is undertaken by specialist subcontractors working for the term contractors.

2.7 In addition to the maintenance works each system requires a weekly operational check to be undertaken to comply with best practice set down in the British Standard. The weekly checks include:-

· Record pressure gauge readings

· Water motor alarm

· Automatic pump start

· Diesel pump automatic start

· Battery Level.

2.8 This type of operational check would normally be undertaken by the Unit Manager/Caretaker/Site Manager in the same way as, for example, the weekly fire alarm checks or emergency lighting checks are currently carried out.

2.9 At the present time the weekly operational checks are being carried out by the term contractor as most sites feel they do not have staff with sufficient technical training to do the checks themselves.

2 Costs

3.1 The annual cost for the weekly checking, servicing and repair of sprinkler systems across the County Council is £123,000, broken down as follows:

1. Weekly testing - £66,000

2. Annual servicing - £31,500

3. Repairs - £25,500

3.2 This cost is a year on year commitment which falls on the Policy and Resources revenue maintenance budget.

3 Option Analysis/Comparison

3.1 Continue with the current arrangements and absorb the cost into the term contracts.

This is possible and will ensure the checks are carried out by competent staff, but this course of action will continue to increase pressure on the budgets.

3.2 Discontinue the weekly operational checks by the term contractor.

Possible, but not advisable as it moves away from recognised best practice set down in the British Standard and could compromise the operation of the system in an activation.

3.3 Extend the weekly checks to monthly intervals

This could provide a sensible compromise, but would move away from the British Standard. If this regime were to be adopted it must first be tested to ensure the operation of the system is not compromised by extending the period between checks. The work would be undertaken by the term contractors.

3.4 Undertake the checks using Property Services staff

This option could be employed for either the current weekly or the alternative monthly regime. It would necessitate staff being trained to undertake the checks and would necessarily involve training at least two members of staff to cover for absences. It is not envisaged that the staff involved would spend all of their time carrying out the checks, but that their workload would be re-aligned and the sprinkler work could be incorporated into their normal duties. Weekly testing using in house staff would represent a potential saving of £20,000 per annum and monthly testing using in house staff would represent a potential saving of £55,000 per annum.

4 Proposals

4.1 To assess the viability of moving from weekly to monthly checks it is proposed that a pilot scheme is run to monitor and compare similar systems using different checking regimes. This would involve changing the weekly to a monthly checking regime for two systems and comparing a number of key events to determine if the extended time regime has a detrimental effect on the system operation. The key events measured would include:-

· Cost of repairs

· Cost of regular servicing

· Overall time taken for checking, servicing and repairs

· Time out of operation

The trial would be run over a period of three months initially, but could be extended to six months should this prove necessary.

5 Conclusions

6.1 To ensure compliance with recognised best practice set down by the British Standard, weekly sprinkler checking should continue as part of the term maintenance contract. However, to assess the viability of undertaking monthly checks arrangements are being made to undertake a pilot for two systems. The results will be reported back in Spring 2009 with a view to a recommendation being made about moving to a risk based approach for monthly as opposed to weekly operational checks.