HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7972 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7972
&pATE
,y,�JkTrt
OORT'1? To the Mayor and Members of the City Council January 9, 1996
Z5,
XA Subject, FIRE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
ran
In response to concerns raised by the construction industry in the spring of 1995, the Fire
Department initiated a comprehensive study of the process used by the Bureau of Fire
Prevention to review plans for fire protection system installations. The attached report
describes the history of the plan review process, the initiation and findings of the study,
and recommends a method for performing the plan review function in a manner that will
satisfy the needs of our customers. Our customers in this case can be classified in two
general groups: 1) developers and contractors, who expect their fire protection system
plans to be reviewed in a timely and consistent manner, and 2) the citizens of Fort Worth,
who expect the Fire Department to ensure that an adequate level of fire protection is
provided in buildings under the City's jurisdiction.
The attached proposal is submitted for your consideration. If agreement is reached in
regard to the proposed concept, we request your direction as to the rate of cost recovery
and the methodology to accomplish that. The Safety and Community Development
Committee considered this proposal at their December 14, 1995 meeting. The
Committee voted to forward the proposal to the full City Council without a
recommendation from the Committee.
If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or Assistant
City Manager Libby Watson.
�`� Bob Te/rrrel
City Manager
Attachment
Ij
aff
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH,TEXAS-..
0011p*
FIRE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
HISTORY:
In 1985, the City of Fort Worth recognized fire sprinkler systems as a superior means of controlling
fires in buildings. As an incentive to owners, builders and developers, other construction related code
requirements were reduced substantially when a building was equipped with a fire sprinkler system.
This effort successfully made such systems more cost effective, resulting in lower total construction
costs and an enhancement in the safety level for the public and firefighters.
A natural outgrowth of this decision was a need to closely monitor the design and installation of the
systems. This need was met by organizing a technical inspection section within the Bureau of Fire
Prevention to perform plan reviews and acceptance testing of the fire protection systems. The hiring
of one additional Fire Protection Engineer was approved for this review process. Funding of this
additional position was provided by requiring Installation Certificates for each new system, with the
accompanying fees based upon the size and type of system. This fee program was implemented in
1986, and an additional Fire Protection Engineer was hired at that time.
In 1990, the determination was made that the revenue from the Inspection Certificates was inadequate
to recover the portion of our cost deemed appropriate by Council, resulting in a substantial fee
increase. At the same time, a hiring freeze was in effect due to budget difficulties. During this freeze,
one Fire Protection Engineer resigned, placing all of the responsibilities on the remaining Engineer.
The second Fire Protection Engineer position was subsequently deleted from the Fire Department
budget. Because development was essentially stagnant at the time, this was a tolerable situation*,
however, as we all realize, development has increased dramatically over the last few years, causing
a substantial increase in the workload. This increased workload, along with a downsin d-4aff. has
created an untenable situation for the File Prevention Bureau, we can no longer provid
level of service to our customers.
C1TY SIVURARY
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: FIT. wORT
The Fire Department cannot meet the plan review needs of our customers with current staffing levels.
Our customers need prompt, competent review of their fire protection system plans. Due to the
increasing workload, we have been unable to meet their expectations. Our inability to meet those
expectations resulted in a meeting between several contractors, the Mayor, and members of the City's
management team. The outgrowth of that meeting was the formation of a Focus Group comprised
of Fire Department staff, fire protection contractors' representatives, a representative of the
architectural community and a representative from the Building Owners and Managers Association,
The focus group discussed many issues regarding the fire department's process, including plan review,
rr— inspections, and final acceptance testing. Most of the displeasure expressed by the contractors
centered on the plan review process. The proposal contained herein is an outgrowth of the evaluation
and ensuing discussions of the Focus Group.
Page 2
OBJECTIVES
The solution to the current problems should meet the following objectives:
1. Consistency: The plan review process should assure that all plans are reviewed to criteria
that ensure the system will provide the level of protection prescribed by ordinances adopted
by Council. Once these criteria are established, all contractors should have access to
checklists, policies, etc. to aid them in their preparation of drawings and submittals that can
be reviewed and approved without inordinate delays.
2. Timeliness: Plans should be reviewed and returned to the contractor in a timely manner.
Typically, this turnaround time should not exceed 10 working days.
3. Flexibility: The process should adapt to the wide swings in workload we have experienced
recently. If development activity increases significantly, the process should be able to meet
the defined goals of timeliness and consistency; if activity decreases dramatically, the costs
incurred for this process should decrease accordingly.
4. Cost effective.- The cost of providing this set-vice should not exceed the normal costs a
contractor would expect to pay in the private sector.
OPTIONS
Three methods of accomplishing the plan review function have been identified and evaluated. Each
of these methods and their positive and negative implications are discussed below.
1) Utilize Fire Department Personnel
By utilizing Fire Department personnel to accomplish the plans review process, the goal of
consistency would be achieved. A single individual, or group of individuals, would conduct
all plan reviews, ensuring that all plans are reviewed to the same set of criteria. A major
portion of the Fire Department's Fire Protection Engineer's time is currently spent interacting
with contractors and developers in meetings and on the telephone to address their questions
regarding code issues. in addition, the Engineer has other responsibilities including assisting
the Fire Inspectors, developing and presenting training programs, and conducting research
activities related to long range planning. To provide timely plan reviews, it would be
necessary to create a staff position dedicated to plan reviews. This position could be filled
by a second Fire Protection Engineer or by a certified Plans Examiner. It is estimated that
employing a dedicated plan examiner would cost the City approximately $86,000 per year
including salary, benefits, automobile and other associated expenses. In addition, money
would need to be appropriated for periods when the workload exceeds the capacity of our
staff. By employing an individual specifically for this function, the goal of flexibility is not
met as that individual will not be effectively utilized during slow periods and may not meet
the goal of timeliness during extremely busy periods.
Page 3
2) Contract Plan Review Service
By contracting with a private engineering firm for plan review services, the goals of
consistency, timeliness, and flexibility can be satisfied. Consistency will be achieved by having
qualified individuals performing the reviews to a specified set of criteria and by having the
same individual or group of individuals routinely performing the reviews. The contractor's
services will be provided on an "as-needed" basis, with delivery times specified in the
contract. During periods of heavy activity, the contractor can assign additional staff to
perform plan reviews in order to complete the work in a timely manner. The cost is directly
related to the amount of work performed, therefore, our expenses are reduced during slow
construction periods.
3) Independent Third Party Reviews
This method requires each contractor to have their plans reviewed by an independent third
party acceptable to the Fire Marshal before submitting them to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for approval. This method has been in effect since July 1995 and the acceptable parties
currently include BPR insurance companies (i.e. Factory Mutual, Kemper, IRI, etc.) or a
licensed fire protection engineer (professional. engineer). Several problems have been
identified with this method, including consistency and cost. The Fire Department's Fire
Protection Engineer has reviewed several plans that have been "approved" by a third party
and has found numerous items that do not meet code requirements. It appears that some third
party reviewers are providing only cursory reviews or may not be familiar with the specific
requirements of the City of Fort Worth. The cost incurred by a contractor for this service will
depends on who performs the review and type of system. Contractors have indicated costs
of several hundred to nearly two thousand dollars to have their plans reviewed. Finally, the
quality of the third party review appears, in some cases, to be linked to the cost that the
contractor is willing to pay. If the contractor pays for two hours of review time, the reviewer
provides two hours of service and approves or disapproves the plans based on what has been
observed during that time.
RECOMMENDATION'S
The focus group determined that the best approach to meet the above defined goals is to contract
with a qualified engineering firm to provide this service for the City. A Request for Proposals was
developed and processed according to normal procedures. A total of four firms submitted proposals,
only one of which was a local firm, and no MBE firms submitted proposals.
The proposals were evaluated by a team consisting of the Fire Department's Fire Protection Engineer,
an architect from the Department of Development, an engineer from the Water Department and one
engineer from Engineering. Each proposer was ranked based on their qualifications and ability meet
the RFP. Each member of this team evaluated the proposals individually, then met to discuss their
conclusions. The team unanimously selected the local engineering firm, Carter & Burgess, as the
preferred provider for this service.
It is recornmended that the City award a 12-month contract to Carter & Burgess Engi
the review of all plans for fire protection systems to be installed in the City of Fort cNACIAL RECORD
criy
SEC IIETARY
WORTHY
Page 4
COST:
The proposal from Carter&Burgess contains a fee structure based on the type of system, and
the size and complexity of the system. Please see Attachment 2 for these details. The
estimated total cost of the contract, based on the past 23 months activity is $175,000.00. This
includes the review of all submitted plans. In addition, our costs of performing inspections on
these systems is currently $167,568 including personnel, equipment, etc. (See Attachment 1).
It is anticipated that the plan review cost will make up an average of less than 2 percent of the
total cost of a fire protection system and a small fraction of I percent of the total construction
cost of a structure. It should be pointed out here that the portion of the plan review costs as
compared with the cost of construction and the cost of the fire protection system is inversely
proportional to the size of the job.
Examples:
5,000 sq. ft. Day Care:
Cost of fire alarm system: $6,000.00
Cost of plan review: $ 275.00
Percentage of cost: 4.58%
30,000 sq. ft. assembly:
Cost of fire alarm system: $15,000.00
Cost of plan review: $ 275.00
Percentage of cost: 1.83%
12,000 sq. ft. retail store:
Cost of sprinkler system: $18,000.00
Cost of plan review: $ 275.00
:Percentage of cost: 1.53%
250,000 sq. ft, warehouse:
Cost of sprinkler system: $375,000.00
Cost of plan review: $ 1,475.00
Percentage of cost: 0.39%
20 story office building, 10,000 sq. ft. per floor, 200,000 sq. ft. total:
Cost of sprinkler system: $300,000.00
Cost of plan review: $ 675.00
Percentage of cost: 0.225%
Cost of fire alarm system: $ 60,000.00
Cost of plan review: $ 402.50
Percentage of cost: 0.67%
Page 5
QUALITY CONTROL:
The Fire Department staff will review approximately 10 percent of the plans received from the
contractor for compliance with the contract. Failure to meet the contract provisions could
result in termination of the contract.
COST RECOVERY OPTIONS:
Consideration should be given to recovering the cost of the plan review service. For
discussion, four cost recovery options have been developed. These options are discussed
below. Additional options will be developed by staff personnel as deemed necessary by
Council.
1) Full Cost Recovery
Under this option, the total cost for plans review services will be passed on to
contractors submitting plans for review. Contractors will be provided with work sheets
to calculate the cost of the plan review based on the size of the fire protection system.
By knowing the cost of the permit in advance, contractors can build the cost of the plan
review into their installation cost. No additional cost would be incurred by the City.
This option may be prohibitive for small businesses that routinely install small systems,
such as in day care facilities. The cost of the review may be perceived as a significant
portion of the total system cost.
2) Partial Cost Recovery
Under this option, a work sheet would be used to calculate the total cost for the plan
review based on the size of the system and the assessed permit fee would be a
predetermined percentage of the total cost. This option would place less of a burden
on small businesses, however, the City would incur a percentage of the total cost of the
service,
3) Full Cost Recovery for Large Systems Only
Under this option, a standard permit fee would be assessed for all systems smaller than
a predetermined size. This fee would offset a portion of the plan review cost. Reviews
of these small systems could be performed in-house by Fire Department personnel or by
the contractor as necessitated by Fire Department workload. For systems over the
predetermined size, the entire cost of the plan review would be passed on to the
contractor, as described in Option 1, above. As demonstrated above, as the size of a
job increases, the percentage cost of the plan review decreases. Based on this
the contractor installing a large system can mark the construction cost up by I IFFICIAL PECOIID
percent and fully recover the cast of the plan review. CM' SECRETARY
4) Utilize Current Permit Fee Structure
FT, WORTH, Ta" ,
Under this option, approximately 22 percent of the total program costs will be
While this option is most beneficial to the contractor, the cost to the City would increase
substantially during periods of high development activity.
ATTACHMENT I
BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM ACTIVITIES
COST VS. REVENUE
FY95 Projected Permitjtevenue $ 757441.00 `
FY95 Costs for Fire Protection System Activities $167,568.00 2
Revenue- Cost ($ 92,127.00)
Percent of Cost Recovered 45.02%
' This value represents the projected revenue from Installation Certificates for all fire
protection systems (fire alarm, automatic sprinkler systems, standpipe systems, and special
systems) as of August 1995.
2 The cost associated with fire protection system activities is comprised of the following:
90% of salary and fringe benefit costs for two (2) Captains
90% of salary and fringe benefit costs for one(1) Lieutenant
25% of salary and fringe benefit costs for one(1) Fire Protection Engineer
Operating and maintenance costs for four(4)Fire Department vehicles
ATTACHMENT 2
CARTER & BURGESS PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE
SPRINKLER PLANS:
Initial plan evaluation fee:
$275.00 minimum, which includes the first 25 heads.
$0.50 per head for all additional heads.
5150.00 additional if the system has a fire pump.
5100.00 additional if the system uses foam.
Re-evaluation fee: 50% of the initial fee
STANDPIPE PLANS:
Note: The following fees apply to separate standpipe systems only. If the standpipe shares
common piping with a sprinkler system, the evaluation of the standpipe is included in the
sprinkler plan evaluation fees above.
Initial plan evaluation fee:
$165.00 total, for Class 1 systems.
$200.00 total, for Class 2 or 3 systems.
5150.00 additional if the system has a fire pump.
Re-evaluation fee: 50% of the initial fee
FIRE ALARM PLANS:
Initial plan evaluation fee:
$275.00 minimum, which includes the first 25 devices'.
$0.50 per device for all additional devices.
$75.00 each for each additional panel'*.
Re-evaluation fee: 50% of the initial fee
"Device" is an initiating, indicating, or a control device in the field.
"Additional panel" includes a transponder, power supply, DACT, etc.
ILIA ....
RECORD
U a° E.1A IR
WGRTHt TEX.
ss,szs<M POI Page 16
ATTACHMENT 2
(continued)
Fee Structure (continued)
GASEOUS OR DRY CHEMICAL SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS:
FOR HALON OR HALON ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS:
Initial plan evaluation fee:
$275.00 minimum, for the first 7 nozzles.
$30.00 per nozzle for each additional nozzle.
$650.00 maximum fee per system.
Re-evaluation fee: 50% of the initial fee
FOR CO2 Oli INERGEN SYSTEMS:
Initial plan evaluation fee:
$275.00 minimum, for the first 10 nozzles.
$20.00 per nozzle for each additional nozzle.
$650.00 maximum fee per system.
Re-evaluation fee: 50% of the initial fee
95 1 525000.POI Page 17
uwwwmw �/�Y^.^-'��� r
C V d 4 O,. d,mm4 O 8m O U w .. 4 ui
G_ C� O u7! tl7 n17 h t7 CSC N q h co N 8 r" U7
d7 d 0 r„' N N CO !�- r cC) ca 40'...
/�y
>,
� (' 1 0 0 0 K7 �30�) 0 `T 0 63 619� 60
c 0 4fl
ED
0
or d a d � a � 4'E O d 0 0 0 v c) UO) 7 a 5 8
8 83 p d ci b b � i C Cf d lt7
CID 0 , 'vT W 64 6c>
C-4 ° g
o
CL
U)
E90 � 8 0 ° 0
� 0 � uUi ui r- " r-: LQ cj � ui
cn "' � a a r r- r- 0 r- L6 Cl) 0 m r-_ r7 U) 0 ua O N
♦/ryry 0�n .- v yr CO t- `rrs- (�y/�(y} c� urS 't c�i rY3 �6ck o
r-
`"L 0 C17 CL1 64 4H fck T tt} 61), 0
T
N Z_ CL
Q
cr
U)
a
C
d d -0° O � � a � a �° a '.-' 6 a � � �° �, Q-
daces ° 8 � (oU) ow o � 0 T'�
w > vii uy co 6c* 60
� .- � 6s T
0 d
0
U)
a
�x
F-- O O O d0 q p�j o cr ci p a° c> p o c a o '
0 co CJ CC) t[7 N ui c0 U7 0 m 0 rn 0 11
L) d ci ' ' Ui sri °C1 u7 ' ry r� I~ rl ci ch C � ui v
Qc� a m ci r r- T co a C) C) a cv m u� a ai r a)
v t r°a 3 `� a � CO � o
z
T
0 � o
a)
<C
r°� a� c
cr
U.
c
E O OO, o O 0 o 0 o a � a c Cf 0 o C7 o
0 O d p0 V ccJ U} G tq co U7 c U7 d d 0
0 ci LQ U7 U) U7 U h- h r h U7 U6 0 d vii
0 d m r r- r `Q C f7 U7 Cl) N e� N CO) N M'CO) 0 cII
c7 a ,On 69 E9 N CJ (A k� U? 6% V) )
i� �
0 U-
d0 a d
�-
N o
y LL u w LL c U c»a ri U
E V) c� c' c a i s "
r j U �= Cam? L) C a� U
ri aEi U a ` OR w U 4U � U aU co
Cl.. (, ' ,' w,., of o t)
aci U = ark _ cu ID ( �
::3 06 � " C1 ) a) t: d � as a) as
_ U CL U CL CL CJ o Cl. CL G7 a GY CL CL O CL 0
1
Ci rM C6 13 C6 li q cIq ° m
o
_ co
apr.. .
O
C7 _ N
O V) (0 0 0 CEO 1 0 p N 0 �co
a ° tta ea � <- �
N O. b3
c
x
U)
8 8 °r - 0 c 0 0 IQ
d � � 32 E9 U
Z N C CL
Q (1)
F-
Q 0 q � � � 0 o � to 0
M . � 8 ; U
F- v_ (D j C> ro CV M Cf) (o r- (o 05
a U) fn
U C7 N C
F- Q ,- C
F- � (/J
<
Ow u> Q7 Ci C�) 00 � � � (J)
Qo a U1 8 a ` °' cv rn It 6H 64 <-
F- 0 N EFi
O O 0 to C13
d d
O
LL
E 00 � � O 00 O Cn U) 0) u�7 v
03 Lf) (T1 OC! d
u�") C8 C�fi c= C� co �It 09 (0 q _r� p)
0
0 M
p a
Lr a)
ti
LL
<L7 tll I
LL (U LL
a) - � a7
4S 0 C) N
fd (J U U
a �
U- 0 C� ai � E a�i p
u (00) L L u)
(00) na
U CD a, w (u � (D c
r, c (D °� -
c � ti c [� a ri a`- i5 °