How complex is your premises? I would sugest that issues such as number of floors, age of building, layout of building, adequacy of existing precautions and systems, etc, etc all have as much as or more relevance than the number of people.

In my opinion......................

Costs can vary due to lots of reasons.

Big consultancy wanting to give a full service with lots of paper/documentation, more than a few visits to site etc. etc.

Small one man band, keeping costs low due to little or no overheads.

Those two can both produce the required fire risk assessment at different costs.

If the consultant is on a fra register they will charge a little more but should do a proper job. I am not saying you won't get a proper job if not on a register, I am not on a register and I do a proper job.

As said above - size of premises, number of floors etc. Travel costs potential for overnight accommodation?

I fail to see that a fee can be settled without seeing the premises. It could be a large premises with no fire hazards or a small premises with lots of issues. The smaller premises may need a bigger fee?

On a first visit to a premises I get a "gut feeling" about time, problems etc. and usually am right. That's when the fee should be set.

Judging by the number of employees you have I would think the higher end would be right. I would not do a fra on a premises with that many employees for £300.00. You cannot do a proper job on a premises with that number of employees for that price.

As I say in my opinion......................

Give us some more information and we can advise further.

I agree, without seeing the premises how could you know (as an assessor) how long it would take? I'd go for the smaller companies or individuals, they have better communications, can react quicker to an incident, they go the extra mile and will offer FOC ad-hoc advice if you need it. Well that's my experience anyway.

PS we had an assessor who ticked all the boxes, register with the IFE, degree level quals and former fire fighter, £500 per day plus travel, etc - we were critised by the FRS as they did not deem his FRAs suitable and sufficient!

Tigers,

A lot of that maybe to do with the fact that some FRSs do not like the PAS79 format. Another is that some of my former colleagues may seek after perfection rather than accept that, despite some persistent but relatively minor failings, the overall level of safety is in the top third of the spectrum i.e. acceptable.

Chris is correct: FRSs will not touch risk assessment. This is because you cannot be both a consultant and an enforcer - a clear conflict of interest. However, if presented with a copy of a risk assessment, they should comment in writing albeit on a variable timescale according to capacity.

My own experience is that some Services are drastically reducing both the capacity to conduct inspections and the capabilities of the people who will do them or consult as part of a mandatory process. One word keep cropping up: OUTSOURCING!

With respect to the failed FRA, the FRS involved should state why the FRA is deemed not to be suitable and sufficient. I say this because the FRS can only demand to see the Significant Findings: the officers cannot demand to see the Assessment itself. This is so that the FRS cannot determine the mechanism by which the Sig Fins are arrived at. PRovided that they are appropriate and fall into the Acceptable bracket (the other 2 being Tolerable [subtext meaning requires improvement] or Unacceptable), the officers can advise but cannot require further action - at least if they are doing their job properly.

I would also ask about the qualifications of the inspecting officer. In my experience, people with degree-level qualifications in Fire Safety are few and far between in the FRSs. To go "Little Britain" on the subject, I was the only qualified Fire Engineer in my Service - and I was not going out on routine inspections. As an aside, I think that some Services have lost their way here: everyone else in the industry is chasing qualifications but some senior FSR managers seem to think that 9-15 weeks at a disused airfield on the borders of 3 English counties is a good enough alternative (Good old IPDS!).

My feeling is that you would get a more valid assessment and action plan from someone with a Fire Engineering or Fire Safety Management degree and some experience as a regulator than you would with from someone without the degree. One caveat though: do not assume that Fire Service experience means legislative Fire Safety experience. Much of the low level Fire Safety activity has been dispensed with or has been taken away from operational staff so little experience is gained unless the person has had quality time in a legislative FS function. Again, ask about your inspecting officer's background if there is a dispute - or ask for a 2nd opinion from someone more senior. I have found myself in positions of backing some jnspectors and telling others to moderate their demands - so it may be worthwhile. It is also an indicator to senior managers that things might not be going to plan.

It is quite possible that your consultant was wrong; however, having had experience of both sides, I would now question both parties rather than assume one or the other is correct!

Chris, I'm struggling to discern the difference between your comments and my earlier suggestion that "chancers" needed to be "weeded out" of the FRA market - apart from the fact that a tsunami of anguish arose to my comment. Wouldn't have anything to do with registration, would it?

quote=ChrisBurns]

To be fair Chris, being on the IFE Register does in fact prove competence as the completed FRA's are subjected to a review approx 40% of applicants are turned down.

Bit OTT to use a broad brush to say that the individual in question give assessors a bad name. Ultimately we have been made aware of an alleged scenario providing us with information of an opinion of a member of the FRS which may or maynot be substantiated. As I have previously said, proper course of action would have been to let the assessor, client and FRS discuss the matter and only in the event of disagreement and opinion of dis-satisfaction should the client contact Moreton in Marsh.

I have to say that I also find this hard to believe, I have looked into the requirements of joining these registers and am fully aware of the details and costs.

However if this is true it DOES suggest that being on a register cannot be seen to prove competence. Or was this assessor just having a bad day? and will we let him off lightly?

We paid £250 for our Liverpool site which has two office blocks (two floors in each) and a factory site which is six smallish units. Was someone local (who turned out to be a HSE inspector in his day job...) who was just getting started and barely any travelling involved.

For another 11 smaller depots we got them done for £200 each as we gave them all the depots. Most depots are small and have less than 10 staff and are mainly outside storage.

Suppose with that amount of people i'd expect at least £500 to be charged purely down to size and time it might take?

Why has this thread turned in to yet another debate about competence?

The OP was aking about costs.

In my opinion this question cannot be answered without much better site-specific knowledge of the job.

Sdkfz,
I do not see that anyone had suggested membership to either body in order to carry out these type of calculations. Though IMO a S&S FRA of a complex premises would perhaps require more skill than simple hydraulic and exposure to radiant heat calcs, more so as this can be carried out with software.

With regard to the OP and cost. You have a number of quotations and it would be better to determine the experience and competency of the candidates under consideration including making contact with previous clients as necessary. Only then can you make an informed opinion. IMO 300 notes seems to be on the "cheaper" side.

Hally are you serious?

With those locations that far apart you either have a better bargain than I first thought or your FR Assessor has made a big mistake?

There is no way that £200. a site will make anyone any money if doing a proper job of the fra's.

I live in Wirral and have travelled to most of those places recently and know how long it takes and how expensive fuel is.

(Aberdeen for a £200. fee ??????????????)

I wonder what the HSE (as a Monday to Thursday employer) would have to say if they knew one of their chaps was providing a "side" service for such a low fee. I wonder if he has PI for just 1 day a week or does he, like most have a PI premium based on annual fees/turnover.

Totally wrong in my opinion.

Jon

Are we doubting the professionalism of one of our own? At least he is one of us on one day each week.

I suppose he can be cheap if he does not declare what he earns, but we do not know that for sure?

Problem is that there is the potential for conflict. Especially where the HSE is the enforcing authority. Plus I would doubt that this activity would be permitted under a contract of employment with the HSE. The media coverage of a fire related incident whereby a HSE inspector had carried out a FRA would hardly be desirable to the HSE.

Salvar - I agree with the fire service geographic part of your post. However, for the vast majority of cases, the HSE is not the enforcement authority for fire safety.

So how could a HSE inspector doing (very!) cheap FRAs on a premises where the fire authority is the enforcement agency ever be a conflict of interest?

The problem exists that there is always the potential for collaborative investigation and joint prosecution by the FRS and HSE following a fire. Hence conflict of interest.

There are companies that employ serving fire service personnel to carry out fire risk assessments in their off duty spare time. I have no doubt that some are doing fra's as foreigners in their spare time, on their own.

Are we saying this is a conflict of interest? If so why do they get away with it?

On the 7th May 2010 at Norwich Crown Court, Norwich landlord Michael Arthur Billings was given a 30 month jail term for failings under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The prosecution was taken to court by Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service (NF&RS) and the HSE in a joint prosecution that included a total of 14 charges: 9 under the RRO, the remainder being under the HASAWA.