FM Global Plan Review Services.

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 383 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 04:40 pm:    The owner presented us with a report from FM Global (Factory Mutual Insurance Company). FM Global reviewed the drawings/project manual and has a few recommendations. Basically FM wants us to require that only FM approved products go into the project. For example FM gave us a list of models of FRP panels that are approved and told us to remove the non approved panels. I can see where they care about roofs and roofing materials, but sanitary wall panels for kitchens? I don't understand. FM also told us to eliminate all but one skylight manufacturer from our specs. Even though the other skylight manufacturers are not FM approved we have been specifying and using in our projects for decades without any problems. We have informed the owner that these recommendations will increase the cost of the building do to lack of competitive pricing. It also might be against the law to write proprietary specs for this public school project. We also told the owner that we will make a few corrections but anything else, like reviewing the FM approved products manual, will be an addition service. BTW, the project goes out for final printing in 5 days! This is the first time the team ever heard that FM was even involved in the project. It certainly was not spelled out in our contract. This is the first time, other than FM roofing 1-90 reguirements, that I have ever dealt with FM. The office doesn't even have a copy of their standards. What the heck is an insurance company doing playing architect/code authority? Is this just a scam to get money from companies for testing their products? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 71 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 04:48 pm:    FM may be their insurance carrier, and as a requirement of their policy, renovation and new construction projects may be required to comply with FM standards and approved products. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 96 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 05:15 pm:    We too have had projects with certain owners who are insured by FMG, and whose projects are reviewed by FMG. For sanitary wall panels for kitchens, probably concerned with fire performance. These products are available with different flame spread/smoke developed ratings. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 293 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 05:46 pm:    It's an interesting historical note that the very first building codes were the result of requirements by industrial insurance companies here in New England. They were instituted something like a hundred-plus years ago after a series of devastating fires that cost the insurers a lot of money. So in fact, insurers have been at the game of telling owners how to build their buildings longer than the government. (We also have the infamous distinction of having the Coconut Grove nightclub fire in the 40's in downtown Boston, which initiated other building code provisions, as well as fire codes.) As to the specifics of FM approval, they may be willing to permit use of other products if there are compelling reasons to do so. It's interesting that you mention FRP panels, because my bother (who is a contractor) had precisely this problem. In his case, the owner said that the panels must be fire-rated, but he neglected to say that they must have an FM approval--he used panels with UL listing. The upshot was that FM finally accepted the UL listing rather than forcing the owner to pay my brother to scrape them off the wall and relpace them (they were adhesively applied to CMU). I think that sometimes the FM and UL listings may be based upon identical, or nearly identical, testing. When faced with the requirements of public bidding, FM may be pursuaded to back down. Some owners (and probably lots of designers) don't seem to know about these provisions of FM. Right now I've been trying to get my small agency-client in California to tell me if they are FM Global insured. They can't figure out what my question is. I'd like to just get them to let me call their insurance broker directly to ask, but can't get that either. FM's Data Sheets have long been used as design standards for things like roofing, and FM-listed products are acceptable to many AHJs. However, FM really doesn't give a hoot about that--they do the research and produce the materials solely in their own interest to reduce risk for their, generally, large industrial clients. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 384 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:21 pm:    There is nothing wrong with an insurance carrier requiring that a building be designed with safety and fire resistance in mind. There is nothing wrong with them insisting upon code compliant items or third party testing from UL, WHI, ASTM, NFRC, etc. What I have a problem with is FMG dictating that only THERE approved products will be allowed on the job. I thought that they were an insurance company not a testing agency. Some of the products in question that were mentioned earlier are Kalwall (FM approved), Skywall (not FM approved) and Major Industries (not FM approved). What if Kalwall was not FM approved? Would that mean we would not be allowed to use them in our project even though there are thousands of sucessfull installations? Don't you think as an insurance carrier that FMG is assuming additional liability? What if for some reaons Kalwall failed? We could tell the owner that we wanted to use the competitor's products but that FMG insisted on Kalwall. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 294 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 09:01 am:    FM Approvals and FM GLobal Research are subsidiaries of FM Global--in fact, they ARE a testing agency, as well as promulgating their own standards. They also test to standards that they haven't written. Now, I'm not going to defend FM, they can do that themselves. But their thing insofar as they force their clients to use certain products, is risk management. Since they are an insurer, they have already taken on the liability for a catastrophe. They see it as risk-limiting, since they know the performance of a product or material under the risks they are insuring against. The organization is also filled with plenty of smart engineers. If you need to use other products, I think you need to discuss with their engineering staff the problems with their requirements. They are concerned with all types of risks--fire, flood, hail, leaking, collapse, etc.--but maybe not with some that you may be worried about. Joanne Rodriguez, CSI, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joanne Post Number: 8 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:05 pm:    FMG is very concerned about asset management and loss, because they underwrite the facilities they insure. A loss to the building is a loss for them. UL, on the other hand, is concerned with life safety issues and building occupants. Year in and year out buildings constructed to FM standards have outperformed those that did not utilize their standards. For example--hurricane ravaged Florida--those buildings, whether insured by FM or not, but utilizing their standards saw far less loss. FMG and UL, tested through ASTM methods, also establish the foundation for IBC 2000. Anyone familiar with that building standard? FM is consistently addressed in the roofing section, Chapter 15, of IBC. I would guess the same for the other elements of the building code. With regard to the Loss Prevention Data Sheets--this is the most under-utilized tool available to the industry in terms of setting minimum quality standards for your projects. You can instruct the contractors, through Loss Prevention Data sheets, what the minimum requirements are--without crossing means and methods. It is not enough to utilize "FM 1-90" for your wind uplift citeria, you must also utilize the detail information that FMG provides. With over 80 years of experience in testing "systems," not just individual elements, they are a true performance standard. While it is true that using their standard will limit your mobility in selecting materials that you might like and might be familiar with--FM has tested thousands of systems from thousands of manufacturers: they know what works. I would hope to see our industry move in a direction where our personal bias for or against certain manufacturers, companies, individuals, etc. is no longer the criteria in specifying a "system" but rather see specification to well known, industry standards, which set performance elements for all to meet. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 116 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:56 am:    Freudian slip or typo? "my bother (who is a contractor)" John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 299 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:03 am:    Yes, it's a typo! I noticed it too late to open up the post and edit it. He's a great help in many ways, so I wouldn't characterize him as a bother!