The LWF Blog

Fire Safety Engineering for Design –Risk Assessment Pitfalls– Part 72

March 21, 2022 11:31 am

LWF’s Fire Safety Engineering blog series is written for Architects, building designers and others in the construction industry to highlight and promote discussion on all topics around fire engineering. In part 71, LWF discussed examples of poor practices in risk assessment and how to avoid them. In part 72, we continue to look at examples of poor practices in risk assessment by considering using the cost of remedial works in a cost benefit analysis (CBA), before talking about the difference between cost and affordability.

Issues when undertaking a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

When risk assessing, it is possible to come across examples of poorly designed or installed fire protection measures. The resulting works may not comply with industry good practice, or they may fail to reach the standards for fire safety that are required.

On occasion, it has been known for a CBA to be used in either a qualitative or quantitative risk assessment to attempt to justify leaving the inadequate works in place. The justification often relies on the fact that the cost, disruption etc. of correcting the issue is too great when measured against the risk reduction potential.

This practice must be avoided. Any CBA assessment should made against the cost of the relevant works when they are competently and correctly designed and installed and not when they require corrective works.

It is not permissible to use the consequences of a mistake or failure to observe industry good practice in a cost benefit analysis.

Cost vs Affordability

When undertaking the risk assessment process, cost is a legitimate factor in determining if a fire protection measure is suitable for implementation. However, affordability is not a legitimate factor.

The difference between cost and affordability in the context of risk reduction measures relates to the duty holder.

For example, it is not acceptable to claim that a risk reduction measure is impractical because there is no allowance for it in the budget. Nor is it acceptable to claim that unforeseen risk reduction measures are so expensive that if they were carried out, the entire project would be threatened.

This is because when the commitment is made to a project, the assumption is made that there is sufficient budget available to complete it to an acceptable standard of safety. Any failure to do so is unacceptable as a reason for unaddressed high risk.

In part 73 of LWF’s series on fire engineering, we will continue to discuss the difference between cost and affordability in terms of risk assessment in projects. In the meantime, if you have any questions about this blog, or wish to discuss your own project with one of our fire engineers, please contact us.

Lawrence Webster Forrest has been working with their clients for over 25 years to produce innovative and exciting building projects. If you would like further information on how LWF and fire strategies could assist you, please contact the LWF office on 0800 410 1130.

While care has been taken to ensure that information contained in LWF’s publications is true and correct at the time of publication, changes in circumstances after the time of publication may impact on the accuracy of this information.