Latest from Codes
Sponsored
QUINCY, MA —A new NFPA standard is being proposed to lighten a small piece of the in-person burden involved with building projects—inspections. If NFPA 915 Standard on Remote Inspections is approved, inspectors would have the ability to utilize audio and visual devices or other technologies to perform an inspection for the purpose of remote verification. CONTRACTOR Magazine recently spoke with Terry Victor, Senior Manager of Industry Relations, Fire Protection, Johnson Controls, and Kevin Carr, Senior Fire Protection Specialist, NFPA, about remote inspections as it relates to the new standard.
CONTRACTOR: Did the COVID pandemic initiate the remote inspection (RI) process or did it speed up the process?
Victor: The remote inspection (RI) concept and the development of the initial draft of the NFPA standard preceded the pandemic. Due to reduced staffing and other factors, some building and fire inspection departments had already found a way to use digital technologies to perform RI and become more efficient in the process. However, the pandemic brought to light the need to use RI in situations and conditions previously not considered. That generated a lot of interest in the draft standard along with the other RI material provided on the NFPA website.Carr: In review, it seems clear that RI had been occurring in some jurisdictions within the United States for many years prior to 2020. Several communities had posted their RI procedures online that detail what types of inspections would be included, the process to conduct the RI, along with the applicable technology requirements. After March 2020, I understand that many jurisdictions considered and adopted RI requirements, either on a temporary or permanent basis. The global
pandemic created a unique opportunity to accelerate the interest and use of RI, as RI may have been the safest way (due to health concerns) for inspections to occur.
CONTRACTOR: Let’s talk contractor/inspector "mistrust" at times. Do you think RI would only add to that? How does that get addressed?
Victor: There can be mistrust when contractors try to “pull one over” on the inspector, or when an inspector asks for something above and beyond the codes and standards. Part of the process for performing a RI in accordance with NFPA 915 is for all affected parties to have a clear understanding ahead of time of the needs and expectations for each of them. If everyone is on the same page up front, any mistrust should be minimized. The NFPA draft standard requires date and time stamping, and location verification, which are meant to keep everyone honest about when and where the RI is being performed.
Carr: While I cannot speak to that directly, feedback I have received is the that the RI process has been helpful in ensuring both the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and the contractor are on the same page. I would argue that being able to verify specific information ahead of time, as well as understanding the requirements regarding RI, would help both parties to have more successful outcomes.
CONTRACTOR: Will there be debate on how thorough the inspections will be?
Victor: One key premise for the use of RI as described in the purpose statement in NFPA 915 is to “… deliver an equivalent or improved result as that which would be obtained with other inspection methods.” As long as all interested parties understand the expectations up front, the inspection will be thorough. If an app like FaceTime is used to livestream the RI, it can be just as thorough as the inspector being on-site. If the inspection is recorded and submitted as a video, the AHJ should make it clear to the party recording the inspection the level of thoroughness required to accept the RI.
Carr: Hopefully, the policies and procedures for the RI process will help to answer any questions ahead of time. Certainly, some inspections may be more detailed that others. Given this, both the AHJ and contractor should consider whether an RI is the best avenue to pursue. If it is pursued, I would argue that a key component to the RI process is that the RI should be comparable to, or exceed, what an in-person inspection can provide. All inspections need adequate time to review the work for approval.
CONTRACTOR: Will RI allow for more thorough inspections due to a larger time window or would the time allotment be similar to a live inspection?
Victor: From the perspective of the inspector, RI will save time by eliminating the need to travel to the jobsite. But the on-site RI itself could take more time for the parties transmitting or recording the inspection in order to be as thorough as needed to ensure the work was done correctly.
Carr: There are some major advantages to RI. I would argue that chief among them is the scheduling component. Rather than an AHJ being unable to pinpoint a time to be on a specific site, and the contractor possibly having to wait for long periods of time for the AHJ to arrive, the RI process allows them to meet remotely at a prescribed time. With the uncertainty of scheduling removed, both parties can spend their time focused on the inspection.
CONTRACTOR: What type of RI equipment would be used and does it have to be uniformly compliant?
Victor: Any equipment that transmits or records a RI that has the same level of optical clarity as seeing it in person can be used, subject to the approval of the AHJ. Cell phones, tablets, video cameras, drones and robots are some examples of equipment that can be used. Since we don’t know what other equipment will be developed in the future, NFPA 915 allows for the use of any new device or technology that comes along. There are no specific requirements for compliance other than that the end result must be as good or better than doing the inspection in person.
Carr: Each AHJ will need to decide what works best for their jurisdiction. NFPA 915, Proposed Standard for Remote Inspections (expected in 2023), provides many types of devices that could be utilized. Currently, the most popular medium appears to be live remote video via smartphone technology for the two parties to converse. However, alternative methods could be considered.
CONTRACTOR: And take me through the administrative process... and who is recording onsite?
Victor: NFPA 915 anticipates there could be as many as four parties involved in performing a RI: the building owner, the contractor performing the work, the entity transmitting or recording the RI, and the inspector. The building owner, or in many instances the general contractor, is notified of the inspection. The inspector authorizes the use of RI, establishes the expectations for transmitting or recording the inspection, and describes the needed results. The contractor performing the work to be inspected is present to show what was done. In some cases, the contractor may be the one live streaming the inspection on their cell phone or tablet, and in other cases a third-party entity transmits or records the RI. The AHJ ultimately decides how the RI is to be administered.
Carr: The AHJ often sets the administrative requirements through their policies and procedures regarding RI. These are often found on their website or by contacting them directly. Regarding the individual onsite who is providing video for the AHJ, this could be a number of individuals. The contractor who performed the work would seem to be the most likely. However, this could also be the general contractor or the sub-contractor if the contractor of work were unavailable. Additionally, in residential construction, the homeowner may be permitted to serve in this role. Where permitted, an approved third-party, as acceptable to the AHJ, may also be allowed to participate.
CONTRACTOR: What are the overall advantages of RI?
Victor: The biggest advantage of performing RI is the ease of the process. Being able to conduct an inspection offsite can give an inspector and contractors hours back in their day by cutting back on travel time. Additionally, it can be a safer alternative to accessing hard-to-reach areas by utilizing drones, it limits the time spent in confined or hazardous locations and it’s more inclusive to inspectors who may have mobility or other physical limitations.
Carr: Generally, time savings for both travel to the site (AHJ) and waiting at the site (contractor or approved person performing the inspection) may be some of the most easily realized advantages. Further, where required, the ability to record/document inspections could prove useful in certain arrangements. Finally, the use of technology may allow for an improved result from an in-person inspection. For example, the use of drones to inspect installations on roofs allows for greater safety and perhaps a clearer view of the entire installation.
CONTRACTOR: Can these inspections be recorded/archived and reviewed at a later date?
Victor: Yes, if approved by the AHJ. Most current users of RI do it in real time using FaceTime, MS Teams, Zoom, etc. However, recording and archiving a RI is anticipated by NFPA 915 and guidance is provided.
Carr: They could be. While the technology exists for recording inspections, this should be carefully considered by both the AHJ and building owner. For example, should an AHJ choose to store inspections, such items including the ownership of the images, data privacy, record retention, proprietary installations and requests for records would be a few items that need to be reviewed.
CONTRACTOR: What would be some examples of where RI wouldn't be permitted?
Victor: RI likely wouldn’t be permitted during projects where complex systems are being used, as they may require more detail than RI can provide, or in conditions with low lighting or low connectivity.
Carr: The AHJ ultimately determines what types of inspections should be considered for RI. However, some inspections generally do not lend themselves well to a remote process. Inspections that have poor lighting, limited Wi-Fi/cellular connection, are overly complex or involve large sections of buildings or structures might be better served by an in-person inspection.
CONTRACTOR: Could it be possible to "dupe" an inspector remotely?
Victor: As long as the recommendations in NFPA 915 are followed, it will be difficult to dupe the inspector. When the RI is live-streamed, the inspector can direct the inspection to ensure the right item is being inspected at the correct location. I have heard of inspectors requiring the live stream to start at a recognizable intersection near the jobsite, so they know it’s the right address, and then from there require the person to walk to the correct location on the jobsite to perform the RI. When an inspection is being recorded, date, timestamp, and location verification requirements in the standard will give the inspector a high degree of confidence that the right jobsite is being inspected on the right day, and at the right time.
Carr: While possible, I would argue that this can be drastically reduced if clear policies and procedures are developed, communicated and understood. For example, if the policies required a specific location of a structure (address, specific structure on site, floor in structure, room on floor and item to inspect) to be provided before the inspection, it will narrow the parameters of the inspection considerably.
CONTRACTOR: How do you see the future of RI? After COVID, people wanted to be back together so do you see this as a hybrid approach for the future?
Victor: Yes, to your second question. The RI concept will not be practical or desirable in all situations. However, because of COVID, many jurisdictions adopted the concepts in NFPA 915 to perform RI, and they saw the benefits firsthand. I expect many jurisdictions to continue using RI even as we start returning to pre-pandemic work practices. In many ways, RI will fill the gaps that existed even before the pandemic, and certainly those that exist today with the current labor shortage.
Carr: Time will tell, but it appears that more jurisdictions are considering and adopting RI policies, particularly as the trust and affordability of various technologies improve. The convenience for the contractor/owner and time savings/adoption of technology for the AHJ make RI an attractive option for many types of inspections, particularly less complex installations or re-inspections.
CONTRACTOR: Sometimes on jobsites there is no, or limited, Wi-Fi. How do you work around this?
Victor: If the AHJ requires the RI to be live-streamed, then a jobsite without connectivity would not be a candidate for a RI. However, NFPA 915 also allows for recording of the RI, which could be used where connectivity is an issue, subject to the approval of the AHJ.
Carr: This can prove to be an interesting challenge and may necessitate the need for an in-person inspection.
CONTRACTOR: I missed Johnson Controls' education session at NFPA, but I'm interested to know JCI's involvement in RI, if any?
Victor: Johnson Controls is a leader for digital technologies with our OpenBlue suite of connected building solutions, which include assessment of water-based fire protection systems and fire alarm systems among other solutions to keep occupants safe and secure while optimizing building efficiency.
CONTRACTOR: Please provide any other important or pertinent information.
Victor: I expect the use of RI to grow exponentially over the next few years. By necessity, jurisdictions adopted RI during the COVID pandemic and found out the concepts can be successfully utilized for their inspections. Now that they know it can be done, and have seen the benefits firsthand, they will find more and more uses and need for RI. Practice will make perfect, and I’m sure there will be some hiccups along the way, but RI and the other remote technologies included in the scope of NFPA 915 are here to stay, and some day will be the norm rather than the exception.
Supporting NFPA 915 is just another way that Johnson Controls is advancing the facilities management industry and helping to create safer and more effective work environments for inspectors, technicians and other trade professionals.
Carr: Technology is constantly changing, offering both great promise and deep questions to its application for RI. New technologies should be carefully considered, along with more traditional methods, to allow for the inspection, whether in-person or remote, to be as effective as possible. Additionally, the use of codes and standards, often in digital form (such as NFPA LiNK) should be consulted for up-to-date requirements and guidance.