Craig Wells, Sales Director at Quelfire, argues that embedding fire safety from the earliest design stage ensures compliance, collaboration and successful Gateway approvals
When it comes to building safety, success is rarely achieved halfway through a project.
Increasingly, industry experience is showing that the quality of decisions made at Gateway 2, as well as the confidence of approvals at Gateway 3, depend on what happens much earlier in the design process.
Fire safety, which is often seen as a late-stage package or technical detail resolved on site, is a case in point.
History tells us that fire stopping and related systems have been squeezed into programmes after major design decisions have already been made, often treated as an afterthought.
Yet despite being treated as a peripheral issue, it sits right at the heart of building safety, with its performance depending on choices made long before construction begins.
For Craig Wells, Sales Director at Quelfire, this is why early engagement is a critical element.
Rather than viewing fire stopping as a trade to be coordinated at the end of the programme, the company argues that it should be embedded into the design process from the outset, with tested systems, clear responsibilities and collaboration across disciplines.
In this interview, Wells outlines why Gateway 2 should not be viewed as a hurdle to clear, but as an opportunity to refine scope, reduce risk and align delivery expectations long before approvals are sought.
Quelfire advocates for early engagement in firestopping. What does that mean and why is it crucial before a project reaches Gateway 2?
The bottom line is that what we’re talking about is building safety, and the only way to guarantee a successful outcome is to install products and systems in accordance with the tested scope of application.
The tendency with main contractors and design teams is to view fire stopping as one of the smaller value packages that may be procured and installed late on.
The tendency in the world of service penetration is to create an aperture in a wall and then hope that the M&E (mechanical and electrical) contractors can fit all their services into the opening.
Obviously, hope is not enough.
What we mean by early engagement is a basic principle of design, then build.
It’s not complicated, but we talk about design and build and end up going down a route of build first and then trying to come up with a compliant design.
What we’re advocating for is flipping that on its head, reaching out at an early stage to manufacturers like us, wall manufacturers, damper manufacturers and all these other elements to say, okay, what products and systems can you offer? What is the tested scope of application? And how do we incorporate your tested solutions into our building?
The whole gateway process is driving people down that route, and rightly so.
But we should be applying that logic to any building, whether it’s high risk or whether it’s not high risk.
It means engaging with reputable manufacturers and suppliers of systems and then incorporating their tested solutions into a workable design before commencing installation.
How does involving fire safety expertise early in the design phase improve the quality and success of a Gateway 2 submission?
Everyone knows that the gateway process is quite tedious, painful and there’s a lot of unknowns and uncertainty.
If you don’t do a detailed design and you risk putting in a submission too soon, it’s incomplete or it’s not as comprehensive as it could be, then there is a high risk it’s going to get rejected.
Bearing in mind that fire safety and structural safety are the two big things on the agenda, and there’s no hiding the fact that they are the key things that will be scrutinised in depth by the multidisciplinary team.
The more quality and success you put in, the more chance of a successful outcome and it’ll set you up in a better place for Gateway 3, which is the end game.
It is an upfront cost and resource but it should be money and time well spent.
Gateway 2 requires a demonstration of compliance. What steps can project teams take early on, even before the Gateway application?
Upskilling and training for everyone, regardless of their role, is something that can begin now, whether they are involved in a Gateway 2 submission or not.
I don’t think they should be under the illusion that they can’t stop training.
The key to success will be greater collaboration between different parties.
The repositioning of a cable or inadequate support of a cable tray can directly impact the fire stopping.
Whilst they might not do the fire stopping and might not be responsible for it overall, they still directly impact the overall performance.
Knowledge is power and all trades should be scrutinising how and where they might be impacting the fire safety of a building and gearing themselves up for where they can be a better support in that collaboration, which then comes as part of the design process.
Something we are strong advocates for is Continuous Professional Development (CPD), and we are seeing a huge cultural shift towards people wanting to learn and do CPD.
How does the way a project is prepared and managed at Gateway 2 influence the ease with which you can evidence compliance at completion at Gateway 3?
If you put together a comprehensive, robust and compliant Gateway 2 design, Gateway 3 should be plain sailing.
We have seen it where contractors have said, we’re just going to put typical details in.
We’re just going to come up with a typical scenario.
We’re going to identify all relevant standard details and submit them to the BSR.
And then the BSR have come back and said, well, typical detail.
What happens if you’ve got all these scenarios that aren’t typical? How are you going to deal with them? And it’s ultimately being rejected.
You might say even worse than that is where they just say, Quelfire are the best, we’re going to partner with them.
When we get to it, we’ll come up with some solutions between us. Okay, fine.
I like to think that we have solutions for most typical scenarios, but from a BSR perspective, what happens if they don’t?
They could end up building a project with a wall system that is non-compliant with the fire stopping, dampers or service penetrations.
Given the scrutiny on documentation and the golden thread of information, what role does early coordination of firestopping details play in robust and complete records?
It’s about knowing your building, and the best way of understanding it is to understand that there are lots of different stakeholders who have all got different interests in the building.
The point is to make all that information readily accessible in a digital form so that relevant stakeholders can access it.
From a warranty provider’s perspective, they need clear details about what was installed.
There are multiple stakeholders, each with different requirements, and the key is having that information readily accessible.
If the design is created in a digital format based on test evidence, with all documentation linked and properly referenced, and the installation follows that design, compliance can be demonstrated through photographic records and supporting evidence.
By the time you reach Gateway 3, you already have a complete digital package prepared.
It just needs to be shaped into whatever format is required for the relevant stakeholders.
The important point is that this package is digital, detailed and comprehensive, so all stakeholders can access the information they need for their specific purposes.
We’ve seen many early Gateway 2 applications get rejected due to incomplete information. How can teams get it right first time?
The key point is to be specific.
Don’t think that you can get away with doing general specifications and general clauses.
It’s all about collaboration, and if you have got design teams who are not willing to learn and to share and collaborate, then it will be a real uphill battle.
The most successful outcomes come from genuine collaboration, and that usually requires very clear leadership.
Many people approach this with a fear of the unknown.
Some acknowledge that, in principle, collaboration and more detailed design are the right things to do.
The real difference comes when someone takes a firm stand and says: no ifs, no buts, this is the level of information we are producing.
You, the architect, are responsible for this.
You, the engineer, are responsible for that.
When that doesn’t happen, the message becomes: if you don’t meet this standard, your future involvement is questionable.
Naturally, we get pushback, as everyone does.
But that is precisely why the Building Safety Act was needed, to push us into doing things we should arguably have been doing all along.
Then there is the issue of competency, a term we probably overuse.
It’s discussed so often that it risks losing its impact.
The SCEP model, skills, knowledge and experience, is obviously important, but the behaviours element is the most critical.
It reflects whether people and organisations genuinely want to do the right thing.
From what we see, the most successful projects and applications come from a strong behavioural commitment to doing the right thing.