There is no peer reviewer in the current system. Would it not raise costs if this is now mandatory under the performance-based system?

Question

Accepted Answer

The current system of complying with prescriptive requirements is relatively straightforward compared to performance requirements. The QP just have to follow stipulated rules in the Fire Code 2018, so having a third-party check on prescriptive requirements is not necessary as it will inflate costs. However, fire safety engineering is a relatively new discipline and besides applying engineering principles, design of fire safety works based on this approach usually require a certain degree of sound engineering judgement. Hence, it is necessary to have a peer review for such works as a counter-check. The Peer Reviewer scheme is akin to the Accredited Checker scheme for the submission of structural plans to the BCA. Though engaging a peer reviewer would increase cost, it offers building designers greater design flexibility and the increased cost may be offset by cost optimisation from the performance-based design.

There is no peer reviewer in the current system. Would it not raise costs if this is now mandatory under the performance-based system?

Topics:

Related questions

Who is responsible to engage the Qualified Person (QP), Fire Safety Engineer (FSE), Peer Reviewer, and/or Registered Inspector (RI) for the building fire safety design/approval process?

What is the rationale of allowing developers/QPs to choose the type of approach (i.e. prescriptive or performance-based) to fire safety design?

Will it be necessary to engage a Fire Safety Engineer to re-evaluate addition & alteration works to a performance-based designed building?

Between the prescriptive and the performance-based approach to Fire Safety design, how would people know which to choose?

Need more help?