Updating LPS 1048

F&RM: Why was it felt that the LPS 1048 scheme needed updating?

David Ferguson: The main catalyst was the 2021 issuing of the draft EN 12845 (specifying requirements and gives recommendations for the design, installation, and maintenance of fixed fire sprinkler systems), and the
potentially significant changes in working practices for the UK market, contained in this most recent draft of the standard. The LPS 1048 scheme would, in its current format, be ill-suited to the requirements of the proposed EN changes and thus the needs of our membership.

This catalyst has also enabled us to review the scope and structure of the scheme which has successfully been in place for many years.

What were the main drivers for this, and why is the update happening now?

DF: The proposed changes to EN 12845 removed precalculated systems from within the main body of the EN, with the EN now focused primarily on hydraulically calculated systems. As most of our Level 1 to 3 scheme membership are only permitted to conduct pre-calculated design and installation works under their LPS 1048 certification it was envisaged that this would put them at a serious disadvantage in the market.

How will competence be assessed?

DF: The competence of a company and its employees covered by the scheme is currently assessed, and will continue to be assessed, through LPS 1048 exam requirements for designers and inspectors, the supervision of projects by the LPS 1048 team as per the self–certification criteria, and surveillance audits at a minimum of two per year.

What changes, if any, are planned for the different levels and the types of work covered?

DF: The current levels 1 to 4 within the LPS 1048 scheme will remain but the definitions and scope of what each level means to a specifier are planned to change.

• Currently level 1 is for newly certified companies or those with limited scope, but under the new
• proposals level 1 would be allocated to companies undergoing entry assessment into the scheme. It is anticipated that this will give them greater opportunities to win work through the exposure RedBookLive will give, shortening the assessment period in all cases to a year.
• Level 2 will also change to become a level of evaluation where a new company or one requiring enhanced oversight will need to demonstrate compliance, competency, and good practice for a minimum period of three years prior to being allocated a level 3 status within the scheme.
• Level 3 will continue to be the level where companies can work towards and achieve self-certification for an installation scope.
• Level 4 will remain, but instead of requiring self-certification of all scopes within the LPS 1048 scheme, level 4 status will apply to the highest self-certification held by a member company.

The scopes covered by the LPS 1048 scheme will also be greater due to the need to ensure compatibility with the new EN should the UK adopt it. The scopes will be much more defined, and cover installations previously not certified under LPS 1048 such as domestic and residential systems, dry risers, wet riser systems, and a separate scope to focus on service-only and maintenance-only companies.

Will it change the required competence for each level?

DF: The simple answer to this question is no, but the competency exams will be adjusted to reflect the scopes of the revised LPS 1048. The principle of one competent design engineer for each scope where self-certification has not been awarded is to remain, and where self-certification has been awarded, a minimum of two competent design engineers for each self-certification scope will be required.

Have you considered unplanned spot-checks of ongoing projects for contractors (i.e. two-week notification rather than a planned six-monthly scheduled visit)?

DF: The option for ‘special visits’ has always existed within the LPCB approval process. It is not planned to extend this further at this stage but greater supervision of projects for self-certification awarded companies is being incorporated into the LPS 1048 6.0.

How will the update affect the circumstances under which contractors require supervision provided by an approved third party?

DF: The sampling rates and criteria within the LPS 1048 scheme are remaining the same, however how these are implemented and when a project is selected is changing to make the process more visible to both the parties and less time-consuming to the scheme member.

Is there a plan to have ALL contractors supervised rather than allowing self-certification?

DF: BRE is currently exploring the IT systems to allow all self-certification awarded companies within the LPS 1048 to have access to an individual private contract ‘live’ log where all self-certification projects would be required to be logged for that member company at the time of contract award. The logic within this ‘live’ log system would select for verification the required number of projects per scope allocated in the LPS 1048 for BRE on a rolling basis. The member company will then be required to upload the selected project to our supervision portal.

This will allow a review of the member company’s work during the programme of the works on that project rather than on a completed project during the surveillance audit, as per current practice, where time and site access is limited.

Who will benefit from the updates to the scheme?

DF: The benefactors of the update to the scheme are at every level in the industry.

• Specifiers will have greater clarity on what scope member companies are certified to undertake, as well as being able to specify LPS 1048 requirements to scopes previously not covered.
• New applicants to the LPS 1048 scheme will be visible to potential clients and have access to BRE resources. Existing scheme members will be able to move up the scheme levels or add scopes more readily.
• BRE will be able to supervise more projects and carry out surveillance audits with more efficiency and in greater numbers.

What are the changes hoping to achieve?

DF: The changes are trying to ensure that the LPS 1048 stays relevant in the market, expanding the scope covered in response to demand, while lowering the risk to specifiers, end users, and insurers through a more robust third-party certification scheme.

Where do you feel certifications/examinations are going more broadly in the industry? Does this update reflect a more widespread trend?

DF: There is certainly a move towards third-party certifications in all areas in the construction industry to show compliance and signify a quality installation. Third-party certifications are in high demand across all product groups and schemes certified by BRE as government, specifiers, and insurers drive the construction industry to continually improve. As a part of this direction, examinations and proving competency within a trade or product has taken on a greater importance.

It should also be noted that third-party certifiers such as BRE are continuously audited externally by UKAS for our accreditation, and internally to ensure the highest standard of compliance and practice.

Should certification of the engineers be limited to their experience?

DF: BRE exams currently do not have a ‘time served’ or experience qualifying criteria. With the introduction of narrower scopes and the associated exams, companies and engineers will be able to focus on their strengths and core business.

Will the LPCB assess individuals based on experience for a specific type of system (i.e. pre-calculated versus high/hazard storage)?

DF: BRE competency exams test and affirm a candidate’s knowledge of a specific type of system and/or activity. With the update to the LPS 1048 scheme, should a company not conduct a scope of works for a period of three years it will be removed from their certification, ensuring that companies remain current with the regulations and have recent knowledge of that type of project.

Where examinations have been passed by engineers, do you feel there should be an ongoing assessment of their competence?

DF: Yes, this would be our preference as the BS EN and the technical bulletins are always evolving to reflect the FPA and its partners’ industry experience. We hope that by making our exams more scope-focused, as per the
updated scheme and reducing the time requirements to undertake the competency exams, we can introduce an element of ongoing assessment of competence.

Fire & Risk Management is the UK’s market leading fire safety journal, published 10 times a year, and is available exclusively to FPA members in digital and print format depending on your requirements. You can find out more about our membership scheme here.

David Ferguson is the Head of Audit Teams at BRE.