The Fire Door That Was Value-Engineered Out
A four-storey office refurbishment is nearing completion. The design provides a protected escape stair with fire doors at each floor. During a site inspection the architect notices that the doors supplied to the stair are self-closing but have no intumescent seals or smoke seals, and the door leaves are 44 mm hollow-core rather than the specified solid-core. The contractor says the doors carry a 'fire door' label from the supplier and that the omission of seals was a value-engineering saving agreed with the client's project manager. The building control officer has not yet carried out the final inspection. Occupancy is due in three weeks.
1. What is the compliance position, and what should the architect do before the final inspection?
Read the worked answer
The doors as installed are unlikely to provide the required fire resistance, and the architect should require remediation before the inspection.
Reasoning:
- A 'fire door' label is not enough. A fire door's rating depends on the complete door assembly - leaf, frame, seals, hinges, closer, and glazing - tested and certified together. Removing intumescent and smoke seals from a certified assembly generally invalidates the rating. A hollow-core 44 mm leaf is not a typical fire-rated leaf.
- The value-engineering agreement does not cure non-compliance. The project manager cannot agree a change that breaches building regulations. The architect should check whether the change was formally instructed and whether the architect was consulted; either way, the duty to comply with the code is unaffected.
- Protected escape routes are life-safety elements. The doors protect the stair, which is the means of escape. Non-compliant doors put the whole escape strategy at risk and would likely be picked up at final inspection, delaying occupation.
- Action: Issue a written instruction to the contractor to replace the leaves with the specified solid-core, fire-rated assemblies and to fit the specified seals and ironmongery, with certification for each door set. Ask the contractor to provide the manufacturer's test evidence for the assembly as installed, so the gap is documented.
- Inform the client and the building control officer. Give the officer early notice of the issue and the remediation plan; voluntary disclosure is far better than a failed inspection.
2. The client says replacement will cost $40,000 and delay occupancy by two weeks. How should the architect handle the cost and programme consequences?
Read the worked answer
The architect should separate the compliance obligation from the commercial dispute and manage each on its own track.
Reasoning:
- Compliance is non-negotiable. The $40,000 and two-week delay do not change the requirement. The architect should state plainly that occupation of a building with non-compliant escape doors is not an option, and that the building control officer is unlikely to certify it.
- Establish who bears the cost. The architect should review the change record. If the omission was instructed by the project manager without the architect's involvement, the client may have a claim against its own adviser, but the contractor may also be liable for supplying non-conforming goods. The architect should not adjudicate the dispute but should provide the factual record: what was specified, what was instructed, and what was installed.
- Mitigate the programme. Ask the contractor for a recovery plan: can doors be sourced in phases, can the stair be completed first, can partial occupation be agreed with building control? Two weeks may be reducible.
- Protect the architect's position. Put advice in writing: the architect did not approve the substitution, recommended against it if consulted, and required remediation on discovery. Copy the client's project manager.
- Learn for the close-out. Recommend a formal review of how value-engineering changes are approved, so that life-safety items require architect sign-off in future.