CONTRACTORS’ CORNER
2
The importance of regular fire system maintenance
compliance,” notes van Niekerk. Regular servicing also provides an opportunity to assess whether existing systems remain suitable for the building’s current use. Changes in occupancy, layout, storage methods, or equipment may shift the fire risk profile. What was sufficient five years ago might no longer meet current standards. Maintenance visits enable informed suggestions on upgrades, expansions, or technology improvements to ensure ongoing compliance and maximum protection. Ultimately, fire protection is about prioritising people’s safety. Early detection enables safe evacuation. Effective suppression limits the fire’s spread, reduces smoke damage, and keeps escape routes clear. A well-maintained system provides occupants with valuable time to leave safely and allows emergency services to respond efficiently. “Fire safety cannot be reactive,” concludes van Niekerk. “It requires ongoing commitment. Regular maintenance ensures that when a fire emergency occurs, the system responds exactly as designed. That reliability saves lives and protects assets.” For property owners and facilities managers across South Africa, the message is clear: installation is just the beginning. Regular, scheduled maintenance ensures that fire protection systems perform their vital role. To keep fire detection and suppression systems compliant, reliable, and fully operational, ASP Fire provides a comprehensive maintenance assessment and customised service plan.
Africa’s diverse environmental conditions, from coastal corrosion to dusty industrial environments, environmental factors can significantly affect system performance. Suppression systems, whether water- based sprinklers, gas suppression, or specialised extinguishing agents, rely equally on regular maintenance. Valves can seize, pumps may fail, cylinders can lose pressure, and pipework can become obstructed. Scheduled servicing identifies and addresses these issues before they threaten system integrity. In high-risk environments such as data centres, manufacturing facilities, and healthcare institutions, even a brief delay in activation can lead to catastrophic losses. Beyond compliance and risk mitigation, regular fire system maintenance safeguards business continuity. A fire incident not only endangers lives but can also disrupt operations for months, harm reputations, and cause significant financial losses. Insurers are increasingly demanding proof of ongoing maintenance in accordance with recognised standards. Inadequate records or missed inspections may compromise claims. Proactive servicing shows due diligence and bolsters an organisation’s risk management profile. Maintenance must be systematic and well-documented. “Scheduled inspections should be conducted by competent, accredited technicians in accordance with applicable SANS standards and manufacturer specifications. Each service must be recorded, with clear reports that highlight any defects and the corrective actions taken. This documentation is essential for audits, insurance, and legal
responsibilities to building owners and employers to ensure fire protection systems are properly maintained. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993), along with relevant SANS standards like SANS 10139 for fire detection and alarm systems and SANS 1475 for fire extinguishers, specifies requirements for inspection, testing, and maintenance. Municipal fire by- laws further strengthen these obligations. Non-compliance can lead to legal liability, insurance issues, and, most critically, preventable loss of life. According to Michael van Niekerk, CEO of ASP Fire, regular maintenance should be regarded as an investment in operational continuity rather than an administrative burden. “A fire system is only as effective as its last service. Detection devices can become contaminated, batteries can degrade, sprinkler heads can corrode, and control panels can develop faults over time. Without scheduled inspections, these issues often go unnoticed until it is too late.” Fire detection systems rely on accuracy. Smoke and heat detectors must function within designated sensitivity ranges. Control panels need to correctly interpret signals and activate alarms, evacuation procedures, and connected suppression systems. Routine testing confirms that detectors are properly calibrated, wiring is intact, communication channels are operational, and standby power supplies are dependable. In South
F ire detection and suppression within seconds of an incident occurring. However, their reliability depends not only on proper installation but also on regular inspections, testing, and maintenance. Without these, even the most sophisticated fire protection system can fail when it is needed most. For property owners across South Africa—whether commercial, industrial, or residential—scheduled fire system maintenance is not just a compliance requirement; it is an essential safety measure. South African legislation clearly assigns systems are designed to respond quickly during an emergency, often Regular maintenance should be viewed as an investment.
www.aspfire.co.za
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 COMPLIANCE OR CONVENIENCE: THE HIDDEN CRISIS IN SOUTH AFRICA’S BUSWAY MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY INDUSTRY
manufacturers assuming they are getting the best quality at the best price, without verifying compliance. Compliant manufacturers who try to do the right thing by quoting on compliant products are undercut by non-compliant or partially compliant manufacturers, while those willing to cut corners are rewarded. The tender process, instead of promoting technical excellence and adherence to standards, encourages shortcuts and risk-taking. This is fundamentally unfair — and dangerous. Friendship Over Compliance: A Culture Problem The market has also been flooded by small, unregulated manufacturers, often started by individuals leaving established companies. Equipped with insider knowledge and industry contacts, many launch products that do not meet full SANS/IEC 61439-6 requirements — still gain acceptance through friendship-based business networks. It has become far too common for projects to be awarded based on personal or political connections rather than on technical merit. This is especially concerning because these non-compliant systems are being installed in hospitals, shopping centres, data centres, and factories, where public safety should never be compromised. In today’s technologically advanced world, test reports and certificates can be easily altered. Without thorough verification — through SABS, NRCS, SANAS or other
compliant systems should lie with the Professional Engineer or Consultancy Firm. Contractors cannot and should not be expected to select suppliers based solely on price. Design integrity, clear specifications, and test parameters should always be specified by the responsible professional, and the supplier should be chosen based on the level of compliance. The manufacturer should ensure that they adhere to manufacturing regulations. The Client’s Cost Illusion Many clients believe that choosing cheaper systems saves money — but the reality is quite different. A non-compliant busway system not only reduces the lifespan of the installation but also increases fire and safety risks, can invalidate insurance, void warranties, and expose the client to legal and financial consequences. Compliance isn’t a luxury; it’s a safeguard. It protects lives, property, and reputations. Professionals and contractors must take a stand and educate clients on the long- term costs of non-compliance. The SANS/ IEC 61439-6 standard exists to ensure safety, reliability, and interoperability — and every deviation from it compromises that foundation. Rebuilding Accountability and Integrity The way forward is clear: accountability, transparency, and enforcement. Every stakeholder in the value chain must
accredited bodies — there is no assurance that a product is genuinely compliant.
play their part: • Professionals must specify, verify, and enforce compliance with SANS/IEC 61439-6. • Contractors must refuse to install untested, non-certified, or partially certified systems. • Consultants and engineers must insist on documentation, not assumptions. • Regulators and certification bodies must take action against manufacturers who misuse type test reports or circumvent proper testing procedures. • Compliance should not be a competitive disadvantage — it ought to be the industry standard. Conclusion: Choosing Integrity Over Convenience The South African electrical industry faces a crucial crossroads. We can keep neglecting standards, permitting outdated tests, unclear specifications, and non-compliant products to shape our market — or we can demand higher standards. We owe it to ourselves, our clients, our employees, and our profession to maintain the integrity of SANS/IEC 61439-6. The expense of non-compliance exceeds the cost of doing things correctly. It’s time to shift the focus from convenience to compliance, from relationships to responsibility, and from price to performance. Only then can we rebuild trust, fairness, and safety in our industry.
Who Bears the Responsibility? The lack of accountability within the professional hierarchy is one of the biggest enablers of non-compliance. Consulting engineers and designers often copy old specifications or leave details vague, assuming contractors will “know what to do,” or they place trust in a manufacturer, expecting to receive the best solutions and products. Contractors, under pricing pressure, are compelled to interpret incomplete documents and make supplier choices and decisions that should be conducted by professionals. Non-compliant or partially compliant manufacturers, driven by cost, seldom understand the risks of non-compliant Who should be held responsible when non-compliant products are installed? Is it the professional engineer or consultant, the installation electrician signing off the project, the contractor who ordered and purchased the non-compliant or partially compliant product, or the manufacturer who deliberately supplied non-compliant or partially compliant products? While all parties have obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Electrical Installation Regulations, the primary responsibility for specifying systems until it’s too late. So, the question arises:
SPARKS ELECTRICAL NEWS
APRIL 2026
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker