1. Who identified the defect, and are they appropriately qualified?

Do not rely only on the name or reputation of the company submitting the quotation. Ask for the name and licence number of the person who inspected the installation and reported the defect.

Queensland fire protection licences are divided according to the type of system and the work being performed. A person may be licensed to inspect and test particular equipment but not to certify it, design alterations or carry out work on a different type of fire safety installation.

For example, licences may separately cover portable fire equipment, passive fire protection, water-based systems, fire alarm systems and emergency lighting. The licence may then be limited to functions such as design, inspection and testing, installation and maintenance, or certification.

Importantly, holding a general “Fire Safety Professional” licence does not automatically authorise a person to inspect, test or certify every type of fire protection equipment. Additional licence classes may be required.

The committee should check that:

• the licence is current;
• the licence class covers the particular fire safety installation;
• the licence authorises the type of assessment or certification undertaken; and
• the person whose licence is being relied upon was responsible for the inspection and findings.

Licence details can be checked through the public QBCC licensee register. Where relevant, both the contracting company and the individual licensee should be verified.

A salesperson or administrator may prepare and send the quotation, but the committee should still be able to identify the appropriately qualified person responsible for the technical finding.

2. What exactly is defective, and what evidence supports the finding?

A statement such as “fire door non-compliant” or “emergency light failed” does not provide enough information for a committee to make an informed decision.

The report should clearly identify:

• the location and asset number;
• the nature of the defect;
• the inspection or test performed;
• the result obtained;
• photographs or test readings where appropriate;
• the relevant requirement; and
• the proposed rectification.

For example, is a fire door failing to close and latch, is the door damaged, is the hardware unsuitable, or is the identification tag missing? These are different issues and may require very different solutions.

The same principle applies to other installations. If an item failed a test, the report should record what was tested and the result—not simply state that replacement is required.

Clear evidence also allows the committee to confirm that the quotation relates to its building and prevents the same defect from being repeatedly quoted after it has been rectified.

3. Is the work legally required, or is it a recommendation or upgrade?

The committee should ask the contractor to clearly distinguish between:

• a failure against an applicable maintenance requirement;
• a defect against the building’s approved design;
• damage or deterioration requiring repair;
• missing documentation that must be located or recreated;
• a recommended improvement; and
• an upgrade to a newer standard that may not apply retrospectively.

Not every recommendation is a legal requirement. A contractor may reasonably recommend newer equipment, improved coverage or a system upgrade, but the quotation should clearly describe it as a recommendation if it is not mandatory.

The contractor should identify the basis of each reported defect. This may include the building approval, approved drawings, baseline data, Queensland Development Code MP 6.1, an applicable maintenance standard or another specific legislative requirement.

This is particularly important in older buildings. The fact that a current standard contains a newer requirement does not necessarily mean every existing building must immediately be upgraded. The building’s approval date, approved design and any later building work must also be considered.

4. Does the quotation include the complete rectification?

A low initial price can become expensive if essential work, access equipment, testing or certification is excluded.

The committee should confirm whether the quotation includes:

• labour and materials;
• access equipment and after-hours work;
• isolation and reinstatement of affected systems;
• making good any disturbed building surfaces;
• testing after completion;
• required certification;
• updated asset registers, logbooks and service records;
• updated drawings or baseline data where affected; and
• removal and disposal of replaced equipment.

The quotation should also state what documentation the body corporate will receive when the work is finished.

This matters because the objective is not simply to pay for a repair. The body corporate needs evidence demonstrating what was rectified, who performed the work and whether the installation was satisfactorily tested afterward.