Code & Compliance FAQs

A1: The risk involved with misinterpreting codes or standards can be devastating to a project.

Historically, in the absence of clarity, integrators have relied on manufacturers and vendor partners to interpret the intent of the specifier. Today, that responsibility is shifting to the integrator because multiple systems and/or applications are integrated and interconnected.

The code official (authority having jurisdiction, or AHJ) is likely to be concerned only with the basic or core purpose for which a system is required or specified based upon specific occupancy. AHJs often ask for proof that basic systems meet code; they aren’t as concerned with ancillary or supplemental features as long as they don’t interfere with or alter the operation or integrity of the core system.

A2: We push back. Our company never issues a price on a project without clarity on this. We would rather pass on a project than send out a bid we’re uncomfortable with. We also do what we can to educate the spec writers and consultants on what our AHJs will and won’t accept.

A3: Our biggest problem is confusion between UL, ICC, and NFPA. We try to educate our team and adhere to the highest standards but feel like our competitors do what’s cheapest (and get away with it).

A1: Every jurisdiction seems to be different. The person we all must answer to is the one who grants the occupancy permit. Typically, the building inspector, construction manager, or owner’s representative will conduct a walk-through prior to closeout. Be present for that if possible and demonstrate your expertise and knowledge of the local ordinances and permitting processes and be able to explain how your systems match the specifications and approved submittals.

A1: Yes! Visit the Online Essentials Library and use the search bar for details.

A2: We use AIA agreements because they’re proven to be fair and are widely accepted.

A1: We used to be all for it and supported legislation around the concept; however, we soon discovered that we needed a pay-when-not-paid provision as well. The intent was a solid idea, but most contractors who didn’t pay in accordance with the terms and conditions in the project manual were in default on other parts of the project where they weren’t going to be paid for quite some time.

A2: On government projects, the Little Miller Act is even better than pay-when-paid. This has helped numerous NSCA members get paid when their portion of the work was not called into question.

A1: Yes and no. Division 27 doesn’t yet, but Division 28 does. Look for the next version to incorporate the same cybersecurity language in Division 27 as you see in Division 28 today.

A1: This is an often-disputed, often-debated issue. It is NSCA’s belief that code ownership needs to be a defined arrangement: something contracted between the software developer, manufacturer, programmer, integrator, and end-user. This is very complex when many parties are involved. There are several legal opinions, numerous case studies, and, in some instances, unresolved project closeout disputes that have gone on for years.

The most important factor is the agreement between the control systems manufacturer and the integrator. Often, the integrator signs a dealer agreement, which clearly states that the software, source code, and initial programming will be turned over to the end-user. Their license agreement is subject to turning that over.

In other cases, the manufacturer leaves it up to the authorized dealer to transfer ownership (or not) of the programming information as they see fit.

A1: One big reason: An end-user equipped with basic knowledge of the system, as-built drawings, and programming capabilities could replicate a system and use the limited-use license to build out many systems when the intent was a single system.

A1: Federal law dictates that each state is responsible for the code requirements of a state and/or municipality or city. Some states have a state code that each municipality/city must adhere to.

In addition, each municipality/city may have supplementary requirements. Some states (i.e. Missouri) have a state code for state buildings but allow each municipality/city to decide which codes are valid within that municipality/city.

Online resources have up-to-date lists of all municipality and city codes.

A1: The federal Davis-Bacon Act requires that prevailing wages be paid on federally funded public works projects, such as construction, repair or alteration of public buildings, or construction of public roads or bridges. The federal law sets a minimum threshold of $2,000. States must abide by the Davis-Bacon Act when federal funds are involved in public works projects within the state. Not all occupations are subject to prevailing wage under Davis-Bacon, but the prevailing wage for those occupations that are subject (specifically on-site laborers and mechanics) are determined by the U.S. Department of Labor through surveys of wages paid in those occupations in surrounding areas, and they include both union and nonunion labor.

States also have their own prevailing wage requirements, sometimes known as the “little Davis-Bacon Act”. Actual prevailing wage rates and application depend upon the state in which the project is located. States that do have prevailing wage rates have dollar thresholds for contract coverage (summary of thresholds by stated is posted at the DOL online). The rate itself is determined by the prevailing wage determination assigned to the subcontractor (e.g. sound and signal technician), which, in many cases, also varies by county (similar to Davis-Bacon). We price both our labor and our subcontractor labor using the applicable prevailing wage rate (where prevailing wage applies). Our subcontractors are required to make their own prevailing wage determination (as it relates to which prevailing wage rate applies); however, in most instances, it is the same determination we use for that jurisdiction.

We also push down the prevailing wage requirements to our subcontractors via contract and, therefore, we require them to include certified payroll reports with their applications for payment as a condition to payment (much like we do with lien releases).

Integrators should push these requirements down to their subcontractors and ensure that their subcontractors are complying with these regulations to the same extent that integrators are required to comply.

A2: Generally, when prevailing wage rates are required to be paid, we use our own labor to perform the work and pay our employees the required prevailing wage rate. We subcontract out roughly 20% of work that is subject to prevailing wage rates. When we subcontract out to a third party for work performed on a prevailing wage rate project, we advise the subcontractor that:

• This project is subject to prevailing wage, and they will be required to furnish us certified payroll proving they paid prevailing wage rates
• We need them to include prevailing wage rates in their pricing
• We provide them with the prevailing wage rate pricing schedules if they do not have them
• We confirm when we receive the proposal that they did include labor rates that meet the prevailing wage rates required

Thereafter, we require the subcontractors to submit to us certified payroll monthly, which is required for us to pass along to the general contractors (GCs) or customer directly (depending on whether a GC is involved). We have an employee who reviews the certified payroll received from subcontractors to verify that the correct rates were paid as well.

In my opinion, any issues related to this are miscommunication issues: Integrators don’t advise subcontractors that prevailing wage rates are required when they request a quote and do not require certified payroll to prove that prevailing wage rates were paid to the subs employees. Integrators may also neglect to ask the customer/GC if prevailing wage rates are required to be paid. We always ask on all projects that we bid as a standard RFI.

Visit the U.S. Department of Labor. Also look at NSCA’s Legislative Tracking Map to track new laws and regulations on proposed changes in your state. 

A1: We do not, but training from other sources is very affordable and available online.

Yes! Visit the Online Essentials Library and look for the cyber hygiene document as a place to start.

A1: You can view the legislative activity that NSCA is tracking, sign up for alerts, and find your elected officials here.

A1: We are seeing this more and more. In the past, a permit wasn’t needed in most jurisdictions for projects within the scope and price range of what we do. Today, that has changed. Even a simple project can require a permit. It is a revenue generator and used to verify licensing. Be mindful of doing work in an unfamiliar city. NSCA has seen major delays in places you would never expect due to unfamiliarity.

A1: A compliance officer is someone appointed by the company to oversee and perform the mandatory tracking and reporting on requirements such as OSHA 10, as well as track required certifications, attend mandatory jobsite meetings, manage the project-closeout documentation processes, and track contracts with specific provisions for insurance or similar items. We often assume that one project is just like the one before it, and we tend to forget that the front end of the spec book is the most important.

A1: Yes! For one, include an explanation of the process and closeout procedures you use in the proposal or contract with the end-user upfront. Try not to use generic language that can open you up to subjective interpretation. Use industry closeout procedures and best practices; provide a timeline that maps out when the owner representative needs to be there to sign off.

A1: Yes! Integrators that are PASS (Partner Alliance for Safer Schools) partners are trained to understand the privacy laws and codes that govern permissible camera fields of view. 

A1: NFPA 101 states that any door within a fire/smoke partition must be rated for the partition and must positively close. A classroom door is within a fire/smoke partition if the door is rated as a fire/smoke door (the door will have a metal tag on the hinge side of the door providing the door’s fire/smoke rating) and has a mechanical closer installed.

If this is the case, then Life Safety Code requires that the door freely close. At no time is the door allowed to be “propped” open. This includes a magnetic strip that restricts the door from latching.

In the event of a fire, air movement is a key component to the restriction or conflagration of a fire. A magnetic strip that restricts the door from latching allows the door to open due to the difference in temperature between the spaces in which the door penetrates.

A fire will seek the path of least resistance, which, scientifically, is moving from an area with high temperature to an area with low temperature. The effect of a high-temperature area combined with a low-temperature area creates a suction effect between the two areas. If the door between the two areas is not latched, this effect will open the door, allowing the fire to promulgate from one area to another.

If the door using the magnetic strip isn’t part of a fire/smoke partition, then the code does not have any requirements.

A1: NFPA 730, Guide for Premises Security, recommends either wire mesh embedded into the glass or bullet-resistant film on all exterior windows, exterior doors with glass, and exterior sidelights.

NFPA 730 does not provide recommendations for interior doors, interior windows, or interior sidelights.

A1: According to NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, Chapter 24, an emergency voice communication system must have, at minimum, two locations from which emergency commands are sent.

This means that a school should have a secondary location allowing for emergency commands, such as active shooter, weather emergency, live voice announcements, and other threats to building occupants.

The fire panel is the primary source to initiate an emergency command; however, code dictates that a secondary source is required. If this is not the case in your school, it is recommended that you work with the fire marshal to ensure that the fire alarm/emergency communication system is up to code.

A1: NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, states that any door within a fire/smoke partition must be rated for the partition and must positively close. A classroom door is within a fire/smoke partition if the door is rated as a fire/smoke door (the door will have a metal tag on the hinge side of the door providing the door’s fire/smoke rating) and has a mechanical closer installed.

If this is the case, then Life Safety Code requires that the door freely close. At no time is the door allowed to be “propped” open.

If the classroom door isn’t part of a fire/smoke partition, then NFPA 730: Guide for Premises Security suggests that the door remain locked at all times.

A1: Patented key loss is a major issue facing all schools and can result in significant cost.

Each occurrence must be reported immediately; a loss investigation must take place. Treat this as lost or stolen property with the same sense of urgency. If the key is a master or outside building key, begin the process of rekeying the school or look to this as an opportunity to replace traditional locksets and keys with an electronic solution.

A1: While this topic isn’t within the scope of PASS, all public schools must follow individual state law. That will govern your policy.

A1: See the complete list in the PASS School Safety and Security Guidelines, which can be found here.