Fire Safety

I READ WITH GREAT INTEREST THE "UNDER Fire" article on residential fire safety (October 1999, page 228). For more than 25 years, I have built one- and two-story residences, concentrating on smaller multifamily rentals. It is clear to me that the industry expert was accurate when he stated that the fire protection advocates use emotion more than fact in their advocacy of stricter requirements.

New homes are extremely fire safe -a result of smoke detectors, better wiring, excellent insulating, and the extensive use of fire-resistant products. Rather than acknowledge this safety, sprinkler advocates continue to use scare tactics to attempt to mandate fire sprinkler systems in new residences, including rentals of 16 units or less. They bolster their argument with emotional anecdotes and erroneous remarks. In smaller multifamily, for instance, there is no insurance savings for installing a fire sprinkler system, Insurance companies have found that losses to false sprinkler activations and excessive water damage more than offset savings due to fire suppression. It really disturbs me that fire safety advocates focus the debate on new code requirements when all available data clearly demonstrate that older residential buildings overwhelmingly present the fire safety hazard. We should focus on fire safety retrofit measures if saving lives is our primary goal.

Finally, I always ask the question of those who are strong advocates of mandating fire sprinkler systems in residences: Acknowledging their advocacy and emotional concerns, how many of them have voluntarily installed sprinkler systems in their own residences? When their money is involved, I've found that the facts of fire safety suddenly overcome their emotional presentation.

PATRICK MURPHY MURPHY DEVELOPMENT GREEN BAY, WIS.

THE "UNDER FIRE" ARTICLE STATES IN ONE paragraph that residential sprinklers cost about $i per square foot, but in the next paragraph talks about fully sprinklered buildings and how they save on insurance costs. The article should have explained that residential sprinkler systems (usually NFPA 13R) are different from the fully sprinklered kind (NFPA 13), which do save on insurance because they save property but cost about four times as much to install. The residential sprinklers can actually raise insurance costs because they can cause property damage through leaks and rot and are not designed to save property- only lives.

KELLY RIORDAN MILBRANDT ARCHITECTS VIA E-MAIL

MATTHEW POWER RESPONDS: We ran your commentspast Pat Coughlin, executive directorof the Residential Fire Safety Institute in Shawnee Mission, Kan. Heres his take on the question: "For one -and-two-family homes;property insurers routinely give io percent to 20 percent reductions on the fire portion of the home owners' policy. I have not seen any restrictions to NFPA 13 systems as opposed to -i3R or i3D When I installed a i3D system several years ago, State Farm reduced the premium about 13 percent.

"Owners of multifamily structures can actually save more because insurers are willing to reduce the liability portion of the insurance premium as well. As for the writer's assertion that insurance premiums may actually increase because of the potential for property damage, this is misleading. For one, 13R and i3D Systems-which are primarily life safety systems-typically reduce property damage by a factor of nine. This is basedon an analysis of ro years of fire losses in Scottsdale, Ariz. I have seen 'water damage'riders on policies for sprinklered commercial buildings. However, the last one I saw had an increase of one-tenth of one cent per hundred dollars valuation -a very small increase -and the reduction in the other portions of the policy still resulted in a substantial net decrease in the policy. One citation showed a 50 percent decrease in the liability portion ofan owner's policy."

Keeping the Family Business Strong

AS A THIRD-GENERATION HOME BUILDER, I read with interest your article "Family Ties" (November 1999, page 106).

I never expected to be in the home building business, but circumstances led me to look for a career with flexibility. My dad and I have always been close, and he gave me an opportunity to learn and become part of the family business in 1985.

My dad passed away 14 months ago, and I have had time to contemplate what made his legacy continue. He was a smart man, and I think that was the key. From day one, he gave me a mentor in this business. I never reported directly to my father. We spoke daily, of course, and shared business interests (as well as other interests), but my "reporting" never was to him directly.

There was never pressure nor expecta

tion to go into the family business nor to continue. That freedom has always permitted me to make my own choices. The fact that I love what I do, and that our business has always been a "family" business (which extends to those not related by blood), with many long-term employees, made the decision to continue the legacy an easy one. We lost no employees because of my dad's passing ... and will be celebrating our 75th year in business in 2000.

LYNDA BADNESS THE BARNESS ORGANIZATION WARRINGTON, PA. VIA E-MAIL

In Search of Software

YOUR "SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS" ARTICLE (August 1999, Page 140) grabbed my attention. Recently, I have been researching how to better integrate some of the software and electronics on the market into our company. Specifically, I am researching the use of palm-computing devices on jobsites for our superintendents who travel a great deal.

It didn't take long for me to realize that there is a lot of good software and electronics out there. It is extremely difficult, though, to find all the available products and weigh their options because they are scattered throughout the Internet and country. Unfortunately, when I do find a product that might meet our needs the information is usually biased and does not give me all the ins and outs. As of yet, I have not found something that is right for us, although I know it is out there.

Having realized how difficult obtaining reliable information can be, I have two suggestions for you. First, what if BuILDER set up a database[Web link for all available software and products that meet the needs of builders? It could become "The Builder's Yellow Pages." A builder could go to your page and search for, say, "scheduling software and products for the palm computer," and from your page could easily go to all the available Web pages and products on the market to see and compare what was available. Also, you could have a technology team that rated the various products so a builder could get an honest analysis of them.

Second, I would love to see in every issue a part titled "Products Software and Computer Solutions." Each article would focus on a specific product or software type that is on the market. For example, your recent article briefly mentioned one or two software packages that are available for management, scheduling, payroll, etc. To a builder who has never looked into these options this might have sparked an interest or maybe some ideas. But for those of us in the building business who know what is out there, we need more.

It is time for home builders to more fully integrate the world of technology into their businesses. I feel that the difficulty of finding reliable information and research impedes or discourages many builders. Can you help us?

know what is out there, we need more.

It is time for home builders to more fully integrate the world of tehnology into their business. I feel that the difficulty of finding reliable information and research impedes or discourages many builders. Can you help us?

RUSSELL MISKIN PROVO,UTAH VIA E-MAIL

BOYCE THOMPSON REPLIES: Your e-mail is very timely. This month, we're starting a new section in the magazine called "Home Tech " (seepage 377). It willprovide answers to many ofthe questions you raised. Asfor finding vendors, I suggest you check out our interactive guide to building products at www.builderonline.com. It contains leads on many of the items you're asking about.

Controlling Costs

AT WWW.BUILDERONLINE.COM RECENTLY, home building guru Chuck Shinn from The Lee Evans Group (www.leevansgroup. com) answered questions on controlling direct construction costs. Here is an excerpt from that questions on and answer session. rect construction costs. Here is an excerpt from that question and answer session.

Q. In a custom home, what is the best way to control a subcontractor to ensure he will complete the work to an owner's satisfaction? Is a retainage appropriate, and if so, should it be held until punch list time? Our market is overwhelmed with work and flaky, overpriced subs who'd just as soon take go percent of their money and quit as come back to complete their work. We get stuck hiring another sub, paying more than an appropriate retention, and cost control goes out the window. Steve Hughes, Seattle

A. DR. SHINN REPLIES: Holding a retainage is one way to assure subcontractors complete their work. However, the home building industry is not as accustomed to retainages as commercial construction. Typically, retainage does nothing but increase your bid price, because the trades don't believe they will ever see the money.

Subcontractor payments should be tied to specific amounts of work being completed. There should be a checklist developed to guarantee that all work is complete for each pay point. The NAHB has a publication that has sample checklists [call the Home Builder Bookstore at 800-223-2665], and a number of builders have already developed checklists. In the effort to eliminate repeat trips for unfinished work, making sure the contractor is 100 percent done with the phase of work before being paid for that phase of work will help tremendously.

If you still have finish-up items at the end of construction, arrange for the final payment to be made upon the completion of these final items. Refer to this as final payment- not retainage. The trades get too percent of the agreed payment for each phase of work completed, with the last payment made upon completion of the complete contract. Payment of percentage of completion typically doesn't work because the contractors are typically ahead of the builder and will have a tendency not to complete thejob because it is going to cost them more than the remaining payment.