The Evolving Landscape of Passive Fire Protection and Testing

The field of passive fire protection is undergoing significant transformation, driven by key reports such as the Hackitt Review, Morrell/Day Report, and Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. These reports, along with legislative changes, have shifted industry practices—most notably, emphasizing early engagement in fire protection planning.

Historical Challenges in Passive Fire Protection

Traditionally, passive fire protection was often an afterthought in construction projects. It was typically a small, late-stage procurement—often during RIBA Stage 5—when the building was already under construction. This meant that fire protection contractors were frequently presented with pre-existing site conditions and expected to resolve issues reactively rather than proactively. This lack of foresight has been recognized in recent industry reports as a critical flaw that needs addressing.

The Shift Towards Early Engagement

In response, Tier 1 contractors are increasingly adopting an early engagement approach, bringing in fire protection specialists during the design phase to ensure compliant solutions from the outset. A compliant solution typically involves either:

• A manufacturer-approved detail

• A technical assessment

• A bespoke fire test for specific project conditions

Some contractors have gone even further, mandating that all passive fire protection solutions must be tested. However, while this is ideal in theory, it is impossible to test every scenario. Large structural elements, such as 50-metre-long steel columns, cannot be fully tested, necessitating technical evaluations by highly competent professionals.

Competency: A Growing Concern

As the Building Safety Regulator enforces the Building Safety Act, passive fire protection solutions will need to be determined by RIBA Stage 4. This should, in theory, eliminate the need for last-minute testing before project completion.

However, industry experience shows that competency issues in installation—rather than design—are often the real problem. For instance:

• A builders' work opening may be designed for proper fire separation, but if mechanical and electrical (M&E) contractors fail to install services correctly, passive fire protection contractors are forced to develop ad hoc solutions.

• Poor trade coordination means that passive fire protection contractors must constantly adjust to on-site errors, rather than implementing pre-tested, approved solutions.

Thus, early engagement must extend beyond just design—it must also educate and align all trades (e.g., M&E contractors) on the importance of installing components correctly to avoid unnecessary workarounds.

The Role of Testing in Problem-Solving

While testing cannot solve all coordination challenges, it plays a crucial role in rectifying installation errors and validating solutions for new or non-standard conditions. However, a major challenge is that newer products often lack sufficient test evidence across different scenarios.

For example:

• A busbar (used for high-voltage electricity distribution) may have been fire-tested in a blockwork wall, but not in a dry partition wall or with additional services passing through.

• This means contractors must conduct bespoke testing to confirm performance in real-world conditions, increasing demand for fire testing services.

Certification, Capacity, and Regulatory Pressure

Many designers and contractors rely on product certification to ensure compliance. However:

• Products must undergo recertification over time.

• The transition from BS 476 to EN 13501 standards will require retesting of many fire-rated products, such as fire doors.

• Clients are increasingly demanding fully tested solutions for every fire-stopping scenario, even where regulations do not explicitly require it.

This growing demand for testing raises concerns about capacity in the fire testing sector—not just in terms of physical facilities (e.g., test furnaces) but also the availability of qualified professionals across the entire testing process, from designing standards to interpreting results.

Addressing the Competency Gap

The UK has faced a skills drain in fire testing, with much of the expertise moving abroad. The Morrell/Day report highlighted this as a critical issue. Unlike fire risk assessment, which saw an influx of underqualified assessors in 2006, the fire testing industry must ensure that competency grows alongside capacity.

Industry leaders, including Dame Judith Hackitt, emphasize that solving this issue falls on the industry itself—there is no simple fix. Training, upskilling, and third-party certification schemes will be essential in ensuring a competent workforce for the future.

Ensuring Impartiality in Testing

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report placed testing houses and certification bodies under intense scrutiny, particularly regarding their relationships with product manufacturers. There have been concerns that some test houses previously overlooked compliance failures, undermining trust in certification processes.

To address this, CLM Fire Testing and the Fire Protection Association (FPA) have partnered to establish a UKAS-accredited fire testing laboratory with a neutral testing process. This approach ensures that:

• The test house (CLM Fire Testing) and the test administrator (FPA) remain separate entities.

• Manufacturers have no influence over test outcomes once the test is underway.

This arms-length approach is likely to become the future standard, ensuring greater integrity in fire testing and ultimately leading to safer buildings for all.

A Fire Protection Association Report

CLICK THE LOGO FOR MORE DETAILS OF THE FPA