I would say no. It is down to the Designer.

For example, a low level site spark who only does what he is told, would have no input on the Design, and fits the equipment as he has been told. The Tester would also have little or no input, apart from maybe making a note that the Design may not meet the BS requirements, and to note the Design Guidelines that are provided to explain why it has been constructed the way it has, and how it does meet an equivalent safety standard.

A similar example that I am currently working on is a block of flats that has the LIfe Safety Systems secondary (back up) supply fed from the same cable as the main power incomer. It does not meet BS5839 in my view, (and an esteemed Inspector who posts here agrees), but I have no say at all in the matter, I just connect the wires. I mentioned it to the Site Manager, who knew it didnt comply, and said there was no other way of supplying the back up power. He really means that it costs more than they want to pay, and, hopefully, it wont come back to bite them on the backside if an emergency happens on the site in the future.  For this example, the Installer would have no liability, but the Designer would be liable, as his drawings clearly show both supplies from the same cable. Whether they actually try to justify it on any Certification is difficult to say. I'd hope so, but they may just forget to mention it if it is inspected.

It rather depends who has made the decision - in your question that is the designer - and arguably that should always be the case. It could  I suppose be the installer,  but then he or she would presumably be deviating from the plan, or requesting a concession - i.e. a plan variation to cover it so it goes back to the designers for checking. Everyone else is only obeying orders - they may like to understand why, and in a perfect world would have access to the explanation but they may not have to. (and in some odd cases like national security they may not be able to )

I suggest that it needs noting only in the bits signed by the responsible person. In practice there may be  a short note to refer out to a complex annex of justification or even another report or document that says why  'for this situation BS7671 is not appropriate because...' and goes on to show how equivalent standards of safety are met another way.

If need be that other document may be anything from public to secret UK eyes only, application dependent.

Mike.

Looking at the wording on the model EIC in appendix 6, it looks like both the constructor and inspector are certifying that their work in 'in accordance with BS 7671' (rather than in accordance with the design) - 'except for the departures listed as follows'. And each signatory gets their own departures box. I guess it's done that way to allow additional departures at each stage, but it perhaps would avoid any confusion if all three listed the same departures in this case.

   - Andy.

In this case I suggest that the designer is critically incompetent. The problem should be reported to HSE at once, because this "deviation" puts the building at risk of a life threatening situation. We do not know which safety service is involved, if it is just alarms then battery backup is fairly simple, if firefighting lifts or smoke extract fans etc. we need an additional "real" supply from another substation or a generator. I suspect that pressure has been put on the designer, but he is very stupid to comply. The regulations are there, he has no choice. The others should not sign the EIC, simple, and as there is good reason it should not be difficult to still be paid. This is at the heart of the problem with the QS system, I suspect that the QS has not checked the design, or is even aware of this problem, and he probably doesn't even know the regulations for safety services! Overall there is a serious lack of competence in the industry.

See below Alan, but all this is because there is no effective comeback on Inspections. The Inspector needs to have serious risk of repercussions if he doesn't do the job properly. How do you "miss" inspecting and testing part of an installation?

"In this case I suggest that the designer is critically incompetent. The problem should be reported to HSE at once, because this "deviation" puts the building at risk of a life threatening situation. We do not know which safety service is involved, if it is just alarms then battery backup is fairly simple, if firefighting lifts or smoke extract fans etc. we need an additional "real" supply from another substation or a generator"

I totally agree. It was designed that way, it isnt a problem with the Contractor doing their own thing to cut costs. Another one I found last week was a DB schedule saying numerous cables should be in FP cable. They have been run in with LSF T+E. They supply various smoke dampers and extractors. The argument could be that once the dampers and fans have received their power/had power cut, they will be in their fire safe position until reset, so power is not needed all the time. However, if they have been designed as to be in  FP cable, then the Installing Company is liable for disregarding the Designers instructions.

I dont know who would inspect this installation. I would have thought an Independent Inspector would have a good look, but in reality, I suspect someone will look at the drawings, have a quick look around, and pass it. Which is wrong, but, unfortunately seems to happen.

Another one we found last week, another Company has been contracted to I&T the dead install in the individual flats. A lot of faults were found, which were put right. Then we happened to look at some of the lighting circuits ourselves. And found even though the EIC showed a good R1+R2, when we took the lights down, there was no feed to them at all!

Clearly a 'drive-by' inspection, and he has been caught out.

Looking at the definition of “departure” it would seem that only the designer can determine if a departure is acceptable. If a departure is made by the constructor or the inspector then that departure would have to be justified by the designer as being no less safe than the level of safety that compliance with BS7671 would have afforded. So I don’t see the point in having space for departures under all the signatories. 

Alan

I am appalled by the content of your post. I am seeing the same type of stupidity on the YouTube videos of the Grenfell Tower inquiry from the so called professionals!

Firstly both the electrical and mechanical designers cannot put finger to keyboard unless they know what the fire strategy is for the building.

The fire strategy will be developed from the fire risk assessment for the building. The fire strategy will state what Safety Services  are required for the building, how and when they will operate and for how long. 

Chapter 56 of BS 7671 sets out the requirements for Safety Services. Probably the key parts of this Chapter are;-

BS 7671 does not have a provision for "Deviations" unlike some other standards.

BS 7671 does have a provision for "Departures"  A Departure is defined in Part 2 as:-

Note what the designer has to declare!

So supplying a safety service only from the primary supply is not a Departure it is a crime. See CDM Regulations 2015 for starters.

Also BS 9999, BS 9991 and BS 8519 will apply.

The inspector  cannot certify the installation complies when it clearly does not is also a crime, "by way of trade produces a document that is false or misleading" carries up to 2 years improvement and an unlimited fine.

BS 8519 says the primary and secondary supplies should look like this.

I would like to follow this one up further Alan. It appears so serious that action must be taken. Can you email me the discuss davezawadi(at)yahoo.co.uk. I have a meeting soon where this would provide some further useful evidence for a case I have to make.

Thanks

David