Focus Building Risk and Compliance Blog

What Should Your Fire Safety Contractor Be Doing?

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 04:09:48 GMT

Your building has a fire safety contractor. They attend regularly, service the equipment, and send through a report confirming everything is in order. That report forms part of the basis for your Annual Essential Safety Measures Report. Most Owners Corporations accept it at face value.

The question worth asking is: do you actually know what they are supposed to be doing, and how would you know if something was being missed?

What a fire safety contractor is responsible for

In Victoria, buildings classified as Class 2 and above are required under the Building Act 1993 and associated regulations to maintain their essential safety measures in a functional condition at all times. The responsibility for carrying out that maintenance sits with whoever holds the relevant service contracts, in most cases, one or more specialist fire safety contractors.

Their core obligation is straightforward in principle: service each essential safety measure in accordance with the maintenance standard specified for it, record what was done, record any defects found, and provide documentation that can be used to substantiate the building's compliance position at year end.

In practice, that covers a wide range of equipment and routines, depending on what is installed in the building.

What they are actually servicing

Essential safety measures vary significantly between buildings depending on when the building was constructed, what the occupancy permit specifies, and what systems have been installed. Common ESM items include fire extinguishers, hose reels, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, fire indicator panels, emergency lighting, exit signage, smoke detection systems, mechanical ventilation, stairwell pressurisation systems, and paths of travel.

Each of these has a maintenance standard mostly governed by Australian Standard AS 1851, that specifies what routines need to be performed, at what frequency, and what constitutes a satisfactory outcome. Monthly routines, quarterly routines, six-monthly routines, and annual routines are all common. A building with a sprinkler system and a fire indicator panel will have significantly more service requirements than a building with only extinguishers and emergency lighting.

The contractor's job is not simply to turn up and tick a box. It is to perform each required routine at the correct frequency, to the correct standard, and to document the outcome in a way that is traceable.

Where things commonly go wrong

The most common failures in fire safety contractor performance are not dramatic. They tend to be quiet and gradual, and they often go unnoticed until an annual audit or an insurance review surfaces them.

Incomplete service schedules. A contractor may attend monthly for a sprinkler check and do so reliably. But the six-monthly and annual routines, which are more involved and more expensive to deliver, quietly do not happen. From the outside, someone is attending every month, so everything looks fine. The records tell a different story.

Scope gaps against the occupancy permit. The occupancy permit for a building specifies what essential safety measures are present and what standard they must be maintained to. Contractors tend to service what they have been contracted to service, which is not always everything the occupancy permit requires. Items outside their standard scope, passive fire systems, certain mechanical services, older or non-standard equipment, can fall through the gap.

Defects recorded but not followed up. A contractor identifies a defect and records it correctly. That defect then sits open for months, sometimes years, with no active follow-up from anyone. The contractor is not always responsible for driving rectification but the defect is not being resolved either.

Documentation that is incomplete or inconsistent. Service records that do not clearly identify which routines were performed, which ESM items were covered, or what the outcome of each check was. Records that make it difficult to verify whether a required routine actually happened.

None of these necessarily reflect dishonesty. They reflect the practical reality that contractors are running businesses, managing multiple buildings and crews, and operating in an environment where no one is independently checking their output on a regular basis.

What the records should show

A well-documented service record from a fire safety contractor should allow a reader to understand, for each visit: which ESM items were inspected or serviced, what routine was performed, what the outcome was, whether any defects were identified, and what action was taken or recommended.

For a building with multiple contractors; one for fire systems, one for mechanical services, one for emergency lighting, there should be records from each contractor that together cover the full scope of ESM items on the occupancy permit. If there are gaps in that coverage, the AESMR that eventually gets produced cannot accurately attest to the building's full compliance position.

What the AESMR relies on

The Annual Essential Safety Measures Report is a statutory document, a formal attestation that the essential safety measures in your building have been maintained and are functioning as required. The person who signs it is taking professional responsibility for that statement.

That statement is only as good as the records it is based on. If the contractor's service records are incomplete, if routines have been missed, or if defects have been left open, the AESMR may not accurately reflect the building's actual compliance position, even if it is signed and filed.

This is why the identity of the AESMR signatory matters. A contractor who prepares and signs the AESMR based on their own service records has no independent check on whether those records are complete or accurate. There is no one reviewing whether the routines were actually performed as required, whether the scope covered everything the occupancy permit requires, or whether the defect record is honest.

The question worth asking

Most strata managers and OC committees have a general sense of whether their contractor is reliable. What is much harder to answer without independent oversight, is whether the records support the compliance position that the AESMR asserts.

The practical questions are these: Does your contractor's service scope cover every ESM item listed on your occupancy permit? Are all required routines being performed at the correct frequency, including the six-monthly and annual ones? Are defects being recorded accurately and followed up? And when the AESMR is signed at the end of the year, is it being signed by someone who has independently verified the answers to those questions or by the same contractor who performed the work?

If you are not certain of the answers, that uncertainty is worth addressing. Independent quarterly review of contractor records is the most practical way to do it, and the point at which most gaps surface is well before annual certification, when there is still time to act.

When to get a second opinion on an ESM defect quote

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 11:25:44 GMT

Your contractor has identified a defect. They have sent a quote to fix it. The strata manager has forwarded it to the OC committee. Someone is asking whether the price is reasonable.

It is a question that comes up constantly and most OC committees have no real way to answer it.

How defects get classified

Under Australian Standard AS1851-2012, which governs the routine servicing of fire protection systems in Victoria, defects identified during a service visit fall into three categories.

Critical defect: renders a system inoperative; a fire indicator panel that cannot warn occupants, a sprinkler supply that cannot deliver water. Requires immediate notification to the responsible entity and urgent rectification.

Non-critical defect: a system impairment or faulty component that does not render the system inoperative. The system still functions, but something needs attention; a sprinkler head showing corrosion but still operational, a fire door that closes but does not latch correctly, an emergency light whose battery is weakening but still meets test requirements. Must be notified to the responsible entity within one week and rectified before the next yearly condition report .

Non-conformance: a missing or incorrect feature that does not affect system operation but is required for ongoing maintenance; missing equipment identification labels, spare sprinklers not kept on site, zone block plans that are outdated or absent. Administrative in nature but still required to be rectified .

Source: AS1851-2012, Clause 1.5.6

Why does this matter for quotes? Because classification affects urgency, and urgency affects price. A contractor who classifies a non-critical defect as critical, or a non-conformance as a defect, has just created a justification for an expensive and immediate rectification quote. The OC committee, not knowing the difference, approves it.

The most common scenarios worth questioning

Not every defect quote is inflated. Most contractors operate honestly. But these are the patterns that appear regularly and are worth pausing on.

Wholesale replacement when repair is sufficient

A contractor recommends replacing a component, smoke detectors, emergency lighting fittings, fire door hardware, when the actual defect is a single failed unit or a straightforward repair. Replacing 40 smoke detectors because one has failed is not the same thing as rectifying a defect. Ask specifically: what is the defect, and what is the minimum rectification required to address it?

This is not hypothetical. Focus BRC recently reviewed a $35,000 quote to replace 155 smoke detectors at a Melbourne residential building. The standard requires testing, not blanket replacement, only detectors that fail testing need replacing. The quote was avoided entirely. Read the case study.

Passive fire penetrations built to the standard of the day

This one drives strata managers and OC committees to distraction and understandably so. A building constructed 20 years ago may have penetrations through fire-rated walls and floors that fully complied with the building code at the time of construction. Two decades later, a contractor flags them as defective and quotes significant rectification work.

The key question is whether the penetrations were built to the standard of the day. If they were, the building is not technically non-compliant. It was constructed under a different code and the existing work was approved. Rectification is not automatically required simply because standards have moved on.

That said, the counter-argument has genuine merit. Fire safety standards lift over time for a reason. If an older penetration still represents a real life safety risk, if it would fail to contain fire or smoke in the way a modern installation would, the OC may reasonably decide the rectification is worth funding regardless of technical compliance. That is a judgment call, and it deserves to be made with independent advice rather than on the basis of the contractor's quote alone.

A second opinion in this scenario is not about whether to fix it. It is about understanding whether you are legally required to, what the actual risk level is, and whether the quoted scope and cost are appropriate.

Defects that have existed across multiple service cycles

A defect appears in this year's service report. The OC approves a rectification quote. The following year, the same defect, or a near-identical one, appears again.

This pattern is worth examining carefully. Either the rectification was not carried out properly the first time, in which case the OC has paid for work that was not completed to standard. Or the defect is recurring because the underlying cause has not been addressed, in which case the OC is being quoted for symptomatic fixes rather than root cause rectification. Either way, the committee has a basis for asking harder questions before approving the next quote.

An independent review of the service history can identify whether a pattern exists and whether the proposed rectification actually addresses the problem.

The same contractor who found it also wants to fix it

There is nothing inherently wrong with a contractor quoting on their own defect findings. But there is an obvious conflict of interest structure. A contractor who services a building, identifies defects, prepares the quote, and then carries out the rectification work has a financial interest at every stage. An independent assessment of the scope and price has no such interest.

What a second opinion actually involves

Getting a second opinion on an ESM defect quote is not about distrusting your contractor. It is about giving your OC committee the information it needs to make a reasonable decision.

Three questions frame a practical assessment:

Is the defect classification correct? Under AS1851, critical, non-critical, and non-conformance have specific definitions. Is the defect actually what the contractor says it is?

Is the proposed scope appropriate? Does the rectification work address the defect, or does it go beyond what is required? Is replacement warranted, or would repair suffice?

Is the price reasonable? For common rectification items, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, fire door repairs, there are reasonable market rates. Significant departures from those rates warrant explanation.

In some cases the answer is that the original quote was entirely reasonable. That outcome is useful too. An OC committee that approves a large rectification cost with independent backing is in a much stronger position than one that approved it on the contractor's word alone.

When it is worth getting one

Not every quote needs independent review. A $400 repair to a single emergency light fitting does not warrant the same scrutiny as a $40,000 smoke detector replacement programme.

Some signals that a second opinion is worth considering:

The total cost is significant, say several thousand dollars or more, representing an unplanned expense for the OC
The quote involves wholesale replacement of multiple items rather than targeted repair
The defect has been classified as critical but building occupants report no obvious safety issue
The same contractor has identified and quoted on defects across multiple consecutive years without apparent resolution
The committee is uncomfortable but has no basis for pushing back

That last point matters. "This seems high" is not enough on its own, but it is a legitimate starting point. Independent assessment gives the committee a basis for either approving with confidence or negotiating with evidence.

The independence question

Focus BRC does not carry out rectification work. We do not supply or install fire safety equipment. We have no financial relationship with the contractors whose quotes we review.

When we assess a defect quote, our only interest is whether the scope is appropriate and the price is reasonable. That is a different position from anyone with a commercial stake in the outcome.

If your building has received a defect quote that feels wrong -- or if you simply want an independent view before your committee meeting -- start with a free compliance review.

Related reading

What is an AESMR? Understanding the document that sits behind every defect finding: focusfs.com.au/resources/what-is-an-aesmr

How independent advice saved one OC $35,000 on a smoke detector replacement: focusfs.com.au/resources/audit-advice-saved-35000

Building and Plumbing Commission guidance on ESM maintenance obligations: bpc.vic.gov.au

AS1851-2012 Routine Service of Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: available from Standards Australia

Focus BRC is an independent ESM compliance firm based in North Fitzroy, Victoria. We review defect quotes, assess rectification scopes, and provide independent oversight of contractor performance -- with no servicing contracts and no financial stake in the outcome.

What is an AESMR?

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 10:45:00 GMT

If you manage or own a Class 2 building or above in Victoria, you are required by law to produce an Annual Essential Safety Measures Report every year. Most people in building management have heard of it. Far fewer understand what it covers or what getting it wrong actually looks like.

Here is what you need to know.

What it is

An AESMR is a formal written declaration that the essential safety measures in your building have been maintained and are functioning as required.

It is not a maintenance contract. It is not a service record. It is a legal attestation -- a signed document stating that the safety systems in this building have been properly looked after.

The legal basis is Part 15 of the Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), specifically Regulations 223 and 224. The obligation sits with the building owner. For strata buildings, that means the Owners Corporation.

Source: Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), Regulations 223 and 224

What essential safety measures actually are

ESMs are the safety systems installed in a building to protect occupants, primarily in the event of fire or emergency. Depending on the building, they typically include:

Fire sprinkler systems
Fire indicator panels and alarm systems
Emergency lighting and exit signage
Fire hose reels and hydrants
Fire doors and passive fire barriers
Paths of travel to exits
Mechanical ventilation systems

The specific ESMs required for any building are listed on its Occupancy Permit (for buildings constructed or altered after 1 July 1994) or a Maintenance Determination (for older buildings). That list, not a contractor's standard service scope, is the definitive reference for what must be maintained.

Source: Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), Schedule 8. Building and Plumbing Commission Practice Note ESM-02, Version 2.0, June 2021

Who has to produce one, and when

The owner of any Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 building must ensure an AESMR is prepared each year. For a Class 2 residential building, that means the Owners Corporation.

The report must be completed within 28 days before the anniversary date of the building's Occupancy Permit or Maintenance Determination. For buildings constructed before 1 July 1994, the annual deadline is 13 June each year.

Missing the deadline carries a penalty of $4,070.

Source: Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), Regulation 223. Building and Plumbing Commission, bpc.vic.gov.au

What it contains

The AESMR must be prepared using the government's approved form, published in the Victoria Government Gazette on 12 September 2019. The format is mandatory. You cannot use a different template without VBA/BPC authorisation.

The report documents:

Each ESM item required for the building
The maintenance activities that were carried out
The name and contact details of the entity that carried out each inspection or test
Whether each item is compliant or defective

The completed report must be kept on site and produced to the Municipal Building Surveyor or fire authority within 24 hours of a request. Failure to produce it on time is a further $4,070 penalty.

Source: Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), Regulation 224. Victoria Government Gazette No. S 255, updated 12 September 2019

Who signs it and why that matters

The AESMR is signed by the building owner, or by an agent authorised to sign on their behalf.

In practice, most AESMRs in Victoria are prepared and signed by the contractor who also serviced the building. That means the same organisation that did the work is the one declaring the work was done correctly. There is no independent check.

There is no legal requirement for the signatory to be independent of the contractor. But the absence of a legal requirement does not mean the absence of a risk. When a contractor self-certifies their own work on a statutory document, the Owners Corporation has no independent verification that the work was actually completed to the required standard.

This is why independent AESMR preparation and sign-off exists as a service and why more strata managers and OC committees are asking for it.

A word on non-standard AESMR formats

The approved form is not optional. Regulation 224 is explicit: the AESMR must be in a form approved by the Authority.

The approved form contains a specific declaration: the signatory confirms they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure essential safety measures have been inspected, tested and maintained as required.

Some service providers circulate their own variations of the AESMR. Documents that carry similar language but depart from the approved form in ways that serve the preparer rather than the building owner.

A notable example is the practice of signing a document as though it certifies compliance, then appending a caveat after the signature acknowledging that critical defects exist.

Think about what that means.

A critical defect means the building's safety systems are not operating as required. Signing a compliance declaration and noting non-compliance in the small print after the signature is not a valid approach to statutory reporting. It is creative paperwork.

Defects must be rectified before a compliant AESMR can be signed. The AESMR is a positive attestation. It cannot be signed with asterisks.

If your building receives a document that departs from the standard BPC-approved form, two questions are worth asking. First: has the Authority formally approved this alternative format? Second: does the document contain a positive attestation that all ESMs have been maintained as required, or does it sign off compliance while simultaneously noting that critical defects exist? The first question has a simple answer: ask for written evidence of approval. The second question answers itself.

Source: Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), Regulation 224. Victoria Government Gazette No. S 255, 12 September 2019

What happens if it goes wrong

The AESMR is the Owners Corporation's formal record that it has met its legal obligations. If that record does not exist, is incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the consequences can include:

Enforcement action by the Municipal Building Surveyor or fire authority
Financial penalties
Insurance complications -- many policies require a current AESMR as evidence of compliance
Liability exposure for OC committee members in the event of an incident

The question worth asking

The AESMR sits at the end of a year's worth of maintenance activity. Its accuracy depends entirely on whether that maintenance was actually carried out -- at the required frequency, to the required standard, covering every item on the Occupancy Permit.

The right question for any OC committee is not just "has the AESMR been signed?" It is "who checked that the work behind it was done properly?"

If the answer is the same contractor who did the work, that is worth thinking about.

Further reading

The Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC) is Victoria's current building regulator, replacing the Victorian Building Authority on 1 July 2025: bpc.vic.gov.au

ESM guidance and the approved AESMR form remain accessible via the VBA website during the transition: vba.vic.gov.au/consumers/guides/essential-safety-measures

The full text of the Building Regulations 2018 (Vic), including Part 15: legislation.vic.gov.au

Note on the regulator: References in this article to the "approved form" and Practice Note ESM-02 were published under the Victorian Building Authority (VBA). The approved form and practice notes remain current. The VBA was replaced by the Building and Plumbing Commission (BPC) on 1 July 2025 following an independent review that found significant systemic failures in how the industry had been regulated. Source: Weir Legal and Consulting, Victorian Building Authority -- The Case for Transformation, 2024.

Focus BRC is an independent ESM compliance firm based in North Fitzroy, Victoria. We prepare and sign AESMRs with no servicing contracts and no financial relationship with any maintenance contractor. Start with a free compliance review.

When “Compliant” Isn’t Safe: An Independent Sprinkler Audit Revealed

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Sat, 07 Feb 2026 01:22:05 GMT

We recently audited a sprinkler system that had just completed its annual inspection and maintenance.

What we found was… obvious.

One sprinkler head was missing its glass bulb. No specialist knowledge required. If you know what a sprinkler looks like, you know that shouldn’t be the case. The bulb is the heat-sensitive element. No bulb, no activation.

Then it got worse.

With the bulb missing, water should have been flowing. It wasn’t. That raises two uncomfortable possibilities: either the sprinkler head itself was blocked, or the pipework feeding it wasn’t charged. Best case, it’s a defective component. Worst case, it’s a system-level failure.

Only after that did we suspect the sprinkler head itself: a CENTRAL GBR-2, a model that has been historically associated with internal O-ring issues that can cause the plug to seize and prevent activation. In other words, even when intact, it may not operate as intended.

So in one location, we had:
• A missing bulb
• No water flow
• A sprinkler model with known performance concerns
• And a system that had just been “signed off”

This wasn’t hidden. It wasn’t obscure. It was right there.

Which raises a bigger question: how does this happen?

Sometimes the answer is simple. Someone was in a hurry. Someone was under pressure. Someone assumed “that’s close enough”. Or perhaps someone didn’t fully understand the system they were working on.

That last point matters more than many people realise.

Fire protection systems are life-safety systems. They are regulated. And different systems require different qualifications and competencies.

In Victoria, fire sprinkler systems are regulated plumbing systems. Any sprinkler work valued at $750 or more (including GST) must be carried out by a licensed plumbing practitioner, and a Plumbing Compliance Certificate must be issued. That certificate isn’t optional paperwork — it’s confirmation that the work meets regulatory and technical requirements. The Building and Plumbing Commission is undertaking random audits of all certificates so there is a secondary quality check being performed when this happens.

Routine servicing is also regulated. The plumbing regulations explicitly clarify that routine servicing of fire protection systems must be carried out by a person registered or licensed in fire protection work.

And yet, in practice, buildings often assume:
• “They’re a fire contractor, so they must be qualified”
• “They’ve always done it this way”
• “The AESMR was issued, so it must be fine”

The risk isn’t always bad intent. More often it’s a system that:
• Allows under-qualified work to slip through
• Relies on self-audit and self-certification
• Places commercial pressure ahead of technical scrutiny
• Leaves owners holding the compliance responsibility without real assurance

Because ultimately, compliance doesn’t sit with the contractor. It sits with the building owner or owners’ corporation.

For landlords, owners’ corporations and managers, the basics still matter:
• Verify technician qualifications
• Confirm licensing for the specific system being worked on
• Request and retain Plumbing Compliance Certificates where required
• Treat fire system documentation as evidence, not reassurance

None of this is dramatic. It’s practical. And it’s preventative.

The problem with life-safety systems is they don’t give feedback — until the day they’re needed. By then, it’s too late to discover that something was missed, rushed, misunderstood, or quietly signed off.

Independent auditing doesn’t exist because contractors are bad. It exists because systems drift, pressure builds, and assumptions compound.

And every day those assumptions go unchecked is another day closer to finding out the hard way.

If you’re unsure whether your building’s fire systems would stand up to independent scrutiny, we offer targeted compliance audits designed to identify issues before they become incidents.

How Independent Audit Advice Saved an Owners Corporation $35,000

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 23:25:01 GMT

When a contractor recently recommended replacing 155 smoke detectors at a Melbourne residential complex, at a quoted cost of $35,000, the owners corporation assumed it was unavoidable. After all, the detectors were more than 10 years old, and “recommended service life” often gets taken as a compliance requirement.

But before approving the works, the facility manager, Rise Facilities, sought independent advice from Focus BRC, specialists in Essential Safety Measures (ESM) audits and building compliance.

Looking Beyond the Surface

Our Senior Auditor, Graeme Orr, reviewed the case against AS 1851–2012 Fire Protection Systems Standard. His technical assessment revealed a critical detail:

Smoke detectors don’t automatically need replacing after 10 years.
In modern addressable fire indicator panels, detectors undergo annual sensitivity testing, meaning only those outside the acceptable range need replacement.
For older non-addressable systems, in-situ sensitivity testing is required at 10 years and every 5 years after. Again, only detectors that fail must be replaced.

In other words: the standard requires testing, not blanket replacement.

The Result

Graeme’s advice was shared with the contractor, who investigated further and agreed. The outcome:

The $35,000 replacement project was avoided.
The owners corporation achieved compliance without unnecessary cost.
The contractor maintained a strong client relationship, free from disputes.

Why Independent Audits Matter

This case demonstrates why independent ESM audits are essential for strata managers and facility teams:

Accurate compliance – technical detail in standards like AS 1851 can be overlooked.
Cost efficiency – unnecessary works can be avoided while maintaining fire safety.
Confidence – all stakeholders operate from the same, correct interpretation.

Graeme’s diligence and technical knowledge earned him Employee of the Month at Focus BRC, a reminder that expertise in compliance protects both budgets and safety.

Key Takeaway for Strata Managers

When faced with a large, unexpected compliance quote:

Get independent advice from an accredited ESM auditor.
Remember: not every recommended action is a required action.
The right interpretation of building compliance standards can save owners corporations tens of thousands of dollars.

At Focus BRC, we help strata managers and owners corporations achieve compliance, reduce costs, and improve safety with independent, expert audits.

The Hidden Metrics That Define Great Strata Management

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 04:04:01 GMT

A data-driven approach to portfolio compliance excellence

In strata management, success is measured through many lenses: lots under management, arrears percentages, committee satisfaction scores. But what if the most powerful performance indicator has been hiding in plain sight all along?

After analysing compliance data across 800+ properties, we've discovered that the percentage of buildings with valid, signed Annual Essential Safety Measures Reports (AESMRs) might be the single most important metric that management companies aren't tracking.

Why This Metric Matters More Than You Think

When a building cannot issue a signed AESMR due to outstanding critical defects, it creates cascading impacts:

Legal exposure for committee members who sign occupancy certificates
Insurance complications that emerge only when claims arise
Council compliance risks that can result in notices and fines
Hidden management hours spent coordinating between contractors and committees

Yet most strata management firms don't track what percentage of their portfolio maintains current, signed AESMRs at any given time.

The 80/20 Rule of Compliance

Our analysis reveals a consistent pattern: roughly 20% of buildings drive 80% of compliance administration. These properties cycle through defects, rectifications, and re-inspections without achieving stable compliance. Meanwhile, approximately 30% of properties maintain near-perfect compliance year after year—yet their success goes unrecognised and unrewarded.

The opportunity: What if management companies tracked and celebrated managers who successfully moved properties from the problematic 20% into the stable 80%?

Understanding Contractor Dynamics

Fire service contractors are essential partners in building safety. Our data shows they operate with different approaches to defect identification, with some identifying 2-3 times more defects per property than others. This variance isn't necessarily about quality—it often reflects:

Building complexity - Larger, older buildings naturally generate more items
Risk tolerance - Some contractors flag every minor issue, others focus on critical items
Service depth - Comprehensive inspections find more than surface-level checks
Business models - Various approaches to balancing thoroughness with efficiency

The key insight: managers need visibility into these patterns to have informed discussions with contractors about the right balance for each property.

The Excellence Paradox

Here's what surprises many: achieving a high percentage of defect-free properties doesn't mean compromising safety. Instead, it typically indicates:

Proactive maintenance preventing defects before they occur
Strong contractor relationships ensuring quality service delivery
Effective communication closing loops between work completion and documentation
Strategic oversight catching missed service routines before they become defects

The best-performing portfolios we've analysed maintain 35-40% of properties completely defect-free while simultaneously ensuring all critical items are addressed promptly.

A New Framework for Performance

Progressive strata management companies are beginning to implement portfolio-wide compliance metrics:

Signed AESMR percentage - The north star metric
Critical defect resolution time - Speed from identification to clearance
Defect-free property rate - Indicating proactive vs reactive management
Service completion rates - Ensuring contractors deliver contracted services

These metrics transform compliance from a necessary evil into a performance driver that managers can actually influence and improve.

The Management Opportunity

For strata managers, this represents a significant opportunity. Those who master compliance metrics typically see:

Reduced administration time through systematic processes
Happier committees who appreciate proactive communication
Competitive advantages in tenders showcasing compliance excellence
Professional growth as compliance expertise becomes a differentiator

For management companies, supporting managers with tools and insights to improve these metrics can transform portfolio performance while reducing risk.

Moving Forward: Three Actions That Matter

Baseline Your Portfolio: Understanding current signed AESMR percentages creates the foundation for improvement
Celebrate Success: Recognise properties and managers achieving consistent compliance excellence
Enable Strategic Conversations: Arm managers with data to have productive discussions with committees and contractors about optimising compliance approaches

The Bottom Line

In an industry where differentiation is challenging, compliance excellence offers a measurable, meaningful way to demonstrate superior management. The firms that recognise and act on this opportunity will find themselves with happier committees, more efficient operations, and a powerful story to tell in competitive tenders.

The question isn't whether to focus on compliance metrics—it's whether you'll be among the first to turn this insight into competitive advantage.

Want to understand your portfolio's compliance performance? Focus BRC offers portfolio analysis and strategic consulting to help management companies implement data-driven compliance excellence. Contact us to explore how your team can benefit from compliance intelligence.

Importance of Systems Interface Testing for Building Safety

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 02:07:18 GMT

As an essential safety inspection business with 25 years of experience, we have witnessed firsthand the near devastating consequences of assuming that periodic equipment servicing alone is sufficient to ensure the safety of building occupants. Too often, Owners Corporation Managers and committee members believe that their buildings are fully protected because they adhere to monthly, quarterly, and annual testing regimes for their safety equipment. However, without comprehensive Systems Interface Testing, you cannot be certain that all components will function correctly together in an emergency.

What is Systems Interface Testing?

Systems Interface Testing involves verifying that all essential safety systems in a building - such as fire alarms, sprinkler systems, smoke control systems, and emergency lighting-work together seamlessly. In many modern buildings, these systems are coordinated centrally through a Fire Indicator Panel (FIP). This panel is the nerve centre that ensures various safety measures activate in harmony during an emergency. Each building with such a Panel should have had designed a matrix that details how the system works in unison. This matrix is known as a cause and effect matrix. For each “cause” of the system being triggered, there is an expected “effect” in how the safety systems interact for example, when a smoke detector senses smoke, this should trigger the alarm sounding on 2 floors up and one down, the emergency fire doors in the corridor to shut, and the stairs to be pressurised in the block effected.

The Role of AS1851

The Australian Standard AS1851 provides a framework for the maintenance of fire protection systems and equipment, including guidelines for testing and inspection. While AS1851 references systems interface testing, it does not specify the exact frequency or conditions under which these tests should be conducted. This lack of specificity can lead to complacency, with some building managers assuming that routine servicing is sufficient.

Why Routine Servicing is Not Enough

Regular servicing focuses on individual components, ensuring that each piece of equipment functions correctly on its own. However, emergencies require these systems to work together seamlessly. Without Systems Interface Testing, there is no guarantee that a functioning smoke alarm will trigger the sprinkler system or that emergency lighting will activate during a power outage. It is this coordination of responses that a systems interface test will establish.

The Importance of Systems Interface Testing

Consider this: during a routine inspection, our team discovered that the stair pressurisation system in a high-rise building prevented fire doors from being opened. In an emergency, this malfunction could have trapped occupants, leading to tragic outcomes. This is just one example of why Systems Interface Testing is essential. Here are a few more:

Smoke Control Systems: In one instance, we found that the smoke extraction system in a shopping centre did not activate in coordination with the fire alarm system. This failure could have allowed smoke to spread, endangering lives.
Sprinkler and Alarm Coordination: At a commercial office building, we discovered that the sprinkler system activated as expected, but the fire alarm did not sound. This delay in alerting occupants could have resulted in slower evacuations and greater risk.
Emergency Lighting: During a test at a residential complex, we found that the emergency lighting system failed to turn on in one of the stairwells, creating a hazardous environment for evacuation.

Implementing Systems Interface Testing

To ensure the safety of your building's occupants, it is crucial to implement a comprehensive Systems Interface Testing program. This program should:

Involve All Safety Systems: Ensure that all fire safety, smoke control, emergency lighting, and other relevant systems are included in the testing.
Regularly Scheduled Tests: While AS1851 does not specify exact intervals, aim to conduct these tests at least annually, and more frequently if your building undergoes significant changes or renovations.
Professional Oversight: Engage experienced safety auditors who understand the intricacies of integrated systems and can monitor the participants actions and identify potential points of failure.

Conclusion

The safety of building occupants hinges on more than just regular equipment servicing. Systems Interface Testing is a critical component of a comprehensive safety strategy, ensuring that all systems work together as intended in an emergency. By committing to regular (annual), thorough interface testing, Owners Corporation Managers and committee members can provide true peace of mind, knowing their buildings are genuinely safe.

Want to learn more? Visit our System Interface Testing page to learn more about this necessary function.

If you would like to speak to our team about your building click to register your interest and someone from our team will be in touch.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Key Findings and Accountability from the Inquiry

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 01:40:23 GMT

On the 14 June 2017, 72 people lost their lives when the Grenfell Tower housing approximately 600 people in 129 apartments caught fire. The fire finally changed the global building practice of using combustible cladding, which had been added to the building in a refurbishment completed only 1 year prior to the fire.

A significant government public enquiry has been underway over many years and earlier this week the second report was released from this enquiry. The report is comprehensive in its review of the circumstances that lead up to the fire and the subsequent treatment of people afterwards. The report is not court case and as such proceedings are yet to occur, however the report does not hold back in apportioning blame.

The following table has been produced to summarise the organisations and individuals singled out for blame in the report. Anyone working in the building industry would do well to take head as the hindsight learnings from this tragedy are significant.

Named Contributor	Stated Contribution
The government (department of Communities)	Since the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 the government had opportunity to identify risks posed by use of combustible cladding
Building Research Establishment (BRE)	Independent Building Materials Researcher and tester – undertook a large-scale test on Aluminium Composite Panels (ACP) reaction to fire in 2001, but failed to draw the governments attention to the way the material behaved and the dangers it presented BRE senior staff advised Cladding manufacturers as customers, compromising its integrity and independence. It also accepted the inclusion of magnesium oxide boards in the cladding system when testing large scale fire impacts. These were added by the cladding manufacturers to mask the true fire characteristics of the boards thereby allowing them to pass the tests.
Cladding Manufacturers (namely Arconic Architectural Products, Celotex and Kingspan)	“Systemic dishonesty” “Deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger… particularly on high rise buildings” “was determined to exploit what it saw as weak regulatory regimes in certain countries…”
The British Board of Agrément (BBA)	Commercial organisation that certifies the compliance of products with the requirements of legislation. BBA certified one of the cladding products and its certificates were largely accepted by industry without question. The dishonest strategies of the manufacturers succeeded due to the incompetence of the BBA and its willingness to accommodate customers. The BBA did not assess any aspect of the [Cladding] product’s manufacture, testing or fire performance.
Local Authority Building Control (LBAC)	Formed by local authorities to provide building control training and technical matters. It issued certificates verifying the compliance or construction products and systems. There was a complete failure by LBAC over a number of years to take basic steps to ensure that the certificates it issued regarding cladding were technically accurate. “It was willing to accommodate the customer (cladding manufacturers) at the expense of those who relied on the certificates.”
The National House Building Council (NHBC)	NHBC employed a large number of approved inspectors through whom it provided building control services (inspectors/certifiers). It was unwilling to upset its construction customers and the wider construction industry by revealing the scale of the use of combustible cladding. A conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests…
United Kingdom Accreditation Service	Did not always follow its own policies and its assessment processes lacked rigour. The process relied too much on the candour and co-operation of organisations being assessed and too much was left to trust.
The Tenant Management Organisation (TMO)	The body who managed the building and its residents. The TMO lost sight of the fact that the residents were people who depended on it for a safe and decent home. Between 2009 and 2017 there was a persistent indifference to fire safety, particularly the safety of vulnerable people. There was no system for ensuring that defects identified in the fire risk assessments were remedied effectively and in good time. The demands of managing fire safety were viewed by the TMO as an inconvenience rather than an essential aspect of its duty to manage the property carefully. Failed to ensure that the fire safety strategy be produced by the fire engineer during the refurbishment project.
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)	RBKC and TMO were jointly responsible for the management of fire safety at Grenfell Tower. RBKC oversaw TMO’s activities and oversight of TMO’s performance was weak and fire safety was not subject to any key performance indicator. There was an absence of any independent or rigorous scrutiny of the TMO’s performance of its health and safety obligations. Evidence found of RBKC taking little to no account of highly critical independent fire safety report undertaken by TMO in 2009.
RBKC Building Control	RBKC building control did not properly scrutinise the design or choice of materials for the refurbishment and failed to satisfy itself that on completion of the work the building would comply with the requirements of the building regulations. The surveyor used was overworked, inadequately trained and had limited understanding of the risks associated with ACM panels. He also did not ask whether the fire engineer had provided a completed fire safety strategy.
TMO’s CEO	There was an entrenched reluctance for the CEO to inform the board and RBKC’s scrutiny committees of matters that affected fire safety
TMO’s Fire Assessor	Was ill-qualified to carry out assessments on buildings of the size and complexity of Grenfell Towers. Often failed to check whether the TMO had taken action in response to risks he had identified in previous assessments.
The Architect responsible for the Refurbishment Design (Studio E)	Took a casual approach to contractual relations. They did not understand the nature and scope of the obligations they had undertaken. They failed to identify their own responsibilities for important aspects of design and in each case assumed someone else was responsible for matters affecting fire safety. The risks of using combustible materials in the external walls were well known, they should have been aware of them. Ultimately responsible for the choice of external wall covering and “bears a very significant degree of responsibility for the disaster”.
The Building Consultant acting as the TMO’s agent and quantity surveyor for the refurbishment (Artelia) and The Principal Contractor who build the refurbishment (Rydon)	Gave inadequate thought to fire safety, and its systems for managing design work did not ensure that its sub-contractors and consultants properly understood their different responsibilities. Its team was inexperienced and did not have sufficient knowledge of the Building Regulations. It was complacent about the need for Fire Engineering advice and made the call to not proceed with the fire engineer without consulting other members of the design team or the TMO.
Cladding Subcontractor (Harley)	Did not include cavity barriers in its external wall design (though this should have been picked up by the Architect). It did not concern itself with fire safety at any stage of the refurbishment. Believed that ultimately Building Control (Building Surveyors) would ensure that the design was safe. It was induced to buy the cladding panels by manufacturers. Harley accepted the panels for use without enquiring in any detail whether they could be safely used.
Fire Engineer (Exova)	Was instructed by Studio E to prepare a fire safety strategy for the building post refurbishment. A draft was prepared but never completed. It did not include an analysis of the external wall or its compliance with functional requirements of the building regulations. Failed to raise its incomplete work with the design team. None of the design team visited the site.
The London Fire Brigade	Having been exposed to a significant Tower Fire in 2009, they had failed to learn from this experience, build processes to deal with such events and train these processes to their management and teams. “A chronic lack of effective management and leadership.”

Couple of other points:

Although the TMO had no obligation to produce a general evacuation plan, its Emergency Plan for Grenfell Tower was out of date and incomplete and did not reflect the changes brought about by the refurbishment
Fire revealed the importance of ensuring that the responsible person under the Fire Safety Order collects sufficient information about any vulnerable occupants to enable Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) to be prepared. Failure to collect such information amounted to a basic neglect of the TMO’s obligations in relations to fire safety
The Architect has originally wanted to use Zinc rainscreen panels but cost pressures applied by TMO caused the switch to Aluminium Composite Panels

Ensuring fire safety compliance can be complex, but we're here to help. If you’d like expert guidance tailored to your building, book a Free Essential Safety Review today. No obligations—just clarity and peace of mind.

Navigating the Maze of Essential Safety Measures: A Guide for Strata Living

nathan@focusfs.com.au (Nath Keating) — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 01:28:27 GMT

Introduction: In the world of strata management, ensuring the safety and compliance of your building isn't just a responsibility—it's a necessity. Across Australia, the adherence to Essential Safety Measures (ESM) is paramount for not only abiding by the law but also safeguarding the lives and properties of those within. With a legacy spanning over 25 years and a track record of supporting more than 10,000 buildings, Focus Building Risk and Compliance stands at the forefront of building compliance and risk management. This guide aims to illuminate the crucial aspects of maintenance and compliance and provides you with a guide of how we, as building compliance auditors work to support a building’s compliance framework, ensuring your building not only meets but exceeds safety standards.

Understanding Essential Safety Measures: Essential Safety Measures encompass all critical systems and features in a building that contribute to the safety of occupants in the event of an emergency. From fire safety equipment, emergency lighting, smoke alarms, paths of travel, to passive fire and smoke systems including fire doors, the scope is comprehensive. These measures are detailed on the Occupancy Permit when the building is commissioned, along with the maintenance expectations for each item. The permit will also list any Fire Engineered alternative solutions that might apply. This system is governed by standards such as AS 1851 and AS 2293, along with the overarching guidelines of the National Construction Code (NCC).

Frequency of maintenance activities: AS 1851 details the standard maintenance expectations for all Essential Safety Measures to ensure a properly functioning safety system. Table 1.11 (A) in the standard details the standard frequencies for servicing of the key ESM assets.

The standard is also very detailed regarding the tolerances, as the timing of the maintenance is considered a key deliverable for service providers. Table 1.11 (B) below details the expectations.

Failure to maintain the equipment in accordance with these expectations renders the building non-compliant and subject to penalties and other consequences. All of this has been constructed to push buildings to maintain their measures and, consequently, maximise the likelihood of the safety systems of the building working if/when an emergency occurs.

Annual Compliance Certification: A State-by-State Overview: The final annual requirement after all this maintenance, is the need for the building owner to certify ESM, though the need does vary across Australia. In Victoria, every building other than Class 1 single residential dwellings is required to produce an Annual Essential Safety Measures Report (AESMR). Similarly in NSW buildings produce Annual Fire Safety Statement however this document must be submitted to the Local Council. In Queensland the Occupier Statement must be sent to the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. In South Australia a Form 3 is also submitted to council each year. Notably, Tasmania, Western Australia, ACT, and NT currently do not mandate annual certification, underscoring the importance of voluntary diligence in these regions.

Real-World Repercussions: Yet, what happens when these obligations are overlooked? In most jurisdictions, the building’s ESM maintenance obligation is policed by local government and local Fire Services and fines are payable when the building fails to comply.

However, there are further reaching consequences. For starters, Insurers are also interested to know that maintenance is occurring, particularly when paying claims. On top of this, most managers would be able to point to buildings they know that are ensnared in a perpetual cycle of building notices. Building Notices come about when the local councils deploy municipal building surveyors to undertake property inspections where they suspect non-compliance or, more and more, simply wish to undertake random searches.

Buildings caught in the building notice cycle were often built with unidentified defects and then, due to initial non-compliance and substandard ongoing maintenance they receive a visit. In response to the subsequent notice, listing numerous observed inadequacies in ESM compliance, the building attempts to rectify the list of items and submit for a follow up inspection. Each time the inspector returns, rather than simply signing off on the rectifications, owners receive a new list of further issues found. The new list is not necessarily because the building continues to deteriorate, but due to diminished inspector confidence in the building's integrity.

Proactive identification of issues in a systematic and compliant maintenance regime can prevent this. Even if immediate rectification isn't feasible due to budget or committee reluctance, having already identified the issues and prioritised rectification works can significantly shift this narrative. Demonstrating awareness and a plan to address faults can foster inspector trust, averting the exhaustive cycle of notices and inspections.

Frequently Asked Questions: A common query arises regarding the adherence to updated standards for buildings erected under prior, superseded regulations. It is important to recognise that generally, regulation is the identification of a minimum standard. If that minimum standards lift over time as regulation is reissued, then whilst buildings may be in their right to maintain the standard exercised at the time of construction, owners need to consider the safety consequences of that decision. Sometimes whilst maintaining the status quo might meet minimum legal obligations, upgrading to reflect enhanced standards showcases a commitment to occupant safety above all.

Other Compliance Challenges and Misconceptions: A common oversight in ESM compliance is the lack of System Interface Testing (SIT), as required annually by AS1851. This is where the interplay of the different protection elements is tested – Do the fire doors shut when the alarms go off, do the fans go on to pressurise the stairwell? This test is an annual requirement where buildings have intertwined systems and is often overlooked.

Other often neglected elements are ensuring paths of travel are clear (inspected quarterly), passive fire and smoke systems and present and safe, and the annual inspection of fire doors particularly within residences, are undertaken with door seals in order. Councils across Australia are intensifying their focus on these areas, with these items often domination building notices issued.

Conclusion: The call to action for Facility Managers, Strata Managers and Owners Corporation Committee members is clear; prioritising the maintenance and compliance of Essential Safety Measures is not merely a legal obligation but a moral one. The safety of residents and the integrity of properties rest upon this commitment. If you would like to further discuss your obligations we would be happy to connect and help you further understand your obligations.

Ensuring fire safety compliance can be complex, but we're here to help. If you’d like expert guidance tailored to your building, book a Free Essential Safety Review today. No obligations—just clarity and peace of mind.