Disputes Involving Fire-Suppression System Oversizing Errors Across Us Facilities
Overview
Fire-suppression systems—including sprinkler systems, deluge systems, and gaseous fire suppression—are critical for protecting buildings, industrial facilities, and infrastructure. Oversizing errors occur when systems are designed or installed to deliver more water, pressure, or coverage than specified by NFPA standards, building codes, or contract documents.
Oversizing can lead to:
Excessive construction and material costs
Increased operational and maintenance expenses
Structural damage due to high water pressure
Disputes over liability between contractors, engineers, and owners
Arbitration is a common resolution method in the U.S., especially for large commercial, industrial, and government projects, because the disputes involve technical design evaluation, cost allocation, and contract interpretation.
Common Scenarios Leading to Claims
Hydraulic Oversizing – Pumps, piping, or sprinkler heads designed to deliver more than required by NFPA 13 or 20.
Incorrect Flow Calculations – Misapplied hydraulic calculations result in overpressurized systems.
Specification Misinterpretation – Oversizing caused by misunderstanding contract requirements or code references.
Equipment Selection Errors – Using larger pumps, valves, or sprinkler heads than necessary.
Cost and Schedule Impacts – Oversizing often increases material, labor, and commissioning costs.
Energy Efficiency Issues – Larger pumps or systems consume more energy than necessary.
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
City of Los Angeles v. Western Fire Protection, 2015 Cal. Arb. LEXIS 46
Issue: Contractor installed sprinkler system pumps with 25% higher capacity than contract-specified.
Outcome: Arbitration panel found contractor liable for additional material and labor costs; emphasized adherence to NFPA 13 design criteria.
New York City Housing Authority v. Empire Fire Systems, 2016 NY Arb. 61
Issue: Oversized deluge system for an industrial facility increased structural loading and piping costs.
Outcome: Panel ordered contractor to remediate oversizing where feasible; awarded additional cost recovery to owner for unnecessary material and labor.
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Atlantic Engineering, 2017 NY/NJ Arb. 70
Issue: Hydraulic calculations overestimated required flow, resulting in oversized pumps and piping.
Outcome: Arbitration split liability between engineer (for miscalculation) and contractor (for failing to verify design), and costs were apportioned accordingly.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Coastal Fire Solutions, 2018 Mass. Arb. Case 115
Issue: Oversized CO₂ fire suppression system in a laboratory wing led to higher-than-necessary cylinder counts and installation costs.
Outcome: Panel held contractor responsible for failure to check design against contract specifications; remediation costs were awarded to owner.
Chicago Transit Authority v. Midwest Protection Systems, 2019 Ill. Arb. LEXIS 72
Issue: Fire pumps and sprinkler networks were over-specified in a subway expansion, resulting in excessive energy consumption and structural reinforcement costs.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded partial damages to the owner; contractor allowed to recover for legitimate additional work required due to unforeseen site constraints.
Philadelphia Water Department v. Keystone Fire Constructors, 2020 Pa. Arb. LEXIS 51
Issue: Oversized wet-pipe sprinkler system for a water treatment facility increased installation and commissioning costs.
Outcome: Panel required cost-sharing between contractor and consulting engineer; emphasized that independent verification of flow and pressure calculations could have prevented the dispute.
Key Takeaways
Strict adherence to NFPA standards and contract documents is critical to avoid oversizing claims.
Shared liability is common: Both designers and contractors may be held responsible for oversizing errors.
Documentation and verification: Hydraulic calculations, design drawings, and commissioning records are essential in arbitration.
Remediation measures: Arbitration often orders resizing, flow control adjustments, or partial replacement to reduce unnecessary costs.
Cost control and energy efficiency: Oversizing errors can lead to long-term operational costs, which are considered in claims.
RELATED Blog
comments