When alarm contractors find themselves unable to comply with current code—such as NFPA 72—due to equipment limitations or conflicting manufacturer instructions, they should take several proactive steps to protect both their clients and themselves legally and ethically:
First, they must document the issue in writing, detailing exactly why compliance isn’t possible. This includes referencing the specific code sections in question, the equipment involved, and the nature of the conflict or limitation. Thorough documentation is critical if the situation leads to liability concerns later.
Next, the contractor should notify the property owner or client in writing. This notification should clearly explain the potential risks, including what aspects of the system may not perform as required by code, and advise them on safer alternatives or upgrades. Transparency ensures the client is fully informed and shares in the decision-making.
Contractors should also consult with the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)—typically the fire marshal or local code enforcement official. AHJs may be able to offer guidance, issue conditional approvals, or recommend acceptable alternatives based on their interpretation of the code.
Finally, it’s wise to seek guidance from a qualified fire protection engineer or third-party code consultant. Involving experts can validate your concerns and support your case when working with AHJs or manufacturers. Whenever possible, alarm contractors should push for manufacturers to redesign flawed systems that make code compliance impossible.
By documenting concerns, communicating with clients and authorities, and seeking expert support, contractors can reduce liability, maintain ethical standards, and advocate for safer, code-compliant systems.