Public safety for in-building communications: Knowing what’s ahead

Why in-building public safety communications matter

The first time that firefighters, police officers or EMTs enter a building to respond to a call for service, they must be able to communicate effectively with each other throughout the entire building. To accomplish this, they rely upon land mobile radio (LMR) systems, which are most often based upon P25, for their mission-critical voice communications. Unfortunately, modern building design actively interferes with LMR systems used by public safety officials.

Radio signal interference comes from the same green building technologies that make buildings more energy efficient and less expensive to operate. While low-e glass, energy-efficient materials, concrete and steel improve building performance, they can interfere with public safety radio signals. Stairwells and other interior pathways in the center of multistory buildings also tend to receive poor signal quality by their nature, and these are the very routes first responders use to move between floors. The same features of modern buildings that support sustainability may also eliminate public-safety radio communication within the building. This is why public safety BDAs and DAS have become required infrastructure in many public buildings.

These DAS systems collect outdoor public safety radio signals and distribute them throughout the building. Public safety DAS eliminate coverage gaps in stairways, basements, elevators and mechanical rooms. For FMs, this is not a technology update; it is a required safety feature comparable to fire alarms, sprinkler systems and emergency lighting.

The compliance landscape

Radio code adoption and implementation have increased rapidly over the past few years. Just this year, the environment for compliance with Public Safety Radio Codes will be greatly changed.

Buildings that fail a radio code test may experience delays in occupancy, significant retrofit costs for the building’s radio system or multiple inspections until code compliance is achieved. The window for error continues to narrow.

Common gaps in compliance strategy

Many companies mistakenly assume that installing a BDA system meets all their compliance requirements. Compliance is an ongoing operational responsibility, and several key areas are often missed when evaluating compliance for a BDA system:

• Signal testing must be completed in accordance with the local jurisdiction’s requirements and documented accordingly.
• The BDA system must meet the required uptime, survivability and backup power requirements.
• Many jurisdictions require UL 2524 certification of the individual components used within the system, thus limiting hardware choices.
• Annual testing and maintenance of the BDA system is often mandated by the jurisdiction and may also be audited.
• Generally, the responsibility for maintaining compliance with ERCES regulations falls upon the property owner or operator, not the installer/contractor.

Companies that treat ERCES as simply another capital expense (i.e., a one-time cost) will likely find themselves at risk when it comes time for a facility inspection, a renovation of the building when the ERCES system is installed or a change in the building’s ownership. The consequences for these gaps could be severe.

Planning and budget considerations

Costs vary considerably based on building size, construction type and local requirements. However, early planning is essential to managing both expense and timeline.

For a typical 100,000 square foot building, FM budgeting should anticipate:

• Initial ERCES deployment: US$50,000 to US$150,000
• Annual inspection and maintenance: US$10,000 to US$20,000
• Timeline: One to three months from design through acceptance testing

Delaying planning invariably increases costs. Retrofitting ERCES after construction is substantially more expensive than integrating it during the design phase. The upfront investment in proper planning pays dividends throughout the building’s operational life.

What’s changing

Several clear trends are emerging that will reshape how organizations approach ERCES compliance:

• AHJs will require organizations to provide a great deal more documentation and testing protocols
• Enforcement of ERCES regulations and standards will develop into a greater degree of consistency across all jurisdictions, therefore eliminating much of the ability to negotiate
• FMs must provide evidence of continued compliance with ERCES standards rather than simply pointing to records of the initial ERCES system installation.
• Documentation of vendor qualifications, technician licensure and terms of maintenance agreements will be scrutinized at a greater level.

The overall trend is apparent: ERCES has evolved from a specialty area of engineering projects to a standard operating practice in FM. Organizations that identify this trend early will be in a better position to manage the costs associated with complying with ERCES and with the compliance itself.

Assessment framework

FMs can use this framework to evaluate their organization’s readiness for compliance requirements:

Planning and design

• Has in-building public safety coverage been tested and documented?
• Are IFC 510 and NFPA 1225 requirements confirmed with the local AHJ?
• Is ERCES included in new construction or renovation planning from the outset?
• For new construction projects, has the organization ensured that consultants and general contractors are designing public safety communication systems into the building from the onset?

System compliance

• Is the system designed using UL 2524-certified components where required?
• Do backup power, battery runtime and system survivability meet code requirements?
• Are donor antennas, cabling and enclosures properly protected?

Installation and testing

• Was the installation performed by licensed, experienced ERCES contractors?
• Has acceptance testing been completed and approved by the AHJ?
• Are as-built drawings and test reports properly archived and accessible?

Operations and maintenance

• Is there a documented annual testing and maintenance program in place?
• Are inspection logs and service records being maintained?
• Is responsibility clearly assigned within the facilities organization?

Risk management

• Is ERCES included in life-safety audits and insurance reviews?
• Are renovations or tenant changes evaluated for their impact on coverage?
• Is there a strategy to address future code updates and requirements?

Looking ahead

For many facility executives, public safety BDAs for communication systems have moved from an obscure technical compliance issue to a major operational responsibility as enforcement tightens. The organizations that will be successful will be those that take a proactive stance in their implementation: through planning, clearly defined ownership and discipline regarding maintenance.

The way to proceed is simple: treat ERCES as seriously as the fire suppression system and emergency power system. Plan early in the project life cycle, document at each stage and maintain throughout operation. When an actual emergency occurs, first responders will be able to communicate while on site, which can go a long way to improve the outcomes in a potentially life-saving situation.