should use our
The Record of Completion
Forms we offer for sale incorporate some omissions made to this document
recently published in the 2007 edition of NFPA 72. We have added specific
code reference numbers from NFPA 72 relating to some sections, so
conflicting opinions can be quickly resolved should any arise. Formatting
improvements, like adding checkboxes for options listed in NFPA 72, will
help inspectors readily identify the required vs. the non-required
components of your systems.
Other features of our RECORD
OF COMPLETION, include:
Adds projected-beam smoke
detectors missing from NFPA’s form.
Adds air-sampling smoke
detector type missing from NFPA’s form.
Adds line-type heat
detectors missing from NFPA’s form.
rate-compensating and fixed temperature types of heat detectors which are
missing from NFPA’s form.
Adds both wet and dry
types of waterflow switches missing from NFPA’s form.
Adds option for Positive
Alarm Sequence missing from NFPA’s form.
Adds option for Guard Tour
to the Supervisory Signals checklist.
Includes an expanded fire
pump section which includes added checkboxes to indicate when combined
common signals are used, not just individual supervisory signals.
Additional check boxes
added for commonly used fire safety control functions.
Adds blanks for your
license numbers, required by most jurisdictions.
to the above improvements.....
2010 form includes sprinkler system supervision check boxes for high/low
pressure, valve water shut off, low temp., water level, etc., where NFPA's
example provides only a blank line.
2010 form includes fire pump supervision check boxes for required
supervision of functions such as loss of phase, phase reversal, pump
running, etc. where NFPA's example supplies a blank line.
form includes Guard Tour supervision, NFPA's does not.
form addresses the REQUIRED Survivability ratings and Classes of
circuits/pathways for Voice EVAC and MNS, where NFPA does not!!! (In
other words, using NFPA's published form as is, for voice systems,
doesn't meet NFPA 72!)
Ours is more compact...
confusing blanks for items which are
neither defined nor required by code.
Minimizes old technologies and seldom /never used options
to keep our form from
appearing to be practically blank when completed.
provided a space on our form for your company’s logo in black and white.
For an additional $5 per order of 10 tablets (50 forms) we will add your
company logo to the top of the first page. You supply camera ready
“NOT PRESENT” as an option so you can indicate when the representative
from the servicing company, test-inspection contractor, building owner,
and/or remote monitoring station does not attend the acceptance test.
Without these check boxes, the form may be mistaken as incomplete.
Our 2002 and 2007 Forms...
is a four
on 2-part pressure sensitive paper.
is not Ohio specific,
but may also be used for compliance when any state/local code that
references NFPA 72 such as the International Building/Fire Codes, NFPA 101
Life Safety Code, etc.
Our 2010 Form...
The wording at the top of page
41 (see NFPA 72, 2010 Figure 10.18.2.1.1) specifically permits our
customized form to be used: “It shall be permitted to modify this form
as needed to provide a more complete and/or clear record.”
2002 and 2007 RoC forms contain all the information required by NFPA 72.
and in the same order. However, our form exceeds minimum
requirements by providing
additional information lacking in the example shown in NFPA's "Figure". If you are concerned that your local inspector may
not accept our form, all you need to do is point out that NFPA's required
information is still being provided, in the same way, in the same order,
only with additional vital information regarding the particular fire alarm
system installed for that structure. No honest, professional, AHJ in
the USA will prevent you from going beyond the minimum standard indicated
in NFPA 72. After being shown our form, they may actually ask others
to supply similar information lacking on these two NFPA's versions.
If you need the 2013 RoC form (not
yet adopted by state jurisdictions) please e-mail us your request.
Back to Tags Page
Ours forms provide greater
Ours distinguishes between
Fire Alarm systems and Sprinkler Monitoring systems since the installation
requirements are vastly different between these two code required system.
Our form uses check boxes
showing the allowable values instead of blank lines, where possible.
private information from this public record. Items such as the date you
signed a contract with your customer, and your private e-mail address were
removed since neither are requirements of NFPA 72. (Hopefully, by not
providing an e-mail address on our form, communications of emergency
information, which may be filtered by spam filters, will not be issued
electronically, and other more reliable communication paths will be
Helps eliminate confusion
about the Duct Detector section. Adds the option for Duct Detectors to
send Supervisory Signals (per the IBC and IFC).
Several outdated or
uncommon terms have been changed (pull stations to pull boxes) etc.
Our form allows
Annunciators to be part of the FACP. NFPA’s form makes it appear that
separate Annunciators are to be provided with every installation.
Our form is much easier
and faster to fill out.
Lastly, there are
signatory lines on NFPA’s form that we have altered for liability
purposes. For example, if a separator Electrical Contractor runs the
wiring, then on our form you can check the box, “Information to be
completed by the electrical contractor responsible for this section.”
Whoever runs the wiring
will complete Section 11 “Record of System Installation”.
Section 12, titled “Record
of System Operation”, is the primary signatory line for the alarm
installation technician/supervisor. This should be completed and signed
before requesting your Acceptance Test. NFPA 72 allows a photocopy of
this form to be sent with your request to indicate readiness.
This first part of Section
13 allows a company manager or owner to sign removing liability from
individual technicians. The responsible party for the Alarm Contractor
will be the signer of the “System Installation Contractor” in this first
part of Section 13 and may or may not be the same as the signers in
Sections 11 & 12.
The second part of Section
13 is to be signed by the “System Service Contractor”, and could be
different from the alarm/installing company. This is the person who has a
signed Test/Inspection Agreement with the property owner. No provisions
are made for “do-it-yourself’ property owners.
The next (fifth)
signatory line is for the “Remote Station” representative to sign. There
is no NFPA 72 requirement for this section of the form. Our form replaces
this signature line with the name and contact number of the remote/central
station. However, a line is provided for signatures, IF a representative
is present, as well optional UL, FM information to be added if needed.
The sixth signature line
has a place for the property owner to sign. Since NFPA’s version of this
section had this person attesting that “this system has been installed and
tested to its specifications and all NFPA standards cited herein” and the
final acceptance of the system is the responsibility of the local
inspector, not the untrained owner, we altered this area significantly.
We have added a “Not Present” checkbox, and changed the wording to mean
acceptance of a successful test (as determined by the inspector) and their
receipt of the required fire alarm documents.
Although the majority of
jurisdictions require a Record of Completion form, some do not. Even
jurisdictions that require it still may have a policy allowing their
inspectors not to sign it. For example, Ohio (7th largest state in the
country) State Fire Marshals have a written “do not sign” policy, and instead
use the state’s “903 Form”. New York City doesn’t recognize/accept the
NFPA 72 form as
an approved document. Therefore, we have added the phrase, “to the best of
my knowledge” on our form above their signatory line so they can more
aptly feel that they are not assuming additional liability and thus, more
inspectors may sign it. It is the signature of the inspector that you
value most. After all, it is this document that you will point to first
should there ever be a claim against you. It is shameful that some
code officials, who's actual job is to "approve", will try and dodge
responsibility for their inspections. They are basically attempting
to deny they were even there. If it comes to this, then add their
name yourself to the form indicating the names of inspectors present in an
Choose either the NFPA 72, 2002 edition, 2007 edition or
latest 2010 edition
of our record of completion form.
To Shopping Cart
FAQ page regarding our custom Record of Completion
form based on NFPA 72, 2010.
yourself money, time and aggravation.
The only way
you can get these cheaper locally is to buy them 1,000 at a time.
But, how can you justify paying the printer's set-up fee, and
their minimum order, just to trim 50¢ from our
per-form cost of $3? You'll only end up paying
more money, for more forms than you'll ever need, just to have them become
outdated when the next edition of NFPA 72 comes out. Ten forms at a
time at $3 each, is the way to go.
Page updated August 21, 2014