Gulf Fire recently caught up with Paul Pope, Group Business Development Director at Global Fire Equipment (GFE), to discuss the total cost of ownership of fire detection and alarm systems and the advantages of complete systems procurement.
Gulf Fire: First of all, Paul, can you explain what is meant by the total cost of ownership?
PP:The total cost of ownership (TCO) of a fire detection and alarm system (FDAS) takes into account not just the upfront purchase cost of the system but also the additional costs required to support and maintain the system for its working life.
Those responsible for procuring FDASs will often base their purchasing decision on the upfront cost alone, but this only represents a small proportion of the entire life-cycle costs of the system and does not take into account the system’s specification and costs in terms of the full life-cycle performance of the system.
Gulf Fire: What factors should be taken into consideration when trying to determine the TCO of a system?
PP: Well, the system’s communication protocol and access to the system information are among the most important considerations. Other considerations include the manufacturer’s upgrade policy, whether backwards and forwards product compatibility is maintained, whether system maintenance can be carried out by any competent third party and what the anticipated maintenance and replacement parts costs are over the working life of the system. The predicted costs of labour for services, call outs and software upgrades should also be taken into account, as should whether any warranty is provided – and whether there any onerous conditions attached to the warranty. It’s also important to know what the recommended working life of the system is.
Gulf Fire: With a lot of emphasis on energy efficiency across the sector, should energy efficiency also be taken into consideration when determining the TCO of a FDAS?
PP: Definitely. Although some systems will have a higher upfront cost, you need to consider the energy efficiency of the system over its working life. We know of some control panels on the market today which use double the power consumption of our panels and some door holders which use ten times the power consumption of ours. With energy costs increasing rapidly, it is vital to take power consumption into account.
The carbon efficiency of a FDAS should also be taken into account. Lower power consumption results in a more carbon-efficient system. Let’s take the example of a small hotel that may have 40–50 door holders. By choosing our door holders which use one tenth of the power of some alternative products on the market, the carbon saving is substantial. When you reduce your power consumption, the system becomes less likely to fail as it is not as reliant on battery backup in the event of a power outage. For example, if one control panel uses 100 milliamps (mA) and another uses 50mA, the 50mA panel will only require half the battery backup of the 100mA one.
Gulf Fire: Why is it important to take the system’s communication protocol and access to system information into consideration when determining the TCO of a system?
PP: The communications protocol is effectively the language that enables field devices such as manual call points, detectors and interfaces to communicate with the fire control panel. Some manufacturers have a ‘closed’ or ‘managed’ systems approach whereby all of the individual items of equipment (detectors, control panels, manual call points, interfaces, etc.) are compatible with each other as they use the same communication protocol. However, with closed or managed systems, only the manufacturer or its appointed agents are allowed to manage the ongoing support and maintenance of their products or the products manufactured on their behalf. The manufacturer and agents do not normally pass on the system information and management software to the end user or their chosen competent third parties to allow them to work on the system. This leaves end users dependent on the manufacturer/agents for spares, servicing, modification and upgrades of their systems. End users could also face expensive ‘hidden’ life-cycle costs if any work on the system is not covered and pricing structures are not agreed upfront in the initial procurement costs.
