 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the ABCB Fire Safety Verification Method Awareness Webinar. My name is Brian Ash and I'll be the facilitator for this webinar. So this is the agenda for the next 60 minutes or so. So I will go through a basic welcome and introduction. Then I'll have a presentation overview on the fire safety verification method. And then after that there will be a Q&A session and I'll go into details on how that will work. Then we'll have a presentation from Mark Wybrough representing the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authority Council. Then we'll have a presentation from Matthew Wright representing the Fire Protection Association Australia. And then we'll have a presentation from Jeremy Turner representing the Australian Institute of Building. You may have noticed that the Society of Fire Safety are not participating on this webinar. They have been requested to participate but they are unable to do so at this time and we're hoping to work with them a little bit in the future. It's also important to note that this session is being recorded and in a matter of weeks will be put up on the ABCB website. So a basic introduction is that the main purpose of this webinar today is on awareness of the fire safety verification method. Not necessarily on the education, it's just awareness, background, the key components of the fire safety verification method, etc. As I mentioned it'll probably run for about 60 minutes and there is representation from ABCB, AFAC, FPA Australia and AIBS. There'll also be a Q&A session and how the Q&A session will work is that when you've actually joined the webinar there'll be an option for Q&A. So if you click on that, if you enter your question and if you can identify who the question, who you would like to put that question to, then it goes to the ABCB and we moderate the questions. Claire, my colleague in Canberra will ask the questions of the participants and they will answer verbally. So there'll be no response directly to your question via text, it'll be a verbal response. So how we propose to do that is following my presentation will be about a 10 minute Q&A session and then after AFAC, FPA, Australian AIBS session there'll be another 10 minute Q&A session. Okay, so I'll just start my presentation now which would hopefully run for about 15 minutes and then there'll be a Q&A session. So just providing a bit of context, the NCC is a performance-based code containing performance requirements for the construction of buildings. A building, plumbing and drainage solution will comply with the NCC if it satisfies the performance requirements which are the mandatory requirements of the NCC. The key to the performance-based NCC is that there is no obligation to adopt any particular material, component, design factor or construction method and a choice of assessment methods is available of which the fire safety verification method will be one. This provides the choice of compliance pathways. The performance solutions can be met by either following a performance solution or a deemed to satisfy solution or a combination of both. Whilst the fire safety verification method does not quantify the performance requirement targets, it does allow a more direct reference of fire safety engineering concepts in the National Construction Code. Even if not used, this referencing does raise the profile of the kind of assessment rigor that should be considered and the importance of the associated criteria and inputs of any performance-based design. So the key points of the fire safety verification method is that the fire safety verification method has been included in Schedule 7 of NCC 2019 Volume 1. But it has a delayed adoption of 1 May 2020 and this is to allow familiarization by the industry and also education and training. It's important to highlight that the fire safety verification method is not mandatory. It's just one of the voluntary verification methods in the NCC. It puts particular emphasis on the competency of the users and I'll talk about that a little bit further. It also highlights the importance of the collaborative process in developing a performance solution. It does identify the level of safety and I'll talk a little bit further about that and really what it does is it presents a robust methodology that can be followed and included in the code. So just on competency, this verification method must only be used by fire safety engineers who are suitably qualified and experienced and have demonstrated competency in fire safety engineering. And a proficiency in the use of fire engineering modeling methods and a familiarity with fire testing and validation of computational data. This verification method presents specific design scenarios, which I'll list later, that must be considered in order to demonstrate that the fire safety aspects of the building design comply with the fire safety performance requirements. So this is a list of the design scenarios and I'm not going to go into them in detail here, but the handbook that is published and is available for preview on the ABCB website goes into more detail with each of these design scenarios. And I'll refer to the handbook a little bit later as well. But I think two of the key design scenarios here that are significant, one is the RC or the robustness check, which is really important because you really don't want to have your design being based on just one particular component working because as we all know components are not 100% certain and they do fail. So this is a robustness check, which is an important scenario. Another one of the scenarios that's quite unique but equally important is the unexpected catastrophic failure. And this is to really test the design to ensure that there's not a failure that's unexpected that may cause a catastrophic outcome. And this is particularly important for the emergency services undertaking the roles that they need to perform. So as I mentioned, the level of safety is an important element and it's important that the buildings meet the level of safety that's expected by the community. In the fire safety verification method, given the absence of specific targets in the NCC and the quality of nature of the NCC fire safety performance requirements for this verification method to ensure the level of safety expected, the proposed building must be at least equivalent to the relevant deemed to satisfy provisions. As the NCC DTS provisions evolved originally from state and territory regulations under regulatory updated to reflect technical advances, the experience are commonly accepted as providing an acceptable benchmark. It is accepted that the NCC teams that is probably revisions reflect societal expectations in terms of fire safety, which address individual risk and societal risk and the robustness that I mentioned earlier in the design by adopting a defense in depth approach. So as I mentioned, the handbook is now available on the ABCB website for preview and it is significantly more detailed on the particular issues of the elements of the fire safety verification method. But one area that I did want to focus on is really just the process that should be undertaken in undertaking a fire safety verification method, and I've extracted this flow chart from the handbook. The sections on the left of the flow chart reflect the sections within the handbook, so if you need further information, I suggest you refer to them. Okay, the 6.1 to 6.4. So this really talks about a performance based design brief is a documented process in the context of the fire safety verification method derives a proposed fire safety strategy and defines the methods of analysis, associated inputs and acceptance criteria. Its purpose is to set down the basis as discussed and usually agreed by relevant stakeholders on which fire safety analysis of the proposed building and its performance solutions will be undertaken. It is important at the end of the fire safety design brief process, the proposed fire safety strategy is clearly defined, such that all the relevant stakeholders have a clear expectation of the likely fire safety performance of the building and clearly understand their obligations in relation to the project, and subsequently throughout the building life cycle. 6.5. So this is a critical decision point. So the fire safety verification method is most suited to performance solutions where a similar reference building complying with the NCC DTS provisions can be identified that provides in the view of stakeholders a reasonable benchmark for comparison. While input from all stakeholders is desired, the onus of this decision will generally fall in the fire safety engineer. Appropriate authority fire services and the peer reviewer if appointed. It should be noted that there may be situations where other assessment options within the NCC are more appropriate. So this is an important decision process. In 6.6 is a critical function. The selection of an appropriate reference building is critical, since it is the basis of quantifying the acceptance criteria with respect to both individual and societal risks. This is therefore one of the most important tasks for the performance based design brief team to ensure that the reference building provides a satisfactory benchmark. The basis for the selection was clearly documented in the performance based design brief. In 7, in chapter 7, it outlines the, once the performance based design brief stakeholders have agreed a reference building, a systematic comparison with the proposed fire safety performance solutions should be undertaken to identify all building design elements and related performance. The approach to the identification of the relevant performance requirements is consistent with clause A2.23 and A2.43 of the National Construction Code. The fire safety verification method lists the design scenarios that I outlined earlier that must be considered as a minimum for the relevant performance requirements identified during the hazard identification process. The prescribed design scenarios are specified in the fire safety verification method in a quality of terms since the number of locations, fire characteristics and frequency of the scenarios will vary depending on the building under construction. Nature of the DTS non-conformity scope being considered and adopted methods of analysis. The fire safety verification method provides a general description of the design scenarios and for these it is necessary to undertake a systematic review hazard ID process to derive scenario clusters from which a number of reference design scenarios are identified for quantification and detailed analysis. In order to quantify each reference design scenario for evaluation, it is necessary to derive a design fire, to find the status and impact of active and passive fire protection features impacting on the scenario, to find occupant characteristics if required and determine comparative acceptance criteria having regard for the required outcome specified in the design scenario. For some design scenarios, it will also be necessary to estimate the frequency of occurrence if it varies between the proposed performance solution and the reference building and I'll just briefly discuss this process. So this is the performance-based design risk assessment if it is necessary and this won't be necessary in all cases. So to compare the proposed solution with the reference building, it may be necessary to perform a risk assessment rather than only rely on a deterministic analysis. The reliability of the fire safety systems vary appreciably between the proposed solution and the reference building a risk assessment will generally be required and this outlines the general process to be adopted. And more details are provided in the handbook. And finally, one of the key elements of the fire safety verification method is in terms of reporting and there's two main reports. One is the performance-based design brief report and the performance-based design report. So the performance-based design report at the end of the performance-based design brief process before undertaking a detailed analysis, the performance-based design brief report will normally be prepared by the fire safety engineer based on the deliberations of the stakeholders. The performance-based design report, once the analysis of all the relevant design scenarios for all the required performance requirements have been completed, the fire engineer must prepare a final performance-based design report. So that covers the main areas of the fire safety verification method that I wanted to cover. It's really just an overview and as I said, there's more detail in the handbook. But now, Claire, I think we can open up for Q&A if there are any questions. Thanks, Brian. We do have a few questions that have come in. So thank you to those people that have sent them through. All of these are for you, Brian. So the first question we've got is asking whether the AVCV accepts overseas test and standards, for example, in 13501-1 regarding material group numbers? Well, as regards to the fire safety verification method, again, that would be an issue for the consideration by the stakeholders during the performance-based design brief process. I think if it's outside the fire safety verification method, then that standard would need to be considered on its merits and perhaps through a performance solution. Okay. Thanks, Brian. The next question we've got is also related to performance requirements. And the question is, does the fire safety verification method apply to all performance requirements or only for some? Well, it relates to the fire safety performance requirements in volume one. But it really depends on the level of variation, whether it relates to all performance requirements or not. So generally it could relate to all the fire safety verification performance requirements or it may only deal with specific ones. Great. Thanks, Brian. This one goes to about being equivalent to DTS. So the question is, if it has to be equivalent to the deem to satisfy but does not comply with the deem to satisfy, how is it reasonably possible to determine that it's equivalent? So they did say they didn't necessarily need a response and it was just to provide a bit of a thought there. But if there's a response there that you'd like to provide, Brian, I'll open it up to you. Yeah. Well, there is more details on the handbook with regards to that. But it's regards to the, if you like, the performance of a deem to satisfy building in terms of fire safety rather than the specific deem to satisfy if that makes sense. Great. Okay, we've got another question here about the method and the questions about whether it will become mandated or will it remain voluntary or optional? Well, it's non-mandatory. It's an optional verification method. You don't have to use it. Yeah, you don't have to use it, but that's entirely, you know, it's a decision that we made. So it's not mandatory. Yeah. I guess one of the considerations and one of the issues that we did consider is how the market will behave in terms of the fire safety verification method, but it's clear from the ABC perspective that this is voluntary. And it's really to assist in achieving the adequate level of performance. Great. Okay, so this question is about the reference building. What happens if there isn't a suitable reference building? Well, I think that's, as I outlined from the flow chart, there is a key decision point that, again, you know, you would need to consult with the stakeholders if there isn't a obvious or a reference building, this method may not be appropriate. Great. Okay, so we've got a question here too about what improvement is the fire safety VM seen to give over an IFAG engineering solution as opposed to what's currently being undertaken? Well, the IFAG process is still, you know, the pure, I'll call it the pure performance solution process is still a perfectly valid approach and, you know, certainly would be supported by the ABCB. I think what this gives is a sort of a more consistent process that makes sure that, you know, the key elements are considered and that the key scenarios are considered. So it's, it's, it's, it provides more context and more, more direction and I guess puts boundaries around the process. You know, there is some concerns that perhaps the, the pure performance base is a little bit too open. And I guess one of the other key points is that the level of safety that's achieved as well is a key element and what this fire safety verification method is, is puts a puts a level there, while on the, on the more the purest performance based approach. It's, it can be quite difficult to determine where adequate performances is achieved in terms, in terms of safety. Okay, this is about the using the verification method for the entirety of the building. So if it's being used as the verification method have to be used for the entire building, or all departures from the BCA, or can it be used for one solution, and maybe a first principles approach be used for others. Well, again, again, it's, it's, it's hard to give a straight, a direct answer to that. But again, the key element is here is the performance based design brief process. So when you have the correct stakeholders around the table, that's where these matters can be, can be considered. In some cases, it may be appropriate that it's, it's for the whole building. And other areas, it may be just part of the solution may be appropriate, but it's the one of the key elements here that the fire safety verification does outline is that collaborative process getting the key stakeholders in around the table and getting them to do to agree on the on the on the appropriate process. Okay, we've got more coming in thick and fast here Brian so he's a couple more. We've got another couple of minutes I think before we move on to to the next presenter so let's, let's, let's see how we go. Yep, no problem. Okay, so given the involvement of the fire brigades and some jurisdictions. Is there a risk that the verification method will limit performance based design if the fire brigade will only approve performance solutions that use the verification method. I think that that questions making the assumption that the fire services will only, you know, will only allow, you know, performance solutions that meet the fire safety verification method. And, you know, in our discussions with fire service that we don't believe that that that's going to be the case. You know, this is an option. But I think it's, you know, hopefully it'll it'll promote a more a more constructive and a more. Yeah, more constructive process in terms of meeting meeting the performance requirements. Okay, so this is a bit about some data for risk analysis it depends on the database for past fire accidents. Any official databases available that you know of. Well, what what we have done and we were we apologize for this we were hoping to publish the data sheets that we have that are referred to in the handbook before this webinar but we'll hopefully have them published in the next couple of weeks and and they do include some data I won't I won't say they can they contain all the data but they will assist in the process. And I think it's important to also highlight that that this is a comparative approach to your comparing a building that meets the DTS against this this proposed solution. And in that context, the comparative nature I think reduces the need for precision absolute precision in some cases so and that'll be that's reflected in the data sheets that we hope to have published in the next next couple of weeks. Great. All right, well, there's a couple more with I think we'll ask before we move over to the next presenter. So this question is about the fire safety verification method of easily. But do we expect that the fire safety verification method will be updated with each new BCA. That's a good question. Well, of course the fire safety verification method is is in the NCC and I guess where there is necessary changes due to changes in the other parts of the NCC of course they the verification method would be updated. But also that because it's this comparative approach and you have your your DTS building. Therefore, you know, if if say NCC 2022 has additional requirements. Then that would be built into your into into your reference into your reference building so yeah it as needs be. Yes, it would be updated. Great. So just before I ask the last question, because the next lot of questions will be held after we've had multiple speakers, any new questions that are coming in. If everyone could just identify if they did want someone in particular to answer that that would be very helpful in us getting the questions to the right presenter to answer. So the last question is about the reference building is the reference building a real building or the same building with DTS elements. And there's a second part depending on your answer. So could you just read that to say that again. Sure can. Is the reference building a real building or the same building with deemed to satisfy elements. It's it would be a building that that meets the team to satisfy. Okay, so if it's the latter, how can a suitable reference building not be available. Well, again, you know, it's, you know, if it's again, it's, it's this collaborative process, you know, part of the fire safety, you know, if, if, if, if it's not possible to, you know, do that, you know, produce a reference building or an adequate reference building, the fire safety verification method may not be the appropriate process. You know, appropriate method to meet the performance requirements. So that's answering the question. Great sorry to cut you off everyone and thanks once again to everyone he did provide those questions and we apologize we couldn't get through all of those but we do want to move on to the other presenters so I'll hand back over to you Brian to do that. Oh thanks very much Claire and again thank thank you for the for for the questions. So to the first speaker from our guests it's it's Mark Warborough from Fire and Rescue New South Wales. So Mark I'll just hand over to you and I'll just move through to your slide. Thank you Mark. Thank you Claire. And certainly thank you to the Australian Building Cards Board for running this webinar today. A great initiative. So, I suppose everyone knows that AFAC undertook extensive long and numerous discussion sessions based on both amongst its members, the fire services to determine approach and approach and its view on the proposed fire services fire verification method fire safety verification method and including bringing in views from outside the fire services. In my experience with the Build Environment Technical Group, which I chair for AFAC, it's probably the most robust debate that we've had over a specific issue. We pulled it apart as much as we possibly could and we certainly ended up with a position where all AFAC agencies unanimously supported the VM. Now there were a couple of reasons for that the most obvious one is that we're looking for national consistency in the approach by both industry and fire services. And there's a lot of components to that, not least of which is the competency of the practitioners in the industry and in fire services. There's some work going on with the Warren Centre at the moment, but I know that Brian is involved in and some of the other participants are involved. That's certainly a step in the right direction in trying to lift all of our collective experience and knowledge and qualifications. The VM also provides a formal structure and clear parameters for fire safety. The advantages come out when we look at particular incidents that we've had to face fire services, such as lacrosse and the ongoing problems with cladding in the Australian building industry, as well as reports such as the Shergoll-Wear Report and the Hackett Report out of the UK, that show all sectors of the industry need to refocus on their roles in the building regulatory environment. It's AFAC's view that the verification method, although not perfect at the moment, is a very important step in providing a clearer structure for compliance with performance provisions. This in AFAC's view is something that's been missing for a little while now. The reason AFAC also supported the introduction of the VM is that for the first time there is a formal structure and clear parameters as to what fire safety engineering design must address and to what degree. While there's some contention, still some contention, even within fire services, that some of the data in the supporting data sheets needs to be improved, AFAC believes that the industry is mature enough to accept them as guidelines that can be altered for a project if all parties agree that it's appropriate. And this comes back to Brian's point before. What we're looking for is collaboration in this space. What we're looking for is us working together, fire services working together with industry to get the best possible outcome, the safest possible building for the end consumer. VM, we think, will assist in the interaction with fire services. There'll be a structured approach to that. And certainly there is further improvement that is available to us through feedback. And that's probably a point just to mention to the audience. Given the circulation of the guidebook and the data sheets, I'd say I was underwhelmed by the quantity of feedback that we received considering how vocal the industry was and fire services were about making this right, getting it right. Yet when it came to time for people to have their feedback, there wasn't much around. So maybe we did get it right. The advantage that we have now with industry dealing with fire services, we've got a clear template that we can follow to reduce any ambiguity and any subjectivity. And that's always a concern, you know, fire services like certainty. So probably the last thing to say then is that as has been mentioned by Brian, the Australian fire services acknowledge that the VM is non mandatory. And that there are many other ways or a couple of other ways to meet compliance under the NCC performance provisions. In terms of a personal view on the VM, the fact that for the first time in the National Construction Code is consideration for not just fire brigade intervention, but the safety of firefighters as with the building as their workplace. The unexpected catastrophic failure is something that is very important for firefighters who go into a building when hopefully the occupants are all getting out. So the design scenarios, we think, cover a wide range, but they are only a minimum. What we would like to see is that collaboration with industry to make sure that, as I said before, we get the best possible design, we get the best possible building for those that end up occupying. So that's it from me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mark. And as I said, we're going to go through these other presentations and then we're going to the Q&A session at the end. So the next speaker is Matthew Wright from FPA Australia. So Matthew, I'll just hand over to you and just give us a shout when you want me to scroll through your slides. Thanks, Matthew. Okay. Thanks very much, Brian. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining the webinar. I think my approach to the presentation I'm going to give you today is just to share some of the experiences of FPA and our thoughts towards the VM and really performance in general and perhaps how we've led to having a fire safety verification method coming up in the code. So whilst we have lots of members in FPA Australia that are involved in design and approval of buildings, lots of our members, probably the core of them are installers, system certifiers, people working in routine service or maintenance. And those individuals continually doubt the performance-based concept I hear quite a lot when I travel around the country, concerns about performance-based design. And some of the things that they point to are the varying rigoury methodology used, the varying justification for this outcome on this job that was approved this way, on this other job that was approved quite differently. They don't see the consistency of that, but they also lament the lack of life cycle or management use consideration that many performance-based designs don't have attention to. And what associated documentation they might be so that when they're looking after the building for the rest of its life cycle, they actually understand what the performance expectations of systems and equipments involved in the design actually were and whether those targets are being met or not. So it's true and fair to say that some of this is a legacy of a prescriptive mindset. I think that's one way of describing it. There's plenty of people, I think, Mark, you mentioned the fire brigades like certainty. I think there's lots of people in the fire protection industry that like certainty as well in terms of whether they're quoting on projects or they're completing a project and understanding what their level of responsibility was and what functions should come out. But there's also, with that prescriptive mindset, a misheld belief that those prescriptive solutions are always appropriately safe. And I think there's a difference between safe and compliant. And that's probably one of the nexus issues for the implementation of the fire safety verification method. And I'll come to that in another slide. I guess the competency of designers and the consistency of documentation, they're the key on-going concerns. And FPA Australia supports the performance-based design philosophy. So we understand it and support it because we think it's got great benefits for community safety. And we agree with the views of Hackett in the UK and more close to the home with the Warren Centre and the amazing amount of good work that's being done there in this space that performance-based design remains a legitimate and appropriate process. But work is required collectively by the industry and regulators to ensure the concept of performance isn't blamed or used as a scapegoat for other regulatory failures that relate to the application, administration or enforcement of performance-based code. So that's the feeling and the experience of FPA Australia members generally towards performance at the moment. Next slide, please, Brian. So that leaves us asking, what does the fire safety verification method offer? So really what it offers is a process that was already acceptable under the performance-based code, as we've known it since 1996, to demonstrate compliance. But it's a process that's now documented in a way that can be applied with perhaps even more confidence in the sense that, to me, it seems almost a halfway house between deemed to satisfy prescriptive requirements and performance from our first principle. So inclusion of the VM and the code offers a structure and a process that can be used without having to justify why did you use this methodology? Why did you adopt it? Yes, you still have to justify the inputs and the answers to those of what modeling you used, the kind of consultation Brian's talking about with other stakeholders, but the actual methodology of what you applied. Well, if that's in the code, then that's a legitimate process to use off the shelf. And whilst it doesn't quantify the performance requirement targets, it does allow more direct referencing of fire safety engineering concepts in the code. Good fire safety engineering concepts, which I noted one of the questions was about what's the difference between this and the IFEG. Well, I guess for me at a perhaps purely administrative level, the difference is that this is documented in the code now. The IFEG is not. So this referencing has a effect of raising the profile of the kind of assessment rigor that perhaps we should have always been considering using and the importance of the criteria and any inputs for performance based design. I guess the approach of developing scenarios, selecting input using competent judgment to analyze results. That's a perfectly legitimate and appropriate design approach if you're using the first principles and the existing assessment methods. And I think it's important to remember that last it may be included in the code for next year as Brian said it's still optional whether you use this or not. So the VM offers this alternative pathway is that word alternative sorry for designers by prescribing an approach that can be accepted. And I think that does give some confidence that that approach is being reviewed. But it also might trigger the thinking of people doing design from first principles as to the things that they ought to be considering. So whether the fire safety verification method is actually used or not. It highlights the kind of aspects that we would want always to be used confirming the competency of the fire safety engineer to actually do the design work. The development of as described in the verification method itself of performance based design brief or my brain says back to the IFE language as a fire engineering brief and a fire engineering report. And I think just in relation to those two points it's important to remember that some people have said well Jesus do I have to do an FEB for every project? What if it's only a small departure? Well to my mind that means it's only a small FEB. And the fact that it's raised in the VM and therefore in the code gives it the profile I think we've been looking for for some time. But how the design fire safety strategy responds to different scenarios that will be tested by the VM and that process is outlined. So again even if you're not using the VM you might look at it and consider some of the scenarios that you ought to be thinking about if you're doing it from first principles. But how these inclusions impact on fire safety outcomes whether it's positively or negatively will only time will tell that. We don't really obviously have any large portion of buildings where we can draw any statistics from in relation to this. And I think both engineering and commercial principles will determine how often the VM is used. So that's something that's a question mark. It may well be that the VM does not become the favourite approach to performance based design or we discover that it has limited scope by designers who are professionally considering its application. But it does highlight in the code for the first time some really basic concepts that all good performance based designs regarding fire safety shooting in corporate. Next slide please Brian. So the title here is this theme to verify. This is some terminology that sort of jumped into my head the first time the VM was explained to me. Because again as I said at the top it feels like a halfway house between prescribing if you do these things you use these inputs. You do this analysis then you'll have been verified in your design meeting the performance of comments. So that there is still room for engineering job in fact there's plenty of room for engineering judgment and it's absolutely necessary to be applied in order for a safety outcome to be achieved. But even though we have existing verification methods this one is a lot more comprehensive. So ensuring the results equivalent to the demo satisfy provisions. It's obviously a sound way to ensure that the buildings are assessed by the VM and not less safe than a DTS building. But it does that does have a potential to create an ethical and professional dilemma when designers receive results that question the safety of the demo satisfy solutions. And this is I guess where as I was saying previously professional application of the VM might result in engineers or designers saying well actually the scope of the VM is limited in relation to my professional. While my professional judgment is that it's limited in terms of whether we can apply it to this building design or not. An assessment of the involves in comparison to DTS DTS as per the established methods assessment methods is different to one requiring equivalence to DTS. And I know already Brian some questions that you had earlier there about what's the equivalent DTS building. And the reality is that they might not be an equivalent DTS building and if that's the case then I guess professional judgment would say perhaps the VM is not the assessment method for you. In the design process and these are the kind of considerations that are being expected expected to occur. And I think we would say that practitioners should be cautioned not to fall into the trap of blindly applying the VM without questioning the inputs and the results. Using the VM to verify that design satisfies the performance requirements but then needing to ensure results are equivalent to DTS places the DTS and somewhat of a pedestal that's likely to at times be at odds with scientific knowledge derived from the NEL. So we have to remember that compliance to verification method which is expected to be equivalent to DTS or we're comparing something to a Dean to satisfy benchmark not a scientific safety benchmark. So that raises some questions and it could mean that although design is determined compliant with the relevant performance requirements as a result of applying the VM. It might not actually scientifically meet the to the degree necessary test. And some early engineering suggests that this will be the case and accordingly may limit the scope of the VM. So this needs to be considered and it makes the team to satisfy the degree necessary measure. This is not the same as the existing assessment method of comparison to DTS would not necessarily be considered the objective of performance based design. So I think the VM really raises some ethical questions there for professionals about exercising their judgment and considering the results. Having said that, I think that ethical dilemma and their professional judgment has been there since 1996 with first principles performance basis on. So I think that's actually not new, but we have to be clear and transparent about the fact that the VM isn't a silver bullet that satisfies every scenario. Last slide please, Brian. So the key takeaways from FPA Australia's perspective is that the inclusion of the VM in the code provides another legitimate pathway to compliance, but in doing so raises the profile of a number of aspects of performance based design that require improvement in general. So not just because of the application of the VM, but in general. Like all methods, the results will only ever be as good as the competency of the individual individuals who apply it. And the VM should not be considered a benchmark for every design. It still requires experienced judgment and competency to apply. It should not be considered to prevent a first principles approach. We still need that option to be there and allow that ingenuity to occur. A stakeholder should question and justify the inputs and the modeling used just because it's in the VM doesn't mean that that can be excused from the consultation process. And I think that's back to that word collaboration in the process and documenting the results and detailing any specific installation of routine service requirements remains as important as ever. And I think that's a really significant issue for FPA Australia members and building owners and facility managers at large who are trying to ensure that their buildings are still achieving a compliant or satisfactory performance outcome, but they're unclear about what those targets are because they were never really well documented in the performance based design. And that's not to say that that doesn't happen. It does in lots of designs, but it's not as prevalent as it should be. So that's quite important about raising the profile. And I guess lastly, the fire safety of the community should be our priority run. So that's the consideration that should be given in the design and approval process. So just a couple of final statements from me using the VM to verify that the design satisfies the relevant performance requirements, but they're needing to compare the results to the DTS to make sure the design isn't less safe than DTS. That's a concern. And that has to be considered in that context. It could mean that that we're in a position where we question the DTS more than ever. But I think those questions are appropriate. And I think as as Brian has said, the data sheets are coming out to support the VM. I suspect as we go forward in this process that and more and more information is received that there will be a refinement of the requirements. And we know in the fire safety engineering space that this is an evolving discipline. We're getting more and more data all the time. So it's watched this space. And I think the VM is a vehicle to raise the profile of the things we ought to be questioning all along. And it'll be interesting to see the outcome of its application. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Matthew. So we'll just move on to our final presenter before we have a little bit of time for questions. And our final presenter is Jeremy Turner from the IBS. And over to you, Jeremy. Thanks very much, Brian. Can you hear me okay? Good. I had a little internet issue a minute ago, so yeah, there was a little bit of a hiccup, but we're back online now, which is good. Look, I think Brian, Matthew and Mark have both captured most of the information that I wanted to share. But there are a couple of points that I thought it's worth emphasising just to finish it off. Certainly we've already heard that the verification method is not mandatory. And during the public comment period, IBS heard from several members who are concerned that fire-related performance solutions that must be referred to fire brigades comment would not be supported unless they reflected the VM approach. And they were concerned that by default it would become mandatory. Now that's, as we've heard from Mark, is clearly not the view of fire brigades around the country. And IBS is certainly very encouraged that that is the case. And certainly we're also very encouraged. There will still be flexibility and approach to performance involving fire as, you know, the fire brigades are consulted on these projects. It's particularly important if regulators take up the advice of the ABCB to make the fire safety verification method the exclusive domain of fire engineers. And we've heard from Brian earlier that the verification method is to be used by fire engineers who are particularly competent and experienced in the application of fire performance in respective buildings. And that is something that isn't currently backed up by legislative provisions that would actually make sure that that is the case. And IBS would certainly like to see that happen. And particularly around the issue of fire engineering as a profession not being uniformly defined around the country. So at the moment, building surveyors see a wide variety of approach from the range of design package involved. And we think that that would certainly improve if there was a common legislative definition for fire engineers around the country. And that, in fact, there was some restriction around a benchmark of competence that would allow people to utilize the fire safety verification method. And indeed, the IFIG type approach to performance fire design. Sometimes it's very frustrating when you see a lot of differences in practitioner competence and so on. And it creates a lot of issues for building surveyors to overcome. And that can be extremely frustrating for a client as well. Another point to note is that there's no, I guess, well, no, sorry, I've just covered that point already. Just as building surveyors fear brigades would start to push for the fire safety verification method. The used building surveyors are also likely to see audit bodies asking building surveyors why performance based fire safety designs were not undertaken in a manner at least equivalent to the fire safety verification method. Clearly, where a performance design has not utilized the IFIG correctly, there are issues from an auditing point of view. But what about designs where the use of the IFIG or the fire safety verification method hasn't occurred if there's been some other approach adopted, perhaps an international approach or something of that nature. And I guess it remains to be seen how audit bodies will actually treat that and how they'll respond. In my view, I think building surveyors will need to be careful to document the reasons for accepting designs where either approach has been used or where a different approach has been used so that they can successfully convince an auditor that they've acted appropriately. So I think the fire safety verification method is a really important addition in the regulatory landscape. IFIG is very open process where the fire safety verification is far more prescriptive. It's not a prescriptive process, but it's much more recipe book style approach to performance. And the outcome derived from following the deemed comply, sorry, from following the fire safety verification method is not deemed to comply. It's actually verified as compliant. So it's therefore a very powerful approach. It provides a greater level of certainty for those involved that the output would be accepted by building surveyors. And for building surveyors, it will support confidence in accepting a design where it's been supported by evidence of conformity via the VM. So in the current professional indemnity insurance market, obviously certainty is a very powerful thing. And for all of these reasons, I think that the fire safety verification method on balance will be very useful to building surveyors where it's used, provided it's used correctly and what person is competent in fire safety design. Okay. Thanks, Jeremy. Okay, so we just we're running short of time, but I think we have time for a few questions, Claire, if you can maybe direct them to to our panelists. Yep, no problem. We'll just probably got one or two questions for each of the panelists and then I'll hand back over to you, Brian, to wrap up after that. So this question goes to Mark. And you might have to explain what this acronym is as we go through because it's a bit showing my naivety, but with the fire safety verification method, it requires that the user undertakes an FBIM through the completion of search and rescue. Is FBIM to be updated? Thank you, Claire. Thank you for the question. Yes, the FBIM, which is the fire brigade intervention model is being updated as we speak. Well, fabulous. That was a much quicker answer than I was expecting. Just give me a moment to pull up the next question. Okay, so this one will be going to Matthew. So if you can get ready for the question, Matthew. Okay, so the fire safety verification method is required because performance is, if the fire, sorry, I'll start again. If the fire safety verification method is required because performance solutions are inadequate, why are performance solutions still permitted? I don't think the VM is required because the performance requirements are inadequate. I think, in fact, they're fine, but they're not quantified and they don't link to any process. The VM, as Brian's explained, is an alternative way of verifying that your design meets the performance requirements themselves. So it's not needed because somehow designing from first principles is not appropriate. It's another way of demonstrating that your design verifies the performance requirements that exist. Great. Thanks very much for that. Okay, so this one's probably more of a statement, but I'll put it out there if anyone did want to comment on it. So the fire safety verification method is a step in the right direction, considering the huge variations in the identification of performance requirements and the result in errors in the designs. Did anyone want to make a comment on that? Claire, I'm happy to make a comment if that's all right. Yep, thanks, Jeremy. I would certainly tend to agree with that. I think that the variation that building surveyors have seen over the years from practitioners is probably only surpassed by the variation that the fire brigades have seen when these things have been submitted there for consultation purposes and the like. But certainly having something like the verification method in the code actually does give a lot of guidance to the process. And I think that that's a really important thing. Certainly the IFEG International Fire Engineering Guidelines has done that to a degree in the past, but not having it in the building code I think has been an impediment to a greater take up of that approach. So this is certainly going to hopefully improve things quite a bit. Excellent. This is another one for Matthew. Does the verification method conflict with the IFEG in any way? I don't believe it conflicts with the IFEG in the sense that it adopts the principles of the IFEG. I have a brief, have a report, consider multiple scenarios, consider the inputs that you'd select, characterize the building and the occupants. So I think there's an alignment with the IFEG there, but I don't think it's a substitute for not having the IFEG or not doing more work in this field. I don't see it as a silver bullet that fixes all the problems in relation to the proper and the appropriate implementation of performance based designs. It's another method. And I think, as I said in my presentation, it highlights or raises the profile of some of these things that IFEG's been saying for a long time, but seems to carry less weight because it's a guideline whereas the VM is actually in the code. Great. Thanks for answering that for us, Matthew. I'm just looking at the clock and I think it is probably time for us to rough up and do our closing. So again, apologies. It's great to have the questions come through and we will keep some of those questions there so that we can help use it to inform any education and awareness work we might be doing. So don't think that your questions, even though they might not have gone unanswered here, will be still taking those and having a look at those to see if that can help us improve awareness and education. So just to close up, I'll hand back over to Brian. Okay. Thank you, Claren. Thank you, everyone. So just in closing, it's really just going back to some of the key points that I have raised and others have raised. The first safety verification method, as you know, is in schedule 7 of NCC 2019 and the adoption for the method is 1 May 2020. It's outlined by many. It's non-mandatory. It is only an option. It outlines the competency expectations and also the importance of collaboration. And I think, you know, the process of developing the VM has been a lengthy process and, you know, it has been a collaborative approach by many. And it's really just that is the key element in the performance-based environment is collaboration, getting key stakeholders involved. It does present a robust methodology. We have published the handbook, which is quite comprehensive and provides a lot of direction. As I mentioned, the datasheet should be available in the next couple of weeks, which will support the use. After this, I believe that we will be sending out a survey to all people that registered for this webinar. I think there's about 1500 people have registered and that will be used to inform our education going forward and that there is likely to be education tailored on the fire safety verification method in early 2020. Finally, it's really a closing and it's really just a thank you to everyone. It's really a thank you for everyone that's attending the webinar. This is the first webinar that the ABCB has undertaken and it's something if successful, we'll look to roll out in other areas. So thanks for all the attendees. Thanks for all the questions. Of course, I want to particularly thank Mark, Matthew and Jeremy for their participation and support for this webinar. I think it's really useful getting the perspective from some of the key stakeholders. So thank you for your time. I'd also like to thank the many people that have been involved in the development of the fire safety verification method. It has been a lengthy process. We have had a building codes committee working group that has met on, I think, 14 occasions. Also the members of the building codes committee for reviewing the various documents. I'd also like to thank the FPA Australia consortium that did a lot of the calibration work and also FTE consulting who did work on the on the handbook. So it's really a lot of thanks but I think what it does highlight is the importance of collaboration. We do work in a performance based system, which is subjective in many areas and the need for collaboration is so important. I think the collaboration required to develop the fire safety verification method is evidence of that collaboration. It has been a difficult process. Not all stakeholders are entirely happy and it's also important to understand that this isn't the end game. The fire safety verification method isn't the end game. It's a way of betterment and improving the process in the performance based environment that we work in. So I'd like to just finish on the important note of collaboration. So again, thank you everyone and we'll hopefully be in touch in 2020 with further education on fire safety verification. Thank you.