Third Party Testing - Your Opinion?

Third Party Testing - Your Opinion?

Should Jurisdictions adopt Third Party Testing Rules?
Some ERCES stakeholders have a indicated a concern about companies who perform in-building radio signal strength assessment testing to determine whether or not a building needs an ERCES system, and who then provide a quote to design and install a system if the building fails. It has been suggested that this may be a conflict of interest.

We seek your opinion on the various models we've seen around the country:
1. Jurisdiction maintains a list of "approved" testing vendors.
2. Jurisdiction designates one "approved" test vendor per jurisdiction.
3. Jurisdiction may or may not allow the testing vendor to also bid the work.
4. Jurisdiction has no restrictions on who tests and who installs.
Please give us your opinion, which we will publish after tabulating the results.
Please tell us your role (Choose one)*

Govt: Code OfficialGovt: Public Safety Radio System Administrator / OperatorGovt: Public Safety First Responder (Operations)Property Owner / End UserIndustry: ManufacturerIndustry: Systems IntegratorIndustry: DistributionOther
Should a vendor who pre-tests a building to determine if an ERCES system is required be permitted to also bid on the project should a system be required?*

Yes, they should also be able to do pre-testing and also to bid the project if the building failsNo, this is a conflict of interest. Jurisdictions should use third-party pre-testing to determine need.Don't know
If third party testing is required, what approach should jurisdictions adopt for the test vendors?*

Designate one test vendor per territoryDevelop a list of approved test vendorsDon't knowI have another idea
Should vendors who install an ERCES system be permitted to perform post-install acceptance tests on their own installations?*

Yes, vendors installing a system should be able to perform acceptance tests and submit results for their projectYes, they should be able to perform such acceptance tests, but only under the direct supervision of the AHJNo, this is a conflict of interest. A third party should perform the acceptance testsDon't know
Would Third-party test result and plan review be a viable alternative?*

Yes. Jurisdictions often lack the resources to fully vet test results. A third party who cannot also bid the work reviewing the results would be a viable alternativeMaybe. This would be nice to have but may be logistically unrealistic.No, this is not feasibleDon't know
Comments?
Should be Empty: