Common Fire Alarm Plan Review Comments (and How to Answer Them)

ok so the comment letter comes back.

You open it expecting design pushback and instead its five lines that read like they came off a checklist. That's usually because they did. Plan reviewers see the same holes in the paperwork over and over, and most of them have a stock way of writing the comment up. Once you've read enough of these letters the pattern gets obvious, and once you know the pattern you can answer it same day instead of waiting through another resubmission cycle.

Here are the five that show up more than anything else, what the reviewer is actually asking for, and the fastest clean way to answer each one.

"Candela ratings not shown on plan"

What they mean: your device schedule probably has the cd rating buried in a table somewhere, but the floor plan itself doesn't call it out next to each strobe symbol. Reviewers want it on the drawing, not cross referenced from another page.

Real comment, cleaned up a bit from a job on the east coast: "Provide candela rating for each notification appliance on the floor plan. Device schedule alone is insufficient."

Fix is mechanical once you know it's coming. Every strobe symbol on the plan gets its cd value labeled right next to it, 15, 30, 75, whatever the room calls for. Don't make the reviewer flip back to a schedule to find it. If you're fuzzy on how room size maps to the required rating in the first place, the candela spacing table breakdown walks through it room by room.

"No sync module indicated"

This one catches people who did the actual calc right but forgot to show the hardware. NFPA 72 requires strobes in the same field of view to flash in sync, and the AHJ wants to see where that sync signal is coming from, not just assume the panel handles it.

Comment I've gotten before, paraphrased: "Drawings do not indicate synchronization method for notification appliances. Clarify."

Fastest answer: put the sync module on both the riser and the device schedule, part number included, plus a one line note on the cover sheet saying which NAC circuits it's serving. If your panel does sync natively without a separate module, say that explicitly instead of leaving it implied. A blank spot reads as "we forgot," even when you didn't forget anything.

"Battery calculation does not match device schedule"

The classic. Somebody adds a device late in the design, usually a duct detector or a relay module, and the battery calc never gets touched again to match it. The two documents are supposed to be one system, and the moment they disagree a reviewer catches it in about four seconds.

Here's a stripped down version of exactly this happening on a small job. Battery worksheet gets submitted, reviewer cross checks it against the device schedule, and finds a duct smoke detector on the schedule that never made it into the calc:

Two duct detectors, 24 mA standby and 90 mA alarm combined, doesn't sound like a lot. But it's enough to push the amp hour requirement past what the specified battery covers, and the reviewer isn't going to care that it's a small number. Missing is missing. Duct detectors added late in a design are one of the easiest things to forget carrying into the calc, worth double checking every time one shows up after the calc was first drafted.

Fix: before you submit, run a literal line by line match between the device schedule and the battery worksheet. Every device type on one has to show up on the other. The battery calc by panel brand guide has the manufacturer specific worksheets if you need the actual form to work from.

"Code edition cited does not match jurisdiction"

NFPA 72 gets a new edition every three years, and whatever your state or city has actually adopted might be a cycle or two behind what's current. Your cover sheet says 2022, the jurisdiction adopted 2019, and now the reviewer has to stop and ask.

Comment example: "Design references NFPA 72 (2022). This jurisdiction has adopted the 2019 edition. Revise references accordingly."

I've had it go the other direction too, assumed an older edition was still current when it wasn't. Don't guess on this one. Look up the adopted edition for that specific AHJ before you fill in the cover sheet, not after. Takes maybe five minutes and it's about the easiest comment on this whole list to avoid entirely.

"Central station monitoring information not provided"

Reviewers want to know who's watching the system once it's installed. That means the monitoring company name, their UL listing, and how the signal actually gets there, digital alarm communicator, cellular radio, whatever the method is.

Real comment: "Provide central station monitoring company and method of transmission."

If you don't have a signed monitoring agreement locked in yet at submittal time, at minimum note the intended method and the UL listed provider on the cover sheet, and flag the agreement as pending. A blank field reads as an omission, a note that says pending and will provide prior to final usually satisfies the reviewer enough to keep the rest of the package moving. Check with your specific AHJ though, some want it locked in before they'll look at anything else.

Putting it together

None of these five are actually design problems. They're documentation gaps, the kind of thing that happens when the drawing, the schedule, and the calc all get touched at slightly different times and quietly stop agreeing with each other. A final line by line pass before you hit submit catches most of it. The AHJ submittal package checklist is a decent gut check to run down before you send anything out.

Full disclosure, I built a tool called FireDeck that keeps the device schedule, the battery calc, and the cover sheet tied to the same source data, so a duct detector added late shows up everywhere at once instead of just on the plan. Obviously biased. Everything above works fine done by hand too, it's just slower and easier to lose track of. If the manual cross checking is what's wearing on you there's a free trial at firedeck.app.

anyway. hope this saves somebody a resubmission.