What early stage engagement is
A structured review of the design information — typically at RIBA Stages 2 to 4 — by people who install passive fire protection for a living. We work through the penetration schedules, service routing and construction build-ups asking one question of every detail: does a tested solution exist for this, exactly as drawn? Where the answer is no, we say so while changing it still costs nothing but a drawing revision.
What we review
Penetration schedules & service routing
Every planned penetration through a compartment line is checked against manufacturer-tested details for the service type, size and substrate — including the minimum service separations and aperture edge distances that tested details demand, which ASFP guidance identifies as the design decision most often missed. Congested routes and stacked services are flagged for re-coordination before packages are let.
Wall & floor build-ups
Tested fire-stopping details are only valid in the constructions they were tested in. We verify that the drawn build-ups — board types, stud layouts, slab constructions — actually match the scope of the tested systems the design assumes.
Barrier & void strategy
Cavity barrier positions, void closures and riser strategy are reviewed for continuity: does the compartment line survive its journey through ceiling voids, roof spaces and shafts — and can each barrier actually be installed and inspected in the sequence proposed?
Buildability & sequencing
Fire stopping happens at a point in the programme, and must be inspected before concealment. We review whether the proposed sequence allows compliant installation, access for photographic records, and realistic coordination between trades — including builders' work openings sized, positioned and framed so a tested seal can actually be installed in them.
The cost of leaving it late
The gap between a drawing revision and a site improvisation is measured in programme weeks:
No tested detail means no compliance
Where a penetration has no tested solution, no amount of skilled installation fixes it. The result is either an engineering judgement — increasingly challenged under the current regime — or opening up completed work to change the route.
The Building Safety Act raises the bar at design stage
For higher-risk buildings, design information is scrutinised before construction can begin. Fire-stopping details that don't stack up are found at the gateway — with the programme already committed and the clock running.
Abortive work costs multiples
A re-routed service on a drawing costs a revision. The same change after the ceiling is closed costs access, removal, reinstatement, re-inspection and delay — routinely many times the original cost.
The evidence thread starts at design
The golden thread of building safety information begins with design intent. Engage early and the as-built evidence pack matches drawings that were buildable to tested details in the first place.
What you receive
Marked-up drawings and penetration schedules, a register of details with no current tested solution, and clear specification recommendations for each — issued before packages are let. The output is a design your installers can build to tested details, and a paper trail showing that fire stopping was engineered into the project, not improvised onto it.
Advice from installers, not just reviewers — and insured as such
Goldthread's design reviews are grounded in installation. The person reviewing your penetration schedule has sealed those services in those substrates, and knows precisely where the tested details run out. That is the difference between a review that lists problems and a review that resolves them. We also carry our own professional indemnity insurance, so specification advice given at design stage is advice we stand behind — not a disclaimer passed back to your fire engineer.
Bring us in before the drawings are issued.
The earlier the conversation, the lower the cost of getting it right.
Contact us