Today, clients looking to entrust a specialized company with the construction or maintenance of their fire protection systems – whether fixed suppression systems, detection systems, fire extinguishers, compartmentation solutions, or personal protective equipment – face the challenge of choosing the right partner in a market with no regulatory oversight. However, there are tools and “tricks” to navigate this opaque landscape and pick the ideal partner.

We discuss this topic with Natale Mozzanica, CEO of Mozzanica & Mozzanica, who served as President of UMAN for four years and has been its Past President for three years. UMAN, a member of Anima-Confindustria, is the association that brings together manufacturers of safety and fire protection materials and companies ensuring the efficient operation of the systems employed.

 

In a market like the Italian fire protection sector, finding a high-quality supplier is no simple task. That's why it's essential to carefully review the contractor’s comprehensive portfolio of past projects and the qualifications of its workforce

 

How can clients protect themselves from scams or low-quality work?

In an unregulated market like Italy's, making decisions that prioritize factors other than “price” can be challenging. A valuable tip comes from internationally recognized third-party certification bodies, which have long assessed three fundamental aspects in their analyses:

• the company’s level of specialization with respect to the activities for which certification is required;
• the structure, experience, engineering expertise, and organization dedicated to implementing fire protection systems;
• the structure, experience, quality standards, and ongoing training of the personnel responsible for maintenance services.

With the certification of these elements, international clients are safeguarded. Without these certifications, no viable options remain.

This is the first piece of advice I would offer: evaluating a “potential provider” in these terms is essential.

 

So you're telling us that “water-tight” specifications aren’t enough?

Exactly. While well-written specifications are undoubtedly a useful tool, there must always be a clear assumption of responsibility from the client, starting with the selection of the rules of engagement.

The most striking example is when maintenance contracts are awarded based on the “lowest bid.” Thinking that all responsibility can be shifted to the contractor is a naïve illusion. In fact, if a tragic event occurs, the client who chose the lowest bid will always face the risk of “culpa in eligendo” — civil liability, as outlined in Article 2049 of the Italian Civil Code, for potential fault in the selection process.

 

So, is there also a cultural limit on the demand side? Is that what you mean?

Exactly. The client should aim to address their true security needs because, by doing so, they can define their actual level of risk and, as a result, choose the best partner, discarding solutions that may only offer performance “on paper.”

It is in this context that Fire Safety Management, as outlined in the Fire Prevention Code, has been elevated to a primary level.

 

There is often an objective economic constraint that counterbalances the need for maximum security. How is this resolved?

The installation of a fire protection system and its ongoing maintenance always serve as a “remedial” element to the “risk assessment” that the certified technician has outlined in the development of the Fire Prevention Plan for the specific activity. In common thinking, the fire protection system is a resource that everyone hopes will never need to be used, and, fortunately, this is true in most cases. However, it is the client's understanding of risk and their culture of Fire Safety Management that will determine the right balance between investment and efficiency in selecting the system.

Fires are relatively rare: while this fact could be attributed to the effectiveness of technical and managerial fire prevention systems (Fire Safety Management), it may also lead to reduced attention to safety. If the level of risk is not defined by analysis, the requirement for a protection system will always be seen as an obligation to meet, of course, at the lowest possible cost, “because that’s what the Fire Department wants.”

It will then be a tragic event that will dramatically define the “real level of safety” applied. The recent fire at the Torre dei Moro in Milan and the subsequent expert reports have confirmed this.

 

So, does this mean a client has no choice but to become a fire safety expert in order to evaluate their provider and prepare to pay the proper costs for Fire Safety Management?

It’s not necessary to become a “fire safety expert,” but it is essential to be a well-informed buyer, accustomed to dialogue with their company’s Fire Safety Management team to select a competent provider, based on appropriate technical and economic evaluations.

I emphasize “appropriate” because, in reality, the client has access to various verification tools that enable them to make the right choices.

 

Are you referring to what you mentioned earlier about tender specifications?

Exactly. Technical standards serve as the foundation for drafting tender specifications, but apart from a few standards that specifically detail the operations to be carried out, most only outline the “minimum operations” that must be included.

As a result, a supplier’s ability to address the specifications by breaking down those “minimum operations” in detail and proposing operational checklists is certainly one of the key technical factors that the buyer and fire safety manager should take into account.

 

I’d like to return to the delicate topic of the boundary of responsibility between the client and the contractor.

You’ve mentioned tools – operational specifications checklists, and so on – but evaluating them often requires technical expertise that the person procuring the service might not always have.

In Fire Safety Management, the client is not alone. Beyond their internal company resources, they can rely on designers, fire safety professionals, and trade associations that can help in choosing a “specialized company.” For example, UMAN, our trade association, has issued a guideline – which I actively contributed to – on drafting tender specifications. This guideline, available for free download on the association’s website, provides many valuable recommendations on the subject.

Moreover, assessing a company’s level of expertise is simpler than it may seem. There is a fundamental aspect of Fire Safety Management that serves as a true litmus test to help clients choose a contractor: the contractor’s ability to document and certify all activities carried out. Comprehensive and accurate documentation assures the client (and the certifying authority) that the work was properly executed and allows the maintenance company to demonstrate the quality of its service. A maintenance company that cannot adequately document the work performed likely lacks the level of expertise required for the job.

 

That’s an interesting point about documentation, and it’s relatively straightforward to assess – especially for comparison – during the initial selection of providers to move forward in the negotiation process.

Are there other indicators a client can use to evaluate the quality of a prospective contractor?

The labor costs estimate. Becoming a skilled fire safety technician takes time; the necessary expertise doesn’t come out of thin air. It requires a solid educational foundation and ongoing training.

At Mozzanica, we invest at least one year to train a technician on fire extinguishers and maintenance equipment, and up to two or three years to prepare a technician for system maintenance. A maintenance technician for extinguishers and equipment needs to have strong manual skills and workshop experience, while a technician specializing in the maintenance of fire doors and gates must have a background in door and window installation. For system maintenance technicians, a technical diploma (preferably in electrical engineering) is essential. They must also have a thorough understanding of fire chemistry and physics, technical standards, management procedures, the systems they will service, and any proprietary technologies associated with those systems. In Italy, the regulatory framework that unequivocally defines the minimum requirements for these technicians is still under development. Currently, only voluntary certifications issued by third-party certification bodies are available. This makes the labor costs an important indicator of the expertise a maintenance company's technicians can provide. Skilled and well-trained technicians capable of handling complex tasks will naturally come at a higher cost than average. For instance, our staff not only performs routine maintenance but also delivers specialized preventive and predictive maintenance services. This expertise requires advanced tools and equipment. Therefore, the list of available resources becomes another key criterion for evaluating a maintenance company. The factors outlined, along with the specializations the supplier can offer, will help the buyer choose the company that best aligns with the safety objectives set by the Fire Safety Management of their business.

 

 

We’ve discussed the certification of skills and qualifications.

Are there any other certifications that can help the client in making their choice?

Certainly, third-party certifications are extremely important when selecting a supplier. At Mozzanica, we hold several certifications, both national and international for activities abroad. Another crucial evaluation element is “waste management.” All maintenance operations generate “waste,” for which strict regulations establish rigorous procedures for disposal or recovery—procedures that we follow meticulously.

Disposal is costly for those carrying it out, so the client should expect to pay for this service and receive evidence of the completed treatment. This is not only because it demonstrates the supplier's quality and environmental responsibility, but also because there are specific administrative and criminal liabilities, including those of the client, that must be respected.

ICIM, in collaboration with UMAN, has developed a certification scheme, which our company holds, that focuses, among other aspects, on the comparison between purchased materials, supplied materials, and disposed materials.  Any inconsistency between these three values indicates fraudulent management of maintenance activities.

Environmental liability, however, does not end with strict compliance with regulations. The process of recovering firefighting powders to be used as fertilizers in agriculture, along with the choice of technologies that minimize environmental impact – for example, Mozzanica develops ORS, water mist, and Inergen systems – serves as an indirect indicator of a company’s quality.

Being committed on these fronts requires a company culture that cannot tolerate lenient attitudes toward practices that are borderline improper or even fraudulent.

So to conclude, let's go back to where we started. One should prioritize choosing the supplier’s culture even before evaluating their performance.

I would go a step further and better answer one of the initial questions: how should the client balance their economic constraints with the need for maximum safety? The well-prepared company in the fire safety market, in the face of these challenges, responds by using its technical, commercial, and financial resources to plan a medium- to long-term relationship that allows the client to achieve the right level of protection while enabling the supplier to earn a fair profit. It’s clear that what I’m outlining is not a standard client/supplier relationship, but rather a partnership.

A relationship of this type requires more than just a convergence of interests; it implies a cultural and objective alignment.