Your contractor has identified a defect. They have sent a quote to fix it. The strata manager has forwarded it to the OC committee. Someone is asking whether the price is reasonable.
It is a question that comes up constantly and most OC committees have no real way to answer it.
Under Australian Standard AS1851-2012, which governs the routine servicing of fire protection systems in Victoria, defects identified during a service visit fall into three categories.
Critical defect: renders a system inoperative; a fire indicator panel that cannot warn occupants, a sprinkler supply that cannot deliver water. Requires immediate notification to the responsible entity and urgent rectification.
Non-critical defect: a system impairment or faulty component that does not render the system inoperative. The system still functions, but something needs attention; a sprinkler head showing corrosion but still operational, a fire door that closes but does not latch correctly, an emergency light whose battery is weakening but still meets test requirements. Must be notified to the responsible entity within one week and rectified before the next yearly condition report .
Non-conformance: a missing or incorrect feature that does not affect system operation but is required for ongoing maintenance; missing equipment identification labels, spare sprinklers not kept on site, zone block plans that are outdated or absent. Administrative in nature but still required to be rectified .
Source: AS1851-2012, Clause 1.5.6
Why does this matter for quotes? Because classification affects urgency, and urgency affects price. A contractor who classifies a non-critical defect as critical, or a non-conformance as a defect, has just created a justification for an expensive and immediate rectification quote. The OC committee, not knowing the difference, approves it.
Not every defect quote is inflated. Most contractors operate honestly. But these are the patterns that appear regularly and are worth pausing on.
Wholesale replacement when repair is sufficient
A contractor recommends replacing a component, smoke detectors, emergency lighting fittings, fire door hardware, when the actual defect is a single failed unit or a straightforward repair. Replacing 40 smoke detectors because one has failed is not the same thing as rectifying a defect. Ask specifically: what is the defect, and what is the minimum rectification required to address it?
This is not hypothetical. Focus BRC recently reviewed a $35,000 quote to replace 155 smoke detectors at a Melbourne residential building. The standard requires testing, not blanket replacement, only detectors that fail testing need replacing. The quote was avoided entirely. Read the case study.
Passive fire penetrations built to the standard of the day
This one drives strata managers and OC committees to distraction and understandably so. A building constructed 20 years ago may have penetrations through fire-rated walls and floors that fully complied with the building code at the time of construction. Two decades later, a contractor flags them as defective and quotes significant rectification work.
The key question is whether the penetrations were built to the standard of the day. If they were, the building is not technically non-compliant. It was constructed under a different code and the existing work was approved. Rectification is not automatically required simply because standards have moved on.
That said, the counter-argument has genuine merit. Fire safety standards lift over time for a reason. If an older penetration still represents a real life safety risk, if it would fail to contain fire or smoke in the way a modern installation would, the OC may reasonably decide the rectification is worth funding regardless of technical compliance. That is a judgment call, and it deserves to be made with independent advice rather than on the basis of the contractor's quote alone.
A second opinion in this scenario is not about whether to fix it. It is about understanding whether you are legally required to, what the actual risk level is, and whether the quoted scope and cost are appropriate.
Defects that have existed across multiple service cycles
A defect appears in this year's service report. The OC approves a rectification quote. The following year, the same defect, or a near-identical one, appears again.
This pattern is worth examining carefully. Either the rectification was not carried out properly the first time, in which case the OC has paid for work that was not completed to standard. Or the defect is recurring because the underlying cause has not been addressed, in which case the OC is being quoted for symptomatic fixes rather than root cause rectification. Either way, the committee has a basis for asking harder questions before approving the next quote.
An independent review of the service history can identify whether a pattern exists and whether the proposed rectification actually addresses the problem.
The same contractor who found it also wants to fix it
There is nothing inherently wrong with a contractor quoting on their own defect findings. But there is an obvious conflict of interest structure. A contractor who services a building, identifies defects, prepares the quote, and then carries out the rectification work has a financial interest at every stage. An independent assessment of the scope and price has no such interest.
Getting a second opinion on an ESM defect quote is not about distrusting your contractor. It is about giving your OC committee the information it needs to make a reasonable decision.
Three questions frame a practical assessment:
Is the defect classification correct? Under AS1851, critical, non-critical, and non-conformance have specific definitions. Is the defect actually what the contractor says it is?
Is the proposed scope appropriate? Does the rectification work address the defect, or does it go beyond what is required? Is replacement warranted, or would repair suffice?
Is the price reasonable? For common rectification items, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, fire door repairs, there are reasonable market rates. Significant departures from those rates warrant explanation.
In some cases the answer is that the original quote was entirely reasonable. That outcome is useful too. An OC committee that approves a large rectification cost with independent backing is in a much stronger position than one that approved it on the contractor's word alone.
Not every quote needs independent review. A $400 repair to a single emergency light fitting does not warrant the same scrutiny as a $40,000 smoke detector replacement programme.
Some signals that a second opinion is worth considering:
That last point matters. "This seems high" is not enough on its own, but it is a legitimate starting point. Independent assessment gives the committee a basis for either approving with confidence or negotiating with evidence.
Focus BRC does not carry out rectification work. We do not supply or install fire safety equipment. We have no financial relationship with the contractors whose quotes we review.
When we assess a defect quote, our only interest is whether the scope is appropriate and the price is reasonable. That is a different position from anyone with a commercial stake in the outcome.
If your building has received a defect quote that feels wrong -- or if you simply want an independent view before your committee meeting -- start with a free compliance review.
Related reading
What is an AESMR? Understanding the document that sits behind every defect finding: focusfs.com.au/resources/what-is-an-aesmr
How independent advice saved one OC $35,000 on a smoke detector replacement: focusfs.com.au/resources/audit-advice-saved-35000
Building and Plumbing Commission guidance on ESM maintenance obligations: bpc.vic.gov.au
AS1851-2012 Routine Service of Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: available from Standards Australia
Focus BRC is an independent ESM compliance firm based in North Fitzroy, Victoria. We review defect quotes, assess rectification scopes, and provide independent oversight of contractor performance -- with no servicing contracts and no financial stake in the outcome.