Shifting from pre-inspection to post-inspection for fire safety acceptance testing has been welcomed by many investors — it removes one administrative step and shortens the time to bring a building into operation. But seen from the MEP contractor's side — especially subcontractors — it's a very different story. This article shares a field-level perspective, the kind of difficulty that doesn't show up when you only read the regulation on paper.

Note: This article reflects the practical perspective and experience of a construction contractor. It is for reference only and does not replace official legal advice.

1. Who gains, who loses — two sides of the same change

For investors: one less administrative procedure, no longer waiting for the fire police to conduct acceptance testing before putting a building into use.

For contractors: the opposite — difficulty increases significantly. Under the old pre-inspection mechanism, the investor, design consultant (TVTK), supervision consultant (TVGS) and contractor all shared one goal: work together so the building would pass fire police acceptance. That shared goal created genuine cooperation, with every party helping resolve issues together.

Now, under post-inspection, responsibility shifts entirely to the period after the building is already in use. Precisely because everyone is "afraid of being held liable" under this new mechanism, each party protects itself first — leading to:

  • TVTK and TVGS inspecting far more strictly, scrutinizing the smallest details.
  • Main contractors checking subcontractors even more rigorously than TVGS does.
  • Not uncommonly, TVTK, TVGS, and even the investor don't fully understand, or misunderstand technical standards such as QCVN 06 — leading to requirements that don't match reality on site, creating difficulty for contractors even when their work is correct.

2. Subcontractors — the ones who bear the brunt

When the Project Management Board (BQL) is strict, subcontractors are typically at the end of the chain, absorbing the pressure passed down from every party above them — the investor, TVGS, and the main contractor. This is a common reality on many project sites today.

3. Testing for pressurization and smoke-exhaust systems has also tightened

Another notable change affects the testing of stairwell pressurization systems and smoke-exhaust airflow measurement — carried out by an independent third-party inspection body:

  • Before: the inspection body could test and issue results early, as long as the system was basically complete.
  • Now: they require the system to be 100% complete, with internal acceptance already signed off between contractors, before they will even carry out the measurement.

The fee structure has also shifted in a way that disadvantages contractors:

  • Before: fees were only charged once the test result passed — giving the inspection body an incentive to help the system pass.
  • Now: fees are charged per test, regardless of pass or fail — because the inspection body itself now fears being held liable under the post-inspection mechanism, so it tests strictly against real site conditions, without the flexibility it used to offer.

The result: contractors face added cost from repeated re-testing, and longer delays every time a result doesn't pass.

4. The value of an experienced MEP contractor

As regulations tighten and risk increasingly falls on contractors, choosing an MEP contractor with genuine field experience — one that knows the standards inside out (QCVN 06:2022/BXD with Amendment 1:2023, TCVN 5687:2024) and prepares complete technical documentation from the start — becomes even more important for minimizing risk during acceptance testing and system inspection.

KLPC works closely with supervision consultants and main contractors from the construction phase onward, preparing thorough technical documentation to minimize issues during fire-safety system acceptance and testing.