b'DeltaDualCore Panel Awning Systems Table 2-1. Summary of concerns raised by CertMark, Sotera responses and relevant sections actioned. CertMark ConcernSotera ResponseSection Actioned 1.The SOTERA report does notAll relevant fire test reports andTable 3-4 and appear to rely on any testingcertificates have now been summarisedSection 3.3 conducted to the DualCorein Table 3-4 and discussed in Section 3.3 panel. We appear not to havewhich justifies that although no AS1530.3 the overall panels tested totest has been undertaken specifically on 1530.3. I also cannot seethe DeltaDualCore panel, it is whether SOTERA havereasonable to extrapolate the results of conducted any assessments ofthe existing AS1530.3 tests to apply to the testing noted in the abovethe DeltaDualCore panel. table against the DualCore panel or have argued the reports are valid against the DualCore Panel, having said that, I dont see this being acceptable to the UBC. 2. The report appears to confirmYes, rev 1-4 of the report confirms thatSection 1.3(d)(iv) the DualCore panel is a Bondedthe sandwich panels are bondedand Section 4.4 Laminate, however the evidencelaminates but it does not claim that the to support this claim is not clear.bonded laminates comply with NCC 3.7.1.1(g). Further clarification has been added to Section 1.3(d)(iv) and Section 4.4. 3.The report claims that sandwichSection 3.2 has been revised to betterSection 3.2 panels produced with a non- describe the design configurations and composite core consisting solelysystem variations. of EPS-FR is outside the scope of this FER, however Design Configuration 2 incorporates such panels which presents a contradiction. 4.SOTERA has not extrapolatedDiscussion has been included in SectionsSections 3.3.2, tested thicknesses to products3.3.2, 4.7.1.1 and 4.8.2.4. The4.7.1.1 and (75mm, 100mm, 150mm,assessment is independent of panel4.8.2.4 175mm)thickness as it assesses likelihood of fire spread from and to the site boundary. 5.A fundamental problem here isAs per the CodeMark protocol, the fireSection 3.2 that SOTERA has provided aengineering assessment must identify the Performance Solution, howeverapplicable NCC performance this is not what CMI require forrequirements and demonstrate how the the purpose of certification. Weproposed system achieves the will require a Qualitativeperformance requirements. This can be assessment of the new productdone using i) NCC verification method based on testing conducted to(quantitative), ii) alternative verification the individual productsanmethod (quantitative), iii) Comparison to Evidence of Suitability report orDtS (quantitative or qualitative), and (iv) alternatively testing conductedExpert Judgement (qualitative). When to the new product. We alsousing any of these methods, the BCA need to be clear on what we arerefers to this as a performance solution actually certifying, essentially,and there is no requirement for the Revision 1-119'