Overview
For dutyholders, audits, insurers, and internal governance, it’s not enough to say “we fixed it”. You need a clear record of what was inspected, what was found, what was done, and what remains.
What good documentation achieves
- lets you demonstrate reasonable control to auditors/insurers
- allows future inspections to start from a reliable baseline
- reduces disputes (“that wasn’t in scope” / “that wasn’t there before”)
- supports resident and stakeholder reassurance in occupied buildings
A practical close-out checklist
Depending on scope, a sensible pack may include:
- scope summary (what areas/doors/locations were included)
- dated inspection outputs (register/schedule)
- photo evidence where appropriate
- list of remedials completed and any exceptions
- recommendations / next actions for items out of scope
To make this genuinely usable, we recommend splitting close-out into three layers:
1) Project-level summary
- site/building details + responsible contacts
- dates of attendance / phasing
- scope statement (included and excluded)
- constraints and assumptions (e.g., access limitations)
2) Register-level outputs (what you can track)
- updated door register / defect register (as applicable)
- status fields (open / in progress / closed)
- priority and target dates
3) Evidence per location
- before/after photos where they add clarity
- what system/parts were used (at least at a sensible level)
- close-out notes per door/penetration/area
Close-out pack structure
| Layer | What it contains | Why it’s useful |
|---|---|---|
| Project-level summary | Scope, dates, constraints, assumptions | Stops disputes and explains what was/wasn’t possible |
| Register-level outputs | IDs, locations, priorities, statuses | Makes the programme trackable across time |
| Evidence per location | Photos/notes tied to IDs | Makes audits and handover defensible |
Fire door works: what to ask for
- door schedule/register with IDs and locations
- inspection findings (pass/fail + defects)
- details of repair works (closer model, seal type, ironmongery changes)
- replacement schedule where applicable (doorset type, hardware set)
- functional outcomes: closing and latching confirmed
Passive fire works (fire stopping/compartmentation): what to ask for
- defect register with precise locations (block/level/room/face)
- remedial scope per location (what was installed)
- evidence appropriate to the system (photos and notes)
- confirmation that remedials align to suitable, tested system types
What “audit-friendly” records look like
If you use platforms like BORIS (or any internal CAFM/compliance tool), consistency matters. The easiest way to standardise is to adopt a few required fields:
- unique reference (door ID / penetration ID)
- location string that anyone can find
- defect description (plain English)
- risk/priority
- action + status
- close-out date + evidence link
Example (one line per item) format that works well:
- Ref: FD-03-2F-STAIR-A | Location: Block A / Level 2 / Stair core | Defect: Door not latching | Priority: Urgent | Action: Replace closer + adjust latch | Status: Closed | Close-out: 2026-01-12 | Evidence: photo set
For passive fire items:
- Ref: RSR-01-L1-FACE-B-07 | Location: Block A / Riser 1 / Level 1 / Face B | Defect: Unsealed cable bundle | Priority: Planned | Action: Install suitable system | Status: Closed | Close-out: 2026-01-12 | Evidence: before/after photo
How it works
- Agree the evidence standard — before work starts.
- Capture findings consistently — same defect terms, same location format.
- Deliver works — linked to register items.
- Close out — each item has an outcome and evidence.
- Hand over — a pack that your team can file and reuse.
FAQs
Do we need “certificates” for everything?
Not always. Some scopes generate formal certification, but many compliance-critical works are best evidenced by structured registers, photos, and clear descriptions of what was installed and where.
What’s the biggest documentation red flag?
A list of “works completed” with no locations, no IDs, and no evidence. If you can’t tie evidence to a specific door/penetration, it’s hard to defend.
Should documentation be digital?
Ideally yes, because it’s searchable and trackable. A PDF pack is fine if it includes structured registers (CSV/Excel exports can help) and stable references.
If you use a compliance platform (e.g., BORIS), the key is consistency: structure outputs so they can be uploaded and tracked over time.