Questions worth asking a fire safety software vendor before you buy

A vendor demo is, reasonably, designed to show a product at its best — clean data, a well-rehearsed workflow, a small number of buildings set up specifically to look good on screen. None of that tells you much about how the platform behaves once it's holding a real portfolio's genuinely messy history. These are the questions more likely to surface that.

On migration and existing records

Can historical FRA review dates, building details and outstanding actions be imported from an existing spreadsheet, or does everything need re-entering from scratch? What happens to records for a building if a contract with the vendor ends — can they be exported in a usable format, or are they effectively locked in? These questions matter more than most people expect going in, and this is exactly the concern covered in our piece on when it's actually time to switch from spreadsheets.

On scope and boundaries

Does the platform claim to carry out fire risk assessments, or does it record and track assessments carried out by a competent assessor? Does it claim to monitor alarms live, or purely record servicing history? Does it handle building control submissions, or is that explicitly out of scope? A vendor who answers these clearly and without hedging is generally more trustworthy than one who lets the boundaries stay vague — see our broader piece on what a platform should actually include for the baseline worth expecting.

On multi-user access

• –How many user roles exist, and can access be scoped per building or per portfolio, not just all-or-nothing?
• –Can contractors submit servicing evidence directly, or does everything have to be re-entered by one central person?
• –What happens when someone leaves — does their access get revoked without losing the records they created?
• –Is there an audit trail of who changed what and when, useful for both internal accountability and external scrutiny?

On reporting and evidencing

Can the platform produce a clean, exportable report of outstanding actions and review dates across an entire portfolio, suitable for an insurer, auditor or board — or does that require manual reformatting? Can photo evidence be attached directly to actions and defects, and does it stay attached in any exported report?

On pricing as the portfolio grows

How does the price actually change as buildings, users or features are added — is that predictable and stated clearly, or does it require a fresh negotiation each time? This connects directly to the cost drivers covered in our pricing piece — a platform that's attractively priced today but vague about growth pricing can become a considerably more expensive decision a year in.

The answers worth listening carefully to

Two questions tend to be the most revealing, and neither is about features. The first is what the product does not do — a vendor with a clear, specific answer generally understands their own boundaries, and one who claims everything is covered usually has not thought about it. The second is what happens to your data if you leave: what format, how quickly, whether evidence and attachments come with it.

Both matter more in this domain than in most, because the records are ones you may need to produce years later, potentially after the relationship with the vendor has ended.

Common mistakes

• –Not asking what the product explicitly does not do
• –No clarity on data export format or what happens on exit
• –Assuming attachments and evidence export alongside the records
• –Not asking who else can see the data, or where it is held
• –Accepting a roadmap commitment in place of current functionality
• –Not asking to speak to a customer with a comparable portfolio