When fire watch is cheaper than permanent ERCES — and when it really isn’t.

Every BDA project manager has encountered the conversation: the building is approaching certificate of occupancy, the ERCES system isn’t commissioned yet, and the AHJ won’t issue the CO without passing the radio coverage test. The options are to delay CO or to start a fire watch — deploying a dedicated human presence in the building 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the system passes.

Fire watch costs money. It costs a lot of money. But so does a permanent ERCES installation. The calculation of which is less expensive — and over what time horizon — depends on the building type, the AHJ’s jurisdiction, and whether “fire watch” means a temporary bridge to commissioning or a permanent alternative to a system the building owner would rather not install.

What fire watch means for ERCES compliance

Under IFC Section 510 and NFPA 1225, when an in-building radio coverage system is required and is non-functional or not yet installed, the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) may require fire watch as an interim protective measure. Fire watch for ERCES is not a traditional fire watch — no one is watching for smoke with a fire extinguisher. It’s a communications supplement: personnel positioned in the building to relay radio communications that the absent or non-functional BDA would otherwise provide.

Specifically, fire watch personnel for ERCES coverage are expected to:

• Monitor and relay radio communications between the incident commander outside and fire crews inside.
• Maintain communication using a radio on the local public-safety frequency.
• Remain on post continuously for the duration of the fire watch period.

The AHJ determines how many watch personnel are required, where they must be positioned, and how frequently their presence must be documented. Some jurisdictions require a fire watch log with timestamps; others require periodic check-in with the fire marshal’s office. The requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction and building type. The AHJ testing process and local fire marshal requirements for the initial ERCES coverage test are the same authorities that set the fire watch requirements — confirming their specific expectations before starting a fire watch saves surprises later.

The hourly cost — what fire watch actually costs

Fire watch personnel costs depend on local labor markets and whether the building owner contracts with a licensed security company (most common) or uses building staff (sometimes prohibited by the AHJ). In Atlanta and the Southeast, all-in hourly rates for contracted fire watch in 2026 run approximately:

These figures are rough estimates that vary by market and contractor. The critical variable is whether the AHJ requires one person or multiple. A single-story building may require one watch officer; a 20-story building with stairwells, mechanical floors, and a parking deck may require two to four posts — effectively multiplying the daily cost by the number of required positions.

The ROI breakeven — when permanent ERCES pays for itself

The breakeven calculation compares annualized fire watch cost against the amortized cost of a permanent ERCES installation. For a rough comparison:

A mid-rise office building (150,000 sq ft, 8 stories) requiring a single-post fire watch at $18,000/month would pay approximately $216,000 per year for fire watch. A permanent ERCES installation for a building this size typically runs $80,000–$150,000 installed, with annual maintenance costs of $5,000–$12,000/year. At $216,000/year in fire watch costs, the permanent system pays for itself in roughly 5–8 months, even at the top of the installation cost range.

The breakeven accelerates dramatically as building size or required post count increases. For buildings requiring two or more fire watch posts, the monthly fire watch cost can exceed $35,000–$50,000 — a cost structure that makes even a $300,000 ERCES installation rational within 6–9 months.

AHJ variation — which jurisdictions accept fire watch as a permanent solution

Fire watch is universally accepted as a temporary measure while a permanent ERCES system is being installed or repaired. Whether it’s accepted as a long-term alternative varies significantly by AHJ:

• Jurisdictions that do not accept fire watch as a permanent solution: Most major metro AHJs — Atlanta-Fulton, DeKalb County, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Houston — require permanent ERCES for buildings that fail the radio coverage test. Fire watch is a compliance bridge, not a compliance strategy. The building’s CO condition typically includes a deadline for permanent system installation.
• Jurisdictions where fire watch is accepted for specific building types indefinitely: Some rural and semi-rural AHJs, particularly those without dedicated fire marshal staffing for commercial inspections, have accepted fire watch as a permanent arrangement for low-occupancy or low-risk buildings — light industrial buildings with single-occupancy daytime operations, rural storage facilities, buildings occupied only during business hours. The acceptance is generally informal and subject to change when AHJ personnel or policy changes.
• Jurisdictions that allow fire watch during temporary conditions: Buildings undergoing renovation where the ERCES system is temporarily disabled, buildings awaiting equipment lead time on a system replacement, and buildings in the 30–90 day window between CO application and final acceptance inspection routinely use fire watch with explicit AHJ approval and a defined end date.

The pattern: for new construction in any urban or suburban jurisdiction, fire watch is a bridge, not a destination. The timeline of AHJ acceptance in less-regulated markets may be longer — but it should be confirmed in writing with the fire marshal before budgeting fire watch as a permanent line item.

The buildings where fire watch is the right answer for years

Despite the ROI analysis above, there are building situations where fire watch is genuinely the more rational choice:

• Buildings awaiting demolition or redevelopment. If a building is scheduled for demolition in 18–24 months and the ERCES installation cost is $150,000+, fire watch may be more economical than a permanent system that will be torn out. Confirm the AHJ will accept fire watch for this period and get the approval in writing.
• Short-term occupancy pending sale or major renovation. A building in a transition period while a new owner plans a major renovation may rationally use fire watch rather than a permanent ERCES installation that will be disrupted or replaced in the renovation.
• Buildings with active ERCES system failure awaiting equipment. When a BDA fails and the replacement unit has a 6–12 week lead time, fire watch is the correct bridge. The existing conduit and distribution infrastructure remain in place; the BDA is the single replacement item. ERCES contractors who maintain ongoing service relationships with building owners can often reduce equipment lead time by maintaining fleet spares.
• Low-occupancy buildings in jurisdictions that accept it. Single-tenant light industrial buildings with 5–10 employees, occupied business hours only, in jurisdictions where the fire marshal has explicitly approved ongoing fire watch — the cost of a permanent system may not be justified by the risk profile.

Bottom line

Fire watch is a legitimate compliance tool for ERCES — but the economics make it a poor long-term strategy for any occupied building in a jurisdiction that eventually requires permanent ERCES. The $15,000–$40,000/month in fire watch costs that seem acceptable during a 60-day construction bridge become a significant annual expense if the bridge extends to six months or a year. For buildings in the design and construction phase, the correct strategy is to budget ERCES as a system, coordinate frequency authorization at the design phase, and avoid the fire watch situation entirely. For buildings already in fire watch, the breakeven analysis on permanent installation is almost always shorter than the project team expects.