Bring the water-supply record into the design brief.

Ask what information the designer needs

Start with the project address, proposed work and existing system records. Ask the responsible designer what supply information is needed, who can provide it and what assumptions remain until it is accepted. Do not open a hydrant or operate building equipment to produce a household substitute.

For an alteration, supply the previous design and known changes rather than assuming the original data still settles the new proposal. The designer needs to decide what can be used and what needs confirmation.

Keep the information traceable

Store the complete original document. A pressure number copied into an email loses the qualifications that may matter to the project.

Expect the local process to differ

On review, Calgary’s flow-test page says it is supplying hydraulic modelling results while reviewing its testing process. Its sprinkler-design request asks for the address, tie-in location and designer-supplied flow and pressure requirements, plus the development application number.

That is a current Calgary process example. Ask your water authority and designer for the actual pathway rather than promising a flow-test report everywhere or guessing the design values yourself.

Separate supply questions from equipment choices

Keep existing pump, tank, backflow and service information in the package where present. Ask the team how each affects the project assessment and which record or investigation is missing. A pump brochure or a visible pipe size does not establish the building’s available supply.

• What part of the supply is represented by the record?
• What installed equipment must also be assessed?
• Which assumptions are still unconfirmed?
• Who obtains and interprets additional information?

Compare quotes using the same assumption

Ask bidders to identify the water-supply basis used in their proposals. If one includes investigation and another assumes existing information is acceptable, label that difference before comparing prices.

Record the task, responsible party and deliverable for unresolved supply work. This guide does not size a service, calculate demand or determine whether a pump is needed.

Read a supply record as a package

When a supply document arrives, do an administrative completeness check before forwarding a single value. Can you identify who issued it, the location represented, the date and any conditions or attachments? Are the units preserved exactly? Does the document refer to a different site address, connection point or application? Flag those questions to the designer without adjusting values or interpreting whether the supply is adequate. A helpful owner can keep the provenance intact while leaving hydraulic interpretation to the appropriate professional.

Ask the designer to identify the record it proposes to use and the decision it supports. A document may be useful history while additional confirmation is needed for the new work. Record that distinction in the project index. If another party sends a later version, keep both copies with their source and ask which one governs the current assessment. A folder named “latest water test” is weaker than a clearly identified record connected to a particular design revision and explanation.

Where information is missing, write a request that describes the gap. For example: “The package includes a pressure summary but no identifiable source point or conditions. Please confirm the complete record required for the design review.” This asks for a deliverable rather than inviting the owner to make a new measurement. Keep the request, response and accepted basis together. It is then clear whether the next task belongs to the water authority, an authorized provider, the designer or the property team.

Copyable record request: “For [property/project], we have [document/issuer/date]. Please confirm the complete supply record needed for your assessment, including the represented location, units, stated conditions and attachments. Identify whether the available document can support this proposal revision or what further authority or qualified-provider information is needed. Please name who obtains the missing information and how your accepted basis will be documented.” Replace the brackets with actual references. Send technical requirements as issued by the designer; do not create values or substitute a domestic reading for the requested record.

Manage a changed supply assumption during procurement

Consider a fictional alteration where Bid A assumes an existing supply record can be used and Bid B includes additional investigation. The first comparison question is why their assumptions differ. Give both teams the same complete record and ask them to state the proposed basis, outstanding information and the party responsible for obtaining it. Do not award additional equipment simply because one proposal is more conservative in wording; obtain the qualified explanation of the actual project requirements.

If new information changes the assessment, keep the change traceable. Record the original assumption, the new source document, the design response and any revised scope. Ask whether the change affects procurement, connected work or the final record package. The owner’s role is to authorize the defined commercial change through the agreed process and ensure the relevant people receive it. The owner should not alter technical values to reconcile proposals or select a system configuration from an online comparison.

At handover, request an index that connects the accepted supply information with the applicable design documents and equipment record. This helps a future alteration team understand what was established for this project and what remains subject to review. If the supply investigation was excluded from one contract, retain the document supplied by the responsible party rather than assuming the exclusion means the information never mattered. A complete project record can include several issuers while still showing one clear basis for the finished work.

Carry the accepted basis into handover

Retain the supply record used, its stated limitations and the design documents that depend on it. If new information changes the proposal, keep the revised decision with the earlier version so a later reviewer can follow the change.

Use the project brief to list available records and missing information. Keep the technical values as issued by the responsible professional.

References and scope

1. Fire hydrant flow test — City of Calgary. Current Calgary request pathway states that hydraulic modelling results are supplied during its process review. Local example only; the designer and water authority establish acceptable project data. Link reviewed 2026-10-02.
2. Provincial and territorial code adoption — Canadian Board for Harmonized Construction Codes. Explains adoption and enforcement responsibilities. Provincial tables carry different reference dates; obtain current information from the responsible authority. It is not a ruling for a particular building. Link reviewed 2026-10-02.

Review dates identify source-link checks, not professional certification or a building-specific determination. Confirm current jurisdiction and exact-model requirements for actual work.