An arc flash study is an engineering deliverable that directly determines what PPE your workers wear every time they perform energized electrical work. The numbers in that study — the incident energy values at every panel and MCC in your facility — come from a power system model that a provider’s engineer built from data they collected at your site. The accuracy of those numbers depends on the quality of that data collection, the sophistication of the model, and the engineer’s understanding of IEEE 1584-2018.
Selecting a provider based on price alone, or on speed of response, is how facilities end up with studies that underestimate incident energy at high-risk locations — leaving workers with inadequate PPE — or overestimate it, forcing unnecessarily heavy PPE that workers resist wearing and find ways to avoid.
These are the seven questions that reveal whether a provider is actually qualified for your engagement.
1. Is the study performed and sealed by a P.Eng. licensed in Ontario?
This is the non-negotiable baseline. A Professional Engineer seal from an engineer licensed in Ontario is a legal requirement for arc flash study reports used for OHSA compliance purposes. The seal is not an administrative formality — it represents an engineer’s professional responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the work.
Watch for: some providers present engineering studies that are “reviewed” or “approved” by a P.Eng. without being “performed” by one. The calculations and data collection should be performed under the direct supervision of the licensed engineer who seals the report — not delegated entirely to technicians with a P.Eng. rubber stamp at the end.
Ask directly: “Who performs the calculations and data collection — is that the same engineer who seals the report?“
2. Which edition of IEEE 1584 does your software implement?
The correct answer is IEEE 1584-2018. The 2018 edition was a major revision from the 2002 standard, based on substantially more empirical data and using a different calculation approach that produces materially different results at many equipment types. A provider still running IEEE 1584-2002 calculations — in legacy software that has not been updated — is producing results that do not reflect the current engineering understanding of arc flash incident energy.
This matters most at equipment types where the 2002 and 2018 methodologies diverge most significantly: bus configurations, open arc environments, and equipment with specific bus gap characteristics that the 2018 empirical model addresses but the 2002 model does not.
Ask: “Which edition of IEEE 1584 does your calculation software implement, and what software version are you running?” A provider who does not know the answer without checking, or who hedges, is a warning sign.
3. Does the scope include a short circuit analysis and a coordination study?
Some providers offer “arc flash studies” that consist only of the incident energy calculations — skipping the short circuit analysis and protective device coordination study that are part of a complete power system study engagement. This is a significant scope reduction, not a minor omission.
The coordination study is important for two reasons: first, it verifies that your protective devices are properly set to operate in the correct sequence — a safety check independent of arc flash; second, it identifies miscoordination that may be increasing arc flash clearing times at downstream equipment. In many Ontario industrial facilities, straightforward coordination setting changes reduce incident energy at multiple locations — sometimes enough to reduce required PPE categories and significantly simplify the PPE program. A provider who skips coordination eliminates the possibility of finding and acting on these improvements.
Ask: “Is the protective device coordination study included in your standard scope, or is it a separate add-on?“
4. What software do you use for power system modeling?
The standard professional-grade power system analysis platforms used for arc flash studies in Canada are ETAP, SKM Power Tools, EasyPower, and EDSA. These platforms implement IEEE 1584-2018 calculations, have been validated against empirical data, and produce outputs accepted by Ontario engineers and regulators.
Be cautious of providers using spreadsheet-based calculations — even sophisticated, custom-built spreadsheets — for complex industrial systems. Spreadsheet calculations are difficult to validate, easy to error-check incorrectly, and do not produce the same confidence level as certified software for complex systems with parallel sources, multiple transformers, and protection coordination across many levels.
For Guelph food processing facilities or St. Catharines manufacturing plants with complex protection schemes and multiple transformer levels, software-grade modeling is not optional for an accurate result.
5. What does your deliverables package include — specifically, are arc flash labels included?
The standard deliverables from a complete arc flash study engagement are: PE-stamped engineering report, updated single-line diagram, arc flash label files (digital, print-ready), PPE matrix, and coordination findings. Clarify specifically whether the label files are included, whether physical printing is included, and whether installation is in scope.
Also ask: “Do I receive the power system model file as a deliverable?” Getting the native software model file (the .pet, .sav, or equivalent) as a contractual deliverable at the time of study completion is the most important step you can take to preserve flexibility at the five-year update — it allows you to engage any qualified provider for the update without having to rebuild the model from scratch.
6. Do you have experience with facilities of our type and size?
Arc flash study providers with general electrical engineering experience are not all equally prepared for every facility type. A provider whose portfolio consists primarily of small commercial buildings is not the right choice for a 120-node steel mill with medium-voltage switchgear and parallel transformer feeds. A provider experienced primarily in manufacturing may need to develop expertise in healthcare facility coordination protocols and essential branch electrical architecture.
Ask for references from comparable facilities — similar industry, similar node count, similar voltage levels. A qualified provider will be able to provide these. A provider who cannot point to experience with your facility type or scale is taking on a learning curve at your expense.
7. What is your typical turnaround time from site visit to final report?
This question serves two purposes: it tells you whether the provider has realistic capacity for your project, and it reveals something about their process. A very short turnaround time (for example, “we deliver all reports within two weeks of site visit”) for a complex industrial facility is a warning sign that the engineering work is not receiving the time it requires — particularly the model development and coordination analysis phases.
Reasonable turnaround times for the engineering phase alone (post-site-visit to draft report) are:
- Small facilities (under 20 nodes): 2–4 weeks
- Mid-size industrial (20–60 nodes): 3–6 weeks
- Large or complex facilities (60+ nodes): 6–10 weeks
A provider who promises delivery significantly faster than these ranges for complex facilities should be asked specifically how — and whether the coordination study is actually included in the scope.
The right provider for your facility is one who can answer all seven of these questions specifically and confidently — not one who simply submits the lowest proposal. The cost difference between a well-qualified provider and a less experienced one is typically smaller than the cost of an incident at a location where the less experienced study underestimated incident energy.
Our arc flash study guide explains the full scope of what a complete engagement involves and what to look for in the final deliverables. Use our free cost estimator to get a baseline cost range for your facility and to initiate contact with providers in our qualified network.