Search

The article explores the reason why commissioning action lists (CALs) are difficult to control as well as examines what should commissioning professional do about it. It outlines the goal of the commissioning process to have the time to understand the owner's system performance requirements and the intentions of designers how the systems will achieve those requirements. The need for the contractors to review the test procedures and agree or disagree with the acceptance criteria is also tackled.

The article offers the author's insights on how building owners can provide training to their intended service contractors. The author says that owners should provide system-level training to the first service contractor at the end of construction. She notes that the key elements of system training should be compiled into a Systems Manual including as-built construction drawings, schematic diagrams of each system, and control system sequences of operation.

The author discusses aspects of building commissioning in relation to timely control system design. She states that the control contractor's design should be finished at the same time with the mechanical contractor's design. She stresses that it is vital for building owners' project managers to estimate project delivery method during the procurement of design engineering services.

The article focuses on the amount of time the commissioning professional is expected to be on-site during construction. There is a point of diminishing return when being on site too much can lead to three possible outcomes. First, there is a risk of doing the contractors' work for them. Next is the potential for the commissioning professional to become too friendly with the contractors. Third, there is temptation on the contractor's part to take a casual approach to scheduling commissioning activities.

Focuses on some of the decisions facility owners need to make when procuring professional commissioning services. Responsibility of construction manager and general contractor for both the budget and the schedule; Importance of the owner's support to the success of commissioning; Identification of the conflict of interest that needs to be addressed.

In this article the author outlines the importance of a facility owner defining the scope of commissioning to prospective provider firms in order to obtain apples-to-apples fee proposals from which to select a commissioning firm for each project. According to the author, the commissioning provider is an owner's technical representative to the project, and it is important that the owner feel comfortable with the team he is selecting to provide that representation. That all-important "chemistry" between the owner and his consultants needs to be a part of the commissioning provider selection. Interviews are required in order lo understand how people present themselves, to explore their approaches to conflict resolution, and to judge comfort and support for the owner's philosophies. Another important benefit of commissioning a project is the opportunity to involve the future system operators in the process as early as possible.