And
more importantly, who does it?
In
my May, 2010 column, I addressed minimum requirements for meaningful
functional performance test procedures. That was a narrow slice of
the commissioning pie. With this month’s column, I want to start
looking at the entire pie and address minimum requirements for the
process of commissioning.
The Building
Commissioning Association (BCxA) has done the heavy lifting on this
topic by carefully and thoughtfully developing a list of eleven
“Essential Attributes of Building Commissioning.” The founders of
the BCxA and developers of the “Essential Attributes” included
many pioneers of the building commissioning industry dedicated to
promoting and preserving the fundamentals of commissioning in order
to serve building owners and operators consistently well.
I
believe the “Essential Attributes” need to be more widely
understood and appreciated, not only by people providing
commissioning services but by those procuring them. Therefore, I am
dedicating space in this and subsequent columns to review each of
them.
ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE #1
The
Commissioning Authority (CA) is in charge of the commissioning
process and makes the final recommendations to the owner regarding
functional performance of the commissioned building
systems.This
first attribute acknowledges that commissioning is a “process”
and it needs a leader. Note that it does not say, “The CA performs
commissioning.” Commissioning is a team effort that involves not
only the CA but also many others associated with the design,
construction, and future operation of the commissioned systems. The
CA is “in charge” of this team but is not responsible for doing
everything included in the commissioning process.
This
attribute also implies that the CA does not accept the commissioned
systems but “makes the final recommendations to the owner.” The
CA is the owner’s technical representative for evaluating system
performance but the final decision to accept or not to accept the
systems lies with the owner.
ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE #2
The
CA is an objective, independent advocate of the Owner. If the CA’s
firm has other project responsibilities, or is not under direct
contract to the Owner, a conflict of interest exists. Wherever this
occurs, the CA discloses, in writing, the nature of the conflict and
the means by which the conflict shall be
managed.There
are two issues at play in this attribute: (1) whether the CA is
responsible for anything other than commissioning for a project; and
(2) who holds the CA’s contract. Both of them are related to the
CA’s ability to focus solely on the goals of commissioning, i.e.,
verification that systems perform as required by the owner and
preparation of the owner’s operations personnel.
If
the CA is responsible for designing the systems, installing the
equipment, programming the controls, scheduling the project, and/or
keeping the project on budget, there is a strong possibility that at
some point in the project the demands of the other job will influence
decisions or recommendations made during commissioning. This does not
serve the owner’s quality goals as well as someone acting only in
the CA role.
However, the BCxA recognizes that
some owners do not have the budget, time, or inclination to hire an
independent CA. In that case, this attribute puts the responsibility
on the CA for acknowledging the inherent conflicts of interest. This
needs to be in writing, preferably in a document signed by both the
CA and the owner; the commissioning contract would be an ideal place.
Exactly how “the conflict shall be managed” needs to be
determined on a case-by-case basis between the CA and the owner. It
will depend heavily on the reason for the owner’s decision to
double-up responsibilities and the owner’s relationship with the
CA.
If the CA is a separate firm contracted
through another project team member (architect, engineer, contractor,
test and balance contractor, etc.), there is a risk that the contract
holder will pressure the CA to go easy on them. This pressure can
come in the form of reluctance to pay for the CA’s services or by
simply playing the “you’re not a team player” card. Many owners
see this as the easy approach to contracting for commissioning
services without fully appreciating the downside of possibly diluting
the value of those services. However, in the case of some government
or corporate procurement rules, it is the only way the owner can have
commissioning introduced to a project at this time.
Whatever
the reason for contracting through someone other than the owner, it
is important to have a conflict management plan. I strongly recommend
that this include a clause that allows the CA full and direct access
to the owner at all times.
For the full list
of all eleven “Essential Attributes,” visit
www.bcxa.org.
ES