Over the last couple months, this column has been about retrocommissioning, commissioning existing building systems that have never been commis-sioned before. There is no question that there is great potential to be realized through a retrocommissioning process, primarily in terms of improved system performance and decreased energy consumption. However, successful retrocommissioning is not something can be accomplished in a vacuum by a commissioning professional; it depends heavily on the building’s O&M staff.
Last month, this column addressed special considerations
for developing the owner’s project requirements/DID for projects that are
designed and constructed as a core and shell (C&S) by the developer with
customized tenant fit-out (TFO) of occupied spaces as they are leased.
Documenting the owner’s project requirements/design intent is valuable for any
project and is imperative for commissioned projects.
It is exciting to see that the benefits of commissioning are being realized by more and more commercial real estate developers and their tenants. A traditional speculative office building presents special challenges for the commissioning process. In the commercial real estate market, many office buildings are constructed as a core and shell (C&S) by the developer with customized tenant fit-out (TFO) of occupied spaces as they are leased.
Last month, I talked
specifically about ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005, The Commissioning
Process and its owner’s project requirements document. As
quoted from the Guideline, the ASHRAE document “is
not definitive, but encompasses areas where there may be a variety of
approaches, none of which must be precisely correct.” I’d like to explore that
a bit more this month. How much latitude is there in the term “commissioning”
for new construction? If there are no approaches that are “precisely correct,”
are there any approaches that should be considered incorrect?