I spent many hours this past summer watching my son play lacrosse and couldn’t help thinking about how the team sport of lacrosse is similar to the team sport of design and construction. I’m sure this is analogous to the other team sports that move an object up and down a rectangular field, court, or rink, but this is how I see its comparison with lacrosse.
Last month, I addressed the challenge faced by new construction project teams to build faster and cheaper. In the normal project delivery process, this responsibility falls on the construction manager and/or general contractor (CMGC).
This is apt to be the last of my series of columns regarding the relationship between Substantial Completion management and efficient and successful commissioning. Previous columns have addressed various reasons why projects are being declared substantially complete when the building systems are barely functional and ideas for how to improve that situation. This month’s column will look at how substantial completion is actually determined by the owner and/or owner’s representative.
The readers weigh in. In my December 2012 column, I solicited reader feedback regarding substantial completion and the trend of owners accepting buildings as substantially complete when the mechanical and electrical systems are not complete, fully integrated, and functioning properly.
Leaning on experience and data from various K-12 cities and projects, the author pursues some less conventional design approaches. They may revolve around radiant heating and/or cooling, but depending on school size and other factors, the smart use of heat recovery, DOAS, and improved central plants could also put a project on the HVAC honor roll.