Commissioning professionals, myself included, have always advocated the delay of systems acceptance by and turnover to the owner until the commissioning process is complete. In this sense, “complete” means the systems pass their functional performance tests and the owner’s operations staff has been properly trained.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a collaborative process that has been applied more and more frequently to building design and construction projects. Although it is implemented in slightly different ways from project to project, it is always about involving all project team members in intense planning and coordination, starting very early in design and extending through construction and facility turnover.
Continuing last month’s topic of commissioning action lists (a.k.a. master issues logs, a.k.a. corrective action lists), I would like to focus on the items in those documents that deal with construction phase or acceptance testing “deficiencies.”
Whether one calls it a commissioning action list, a master issues log, a deficiency list, a corrective action list, etc., every commissioning project includes a matrix of items needing attention by someone on the project team. This table is the responsibility of the commissioning professional to create, maintain, and share with the team.
Late last year (November and December, 2015) this column addressed the situation where a third-party commissioning professional is not by with the building owner until the last few weeks of construction.
This month, I want to address an issue which is as old as building systems commissioning itself. It was one of the first challenges commissioning professionals endeavored to resolve in order to more effectively and efficiently facilitate the commissioning process … and yet it still lingers.