This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
In October 2005, "Getting it Right" loosely defined levels of rigor for commissioning tests. That was intended to help building owners understand the wide variety of testing approaches available from commissioning providers. Last month (November 2005), and this month, I am presenting a qualitative discussion of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the various levels of rigor. The intent is to help building owners decide what is most appropriate for their projects prior to soliciting commissioning services.
To help this column stand on its own, I'll repeat the definitions for each level of rigor. Last month I covered the three lowest levels, and this month I'll complete the discussion with the two highest levels of rigor.