I recently heard about a large new construction project where the commissioning process hit a snag because of apparently conflicting construction contract clauses. In one part of the contract, the installation contractors were offered a bonus for completing the project by a certain date (earlier than the base scope requirement). In the commissioning specification, the owner made the general contractor responsible for the cost of retesting required due to deficiencies discovered during initial functional performance testing.
The commissioning professional was not aware of the incentive, and the contractors, as it turned out, may not have been aware of or may not have remembered the penalty. As the early completion date approached, the contractors exerted tremendous pressure on the commissioning professional to perform the functional performance testing. The commissioning professional resisted, pointing out that all of the system readiness prerequisites were not yet documented as complete. In particular, the TAB report, even in preliminary draft form, was not available.