Commissioning and controls contractors: a simmering pot

I just finished giving a presentation on commissioning to an
audience of controls contractors and integrators. It’s the second
time in two years that I’ve given this talk to a controls company
having a national sales meeting with their reps and partners, and
wanting someone (me) to cover the topic of commissioning.

In the presentation, I gave an overview of the commissioning
process, using a flow
diagram to convey the major steps for an idealized
commissioning process for new construction. I then ask the audience
to comment on how this idealized version compares to what they are
experiencing in reality. (note: the diagram I use is a bit simpler
than the linked to above)

Yikes! Talk about throwing a hunk of meat to a pack of starving
(but diplomatic) wolves!

Among both firms, the people in the audience were smart,
experienced, good communicators, and business-savvy. And they
were (are) clearly frustrated with the commissioning
process.

The issues that these (hundreds of) controls contractors and
integrators are facing were so similar across both firms
that they are worth bringing to wider attention. I’ve
also asked David Sellers to comment on commissioning for controls
contractors and integrators on his blog, A Field Guide for
Engineers, and provide some of his legendary guidance and
hyperlinks to practical resources.

The issues include:
a. Early involvement: controls contractors are getting brought onto
projects so late on projects, they have limited ability to provide
value to the commissioning process except to follow orders of the
commissioning agent (CxA).
b. The CxA is often not brought onto a project early enough, too -
and has a scope that is very limited compared to the idealized
process.
c. Controls contractors are generally not in a position to provide
qualified bids on products and services because they aren’t made
privy to the relevant design documents and other project
documentation at the time needed for them to prepare their
bids.
d. Some said that getting involved at the building’s
design-phase kick-off meeting is almost impossible because the HVAC
design isn’t started or complete by then. They’re usually thrown in
after everything is installed.
e. Some said that the contracting methodology (in the U.S.) is off
kilter — that often times the controls contract is controlled by
the mechanical contractor, not as a separate contract presided by
the owner. As such, it’s a lowest-bid situation, which makes
“honest” bids difficult to win. Change orders and RFIs come into
play so they can make a profit. 
f. Controls contractors are often the “last man out,” so they get
stuck with cleaning up bad designs, specifications, and control
sequences, and because of schedule pressures and not wanting to
endanger their relationships, they “get the job done” and take
their licks.
g. They’re experiencing a lot of “bad” Cx agents whom they say are
lazy, incompetent, poor communicators, and owner-empowered
task drivers. Many aren’t seeing a lot of value to owners provided
by the commissioning process.

These issues are shared by all of them - they’re a list of the
different issues that many in the audiences expressed or had
resonance with.

The advice that I gave was for them to join the Building Commissioning Association,
AABC, NEBB, and other institutions relevant to
commissioning and participate in their committees and events — to
help shape the field of commissioning, which compared to the
tenures of architecture and engineering, is very young and
unsettled. I had written on this just a few weeks ago, in an
earlier
blog post, citing new guidelines published by ASHRAE and the
BCA.

I advised them to acquire and become familiar with the
commissioning guidelines of ASHRAE, BCA, AABC, NEBB, GSA, SMACNA,
PECI, and others, so that when
there were wanting to participate on a project, they could find out
which guidelines a Cx team would be using, and thereby have a
hint on what to expect.

I also advised them to put into their contract bids limits for
commissioning support, so many hours or dollars of time to
participate in meetings, tests, and documentation authoring. After
those limits are exceeded, they should be free to charge extra for
their time and materials. This bit of advice came from one controls
contractor who said he uses this approach successfully in his
company’s projects.

And, I advised them to write papers and participate in
commissioning conferences, such as the National Conference on Building
Commissioning, where their voice could be heard and thereby
help make the Cx process more equitable to them. I
recommend conferences hosted by PECI, BCA, AABC, NEBB and
others can designate panel discussions that
include controls contractors and integrators.

Generally speaking, these seem to be relevant issues and
concerns, especially because they concern controls and
commissioning. As Jay Santos, PE, principal, Facility Dynamics
Engineering, said, “If it wasn’t for the immense problems owners
are having with controls, there wouldn’t be
commissioning.” Given that, it’s sardonic that controls
contractors and integrators are (or at least are feeling)
disenfranchised by the commissioning process.
 
So — what do you think? You engineers out there, and commissioning
providers, owner-engineers, and controls contractors… what
reforms in idealized commissioning guidelines would help? What
about construction team compositions and contracting primacy?