2 The Current Commissioning Process in New Zealand

As noted in the Introduction, there have been no specific studies of commissioning in New Zealand. However, a commissioning seminar organised by project managers Carson Group Ltd, in November 2004, highlighted the following issues with the current commissioning process.

2.1 The issues from a client’s perspective

Commissioning is under pressure at the end of a project and is often required to be compressed, and as a result is not done adequately.
The commissioning timeframe, both during and after handover, is not usually well communicated.
Timely issue of operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals is important to enable early familiarisation of systems and to identify potential defects during warranty periods.
Adequate programme float or slack is needed so that when problems are identified during commissioning there is sufficient time to resolve them correctly.
Performance of the entire system may change as a result of local commissioning. The complete system may need to be checked and re-commissioned to maintain optimum plant performance and efficiencies.
Consideration needs to be given to undertaking commissioning re-checks after occupation to determine if a system requires further adjustment or refinements (e.g. an increase in occupancy in an area may require additional cooling and air-flow rebalance).
Comprehensive test reports must be recorded in operating manuals.
It is important that the design intent and accurate and comprehensive test results are documented and recorded. These are the client’s reference points if faults or problems arise.
O&M manuals need to focus on the operation, design intent and description of systems. (Seminar participants noted a tendency to “bulk up” manuals with suppliers’ “glossies”.)
The process of checking the accuracy of “as-builts” should be reviewed. Currently, clients must rely on the contractor to produce these.

2.2 The issues from a consultant’s perspective

The builder’s focus is on the static rather than dynamic status of services.
Commissioning is the Cinderella activity and often fees have been spent, so time and input are restricted.
A reduction in fee costs means a reduction in service, particularly in observation and site attendance.
Often the design is not fully complete prior to construction due to design programme constraints, and this is difficult to resolve during construction.
There is continual time pressure placed on the builder and subcontractor to achieve handover because of financial and contractual impacts triggered by practical completion. This is often mirrored by the developer, who is exposed to holding and financing costs prior to completion.
Specification of zero defects improves commissioning expectations.
You need a mix of building, systems and occupants to see how all three work together for commissioning to be completed.
Often the state of physical building construction is not suitable for commissioning to commence.
More effort is needed in pre-commissioning activities (e.g. cleaning of pipe work, duct work).
Controls commissioning is done badly. Full point-to-point checks need to be done. Typically, building management systems (BMS) are only 80% commissioned, even at the end of the defects period.
Budget pressures often mean design cut-backs and the removal of spare capacity / safety factors from the design.
The quality and attitude of the builder’s services co-ordinator can greatly affect the delivery and commissioning of the systems.
There is often a lack of understanding by clients or users about the need for post-occupancy fine-tuning to be undertaken.
In the UK it is common on large or complex projects to have a commissioning agent. Their role is to be proactive. They do a full design review prior to tender to ensure expectations match the documentation.

2.3 The issues from a contractor’s perspective

Time creates the greatest pressure on most construction projects, and with commissioning coming at the end of the construction programme this is traditionally what gets squeezed.
A tendering market tends to drive pricing down, so you end up getting what you pay for both from a consultant perspective as well as from a construction perspective (i.e. low fees will mean less site attendance, and low construction costs mean basic systems and/or a low quality of materials and labour).
Typically, builders are not involved with post-occupancy commissioning activities.
The sophistication of systems can complicate the commissioning process.

2.4 The issues from a commissioning subcontractor’s perspective

The biggest issue is the builder. Often not enough time or consideration is allowed for commissioning activities as part of the construction programme. It is at the end of the construction period and is usually under pressure.
There is only very rarely a commissioning programme interfaced with the construction programme. The builder is mainly focused on the static completion of building services.
There is more focus on achieving handover (practical completion) than commissioning because of the financial and contractual implications triggered by practical completion.
The consultants need to be heavily involved in the commissioning activities because they know the parameters of the design and the tolerances available.
Poor installation is often only picked up during commissioning, which then creates further time pressure to get the faults rectified and re-commissioning completed.
If zero defects completion and point-to-point BMS testing are specified, then they should be insisted upon because they are seldom implemented in practice, due to the onerous implications if practical completion is not given. Point- to point testing envisages each and every point of the BMS will be physically tested and commissioned.
Rightly or wrongly, clients view commissioning management and the role of a commissioning agent as being part of a consultant’s normal duties and are reluctant to pay twice for what is perceived to be a double-up activity.

2.5 Conclusions

The issues raised above suggest that a number of issues need to be addressed in the development of better commissioning of buildings.

There is a need to reduce the confusion about or misunderstanding of the services design intent between the design team, the construction team and the building operator.
Commissioning needs to be more proactively managed, with better planning, programming and resourcing.
Controls commissioning is particularly troublesome. As a BMS supplier put it, “We sell dreams and install nightmares”.
It needs to be contractually recognised that commissioning is a dynamic process that straddles the end of construction and the first year of operation, and this needs to be addressed in terms of sensible requirements for practical completion. Rather than pretending to finish commissioning by a premature physical completion date, the ongoing commissioning required needs to be planned, costed and resourced for continuation and completion after occupancy, without undue contractual or financial implications. This approach should be reflected in the Development Agreement between the tenant and developer/building owner
Post-occupancy evaluation and fine-tuning are essential tools in completing the commissioning process, but this process is not always well understood: “By post occupancy evaluation, do you mean taking the photos for Architecture New Zealand and Trends?” (Architect)
Commissioning, verification and O&M documentation standards need to be improved.
Time and money, including professional fees, are inevitably squeezed when it comes to commissioning, and there needs to be greater allowance and back-end loading in both fees and builders costs: “Going back to site after completion eats into my profit margin, assuming there is one!” (Consulting Engineer)
The requirement for better commissioning practices is not adequately covered in consultant appointments or construction documents, and is therefore seldom allowed for.

[ Previous|Next