Bria} Application Guide AG 17/2001 www.bsria.co.uk Commissioning Management Guide by MJ Dicks and C J Parsloe THE PROPERTY OF BSRIA, 2 LIBRARY SERVICE Supported by BSRIA Limited ° Old Bracknell Lane West, Bracknell, Berkshire RGI2.7AH UK Ots “T: +44 (O)1344 426511 F: #44 (0)1344 487575 E bsria@bsria.co.uk VV: www.bsria.co.ukPe IERREL ACES PREFACE ‘The research project on which this Guide is based has revealed a lack of awareness amongst building contractors ofthe interdependenci between construction activities and building services commissioning activities. Discussions with contractors and commissioning specialists reveal that some commissioning problems are caused by the lack of information available to the planners who contribute to the construction ‘master programme, This Guide will provide the required information. Feedback from clients, project managers and commissioning specialists indicates that most construction programmes do not make realistic allowances for the proper integration of building services commissioning. The British Property Federation’s 1997 survey of major UK clients revealed that more than a third are dissatisfied with contractors’ performance in keeping to time, resolving defects and delivering a final product of the required quality. ‘This Commissioning Management Guide addresses these issues of poor programming and management of building services commissioning, It will help construction project managers and planners to make proper allowances for building services commissioning activities. This research will contribute also to two of the main improvements called for in Sir John Egan’s report “Rethinking Construction”; namely, greater predictability of construction programmes, and better integration of processes and teams. ‘Additionally this Guide demonstrates the benefits achievable from the adoption of commissioning management, drawing from real case study construction projects. Adoption of the recommendations made in this Guide will lead to an improvement in the programming and management of building services installation and, in particular, the commissioning stages. ‘BSRIAAG 1772001 ‘Commissioning Management GuideACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BSRIA would like to thank the following sponsors for their contribution which has led to the production of this Application Guide. dti Department of Trade and Industry ADS Commissioning AMEC Andrew Reid & Partners CR Burgess Commissioning Lid Cardiff Commissioning Ltd Codem ‘Commissioning Management Ltd Commtech Ltd Department of Trade and Industries EC Harris Fulerum Consulting Heery Intemational Ltd Holmes Valves Meica Services Ltd ‘Moore Environmental (UK) Ltd NG Bailey & Co Ltd Paul Banyard & Associates Schal International Ltd Stanhope ple Sutton Services International Ltd White Young Green ‘The research project was undertaken under the guidance of a project steering group drawn from industry representatives and BSRIA staff. The Steering Group contributors were: C Anderson MLec P Banyard M Long, C Breddy C Moar K Dineen M Moorby AFord G Moss TRy Redmond A Highton K Shenstone P Kilgour M Slape D Lake N Ward C Lawson R Wilkins Contributing from BSRIA were: M J Dicks and C J Parsloe This publication has been produced by BSRIA as part of a contract placed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, now operated by The Department of Trade and Industry. The contract was let under the Partners in Innovation programme, which provides part funding of collaborative research. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department, ‘The authors have sought to incorporate the views of the steering group, but final editorial control of this document rests with BSRIA. ‘© BSRIAAG 17/2001 ‘Commissioning Management GuidoCONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION. Ml 12 13 14 2 CON 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3 32 33 34 35 3.6 4 PROCUREMENT OF COMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT... 41 5 CASE STUDY PROJECT A... 5.1 52 33 34 55 56 6 CASE STUDY PROJECTB.... 61 62 63 64 65 6.6 7 CASE STUDY PROJECT C wee 1 12 73 1a 1S 16 8 CASE STUDY PROJECT D.. Objectives. ‘The need for commissioning management Commissioning management responsibilities. Case studi (CLUSIONS Project A — Commissioning management organisation employed by the project ‘management company. sc Project B — No commissioning management organisation employ‘ Project C - Commissioning management organisation employed by the design and ‘management contractor : Project D - Commissioning management organisation employed directly by the client Project E - Commissioning manager employed directly by the M&E installer. Design input. Programming input.. Installation stage .. Commissioning stage input. Performance testing stage input.. Handover/post handover stage input. Qualifications. ‘Commissionability review.. Programming, Problems encountered during commissi Assessment at handover Post-handover Discussion... Programming... Problems encountered during commissioning, ‘Assessment at handover. Post-handover Discussion, Commissionability review. Programming... Problems encountered during commi Assessment at handover. Post-handover Discussion. ‘Commissioning management guide (@BSRIAAG 17/20018.1 Commissionability review 82 Programming..... 83 Problems encountered during commissioning. 84 Assessment at handover. 8.5 Post-handover. 86 Discussion. 9 CASE STUDY PROJECT E.. 9.1 Commissionability review. 9.2 Programming 9.3. Problems encountered during commissioning. 9.4 Assessment at handover. 9.5 Post-handover 9.6 Discussion APPENDICES Appendix A Commissioning management responsibilitie.. TABLES Table 1 Summary of commissionability review findings... FIGURES Figure 1 Commissioning management process stages. Figure 2. Planned versus actual commissioning programme for project A. Figure 3 Breakdown of commissioning delays on Project A.. Figure 4 Planned versus actual commissioning programme for Project B. Figure 5 Planned versus actual resource allocation for hands-on commissioning work.. Figure 6 Breakdown of commissioning delays on Project B. Figure 7 Planned versus actual commissioning programme for Project C. Figure 8 Breakdown of commissioning delays on Project C. Figure 9 Planned versus actual commissioning programme for Project D. Figure 10 Planned versus actual commissioning programme for Project E. Figure 11 Breakdown of commissioning delays on Project E.... (© BSRIAAG 17/2001 ‘Commissioning Management GuideUESuENGS Figure 4 ‘Commissioning management process stages Design Stage Review of design for commissionabllty prior to tender stage + Realistic logic-linked commissioning programme that identifies the construction and installation dependencies t Monitor installation and check for commissionabilty and system completion t Commissioning Stage Control of complete commissioning process relating to all M&E services and the programme t Performance Testing Stage ‘Control of the proving and witnessing of each system's performance to the design and the programme t Handover Stage Management of the snagging and control of the documentation and client training Maintaining a presence to sort out any issues that arise and provide liaison between the various parties. Feedback on lessons learned to the project team. Review of detailed design for commissionability ~— Identifying and — overseeing any required rework @BSRIAAG 1772001 ‘Commissioning management guide5 CASE STUDY PROJECT A COMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION EMPLOYED BY THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT company ‘The project comprised office buildings and research facilities, The total contract value was £18.5 million with a building services content of jon. The project commenced in May 1999 and was due for completion in August 2000. The hands-on commissioning commenced in May 2000. ‘The offices and research laboratories were conditioned with a mixed ‘mode arrangement incorporating natural ventilation and a four-pipe fan coil system. Specialist laboratory services were required in some specialist areas of the building, ‘The project was procured under a modified design and build form of contract whereby a project management company was appointed by the client to work alongside the design team. A separate design and build main contractor was appointed by the client to carry out the works. The MAE services installation was sub-contracted, using a detailed specification, to a specialist M&E contractor under a design and build agreement, A commissioning management specialist was appointed to work for the project management company. A separate hands-on commissioning company was appointed to work for the M&E contractor. ‘The main functions of the specialist commissioning management contractor were as follows: ‘* input to the design review ‘© compilation of a PERT chart for commissioning activities (which influenced the main contractor’s installation programme) ‘© generation of resource histograms for commissioning checking installation against design (together with the project ‘manager and main contractor) © Liaison with the hands-on commissioning contractor. Juding preparation of a commissionability 5.1 COMMISSIONABILITY REVIEW ‘The specialist commissioning management contractor carried out a ‘commissionability review based on the conceptual design drawings. ‘These drawings were the equivalent of “general arrangements” indicating the layout of services with some degree of spatial planning. The next stage of the design was to produce co-ordinated drawings for construction purposes. The commissionability review had been programmed to take place at this time so that accepted recommendations could be incorporated on construction drawings. ‘The review was delivered in the form of a list of comments or queries on each of the drawings submitted. There were typically between 5-20 comments on each drawing. Many comments were not related to commissioning at all but were design observations or queries. 12 Commissioning Menagement Guide ‘@BSRIAAG 17/2001ERNE ‘The designers and installing (design and build) M&E contractor responded to each of the items in the review. Responses were usually recorded in the form of notes taken at design review meetings. The advice provided was either accepted or rejected, with the reasons for rejection recorded. However, the timing of subsequent events prevented the full implementation of actions agreed. Due to the late arrival of the construction drawings, some parts of the installation work were forced to proceed based upon the original conceptual drawings. Hence, a number of the agreed design changes were not implemented. Even where the review highlighted cost saving measures, which one ‘would have expected to have been of interest to the design and install contractor, the timing of events was such that there was too little time available to consider and implement the ideas. One example of this was where the review suggested that fan coil units should be grouped together to reduce the number of commissioning valves and avoid the need to measure very low flows. This idea was not investigated. (On the positive side, many of the items recorded in the review were ‘eventually implemented by the installer, even though there was no clear instruction on the drawings. This was due to the installer relying on their own previous experience of projects and knowledge of good practice. Table 1 summarises comments made in the commissionability review which were not acted upon and which were to have a direct impact on commissioning. A comparison with the com: ing spe claim for additional time incurred suggests that delays of around 10 man-days were incurred because these review recommendations were not implemented. Against an original tender estimate for commissioning of 207 man-days this represents an increase in commissioning costs of around 5%. Additional installation costs and programme delays would also have been incurred. ‘© BSRIA AG 1772001 ‘Commissioning management guide 1314 Table 4 Summary of commissionabilty review findings Identified in review at design stage ‘Consequence at construction stage No schedules or proper referencing for dampers. "The hands-on commissioning company misquoted, not realising that there were additional dampers not identified on the drawings issued for tender. The commissioning specialist claimed additional ime for dampers not shown on drawings. No fan coll schedule with fan speed selections. Fan speeds were not known. Noise problems had to be resolved. installed on the outlets of fresh air ducts. Wain dampers from fans omitted ‘Some duct systems were balanced at around 130% of their design flows, then fan pulleys were changed at the end to achieve the correct design values. As a result some ‘commissioning results had to be re-witnessed. Risk of noise due to dampers being Noise problems were experienced Difficulty achieving anemometer scans ‘across flows from dampers installed on the outlets of fresh air ducts. “Anemometer scans were difficult to carry out and gave inaccurate results. Duct sizes and flows omitted from drawings Tncorreclly sized ducts were installed. Problems achieving design flows and acceptable velocities were recorded during ‘commissioning. Ductwork was then replaced or design flow rates revised and the commissioning specialist claimed for time wasted. ‘Commissioning valve schedule with sizes flows and pressure loss information Valves were sized on flow rates only with the result that some incorrect valves were installed. This caused a delay to ‘commissioning while they were changed. ‘Strainers should have builtin flushing rains to facilitate the removal of debris during the flushing and chemical cleaning stages. ‘Sirainers had to be isolated and drained up to S times during the system clean. Flushing by-passes to be insialied across terminal units. ‘Since the system was all copper pipework ft was argued that flushing and cleaning was not as critical as for a steel system. ‘On this basis the contractor was permitted to flush at reduced velocities. The system clean was completed satisfactorily. Flushing drain points and dirt pockets to be included at the bottom of secondary risers. Flushing drains were putin the primary header. This saved ‘cost but resulted in dity water from the secondary being flushed back into the primary. The system clean was ‘completed satisfactorily. ‘The commissionability review also dealt specifically with the specification and commissioning of the BMS system. The BMS provider had been determined on the basis that they had already provided the installation to other buildings on the site. ‘The commissioning manager suggested that BMS software be bench- tested off-site before installation. Hence a software demonstration was held three months before installation, attended by the commissioning manager and the BMS installing contractor. Furthermore control panels were inspected at the works to ensure that they had been built and wired properly. ‘These activities although sometimes seen as an unnecessary expense, ‘were viewed as essential by the commissioning manager, to ensure that Commissioning Management Guido © BSRIAAG 17/2001,