Commissioning vs Construction Adminis...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Brian E. Trimble, CDT Senior Member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 27 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 09:56 am:    Sort of a basic question here - what is the difference between commissioning and construction administration. Aren't they really the same thing? Isn't Commissioning just a fancier term that everyone is using these days? What I understand is that construction administration is the process to make sure that the building is constructed in the way the project documents state. Commissioning is to verify that things built work the way they were intended. So maybe commissioning goes beyond construction administration???? Thoughts? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 556 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:26 am:    Construction Administration (CCA) verifies in general that the construction is in compliance with the design intent of the contract documents. Commissioning (Cx) verifies that specific parts and pieces of the construction function the way the were intended. CCA is a component of the A/E agreement with the owner; Cx is a separate third party agreement with the Owner (Cx may or may not be the A/E). There's the dart board folks... I await additions and corrections. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 82 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:48 am:    PRM Glossary: "Commissioning: The commissioning process is defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers(ASHRAE) as a method to improve the delivery of a project. Focusing on quality, the method includes making sure that all components of the building are planned, installed, and maintained according to the owner’s requirements. The total project commissioning and total building commissioning go beyond normal verification of mechanical and electrical system performance and include the entire project or building. Commissioning: There are two basic types of commissioning: total project commissioning and systems and equipment commissioning. Total project commissioning, also referred to as total facility commissioning, begins during project conception and continues through facility management and use. Total project commissioning documents the owner’s facility criteria and verifies that the criteria are achieved and that the facility is placed into proper operation. System and equipment commissioning includes detailed operational testing, adjusting, and training of specific systems or equipment to ensure their readiness for use in the facility. Construction Contract Administration: Activities related to administering the contract for construction, typically performed by the A/E." Construction administration is NOT JUST the process to make sure that the building is constructed in the way the project documents state. Involves much more than that. Suggest you read Module 7 of the PRM. Brian E. Trimble, CDT Senior Member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 28 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 11:59 am:    Thanks guys. I actually opened (and read) Chapter 7 of the PRM after I posted this discussion. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is which one is more over-arching (if that's the right term)? Is commissioning a part of construction administration? I'm getting the sense that it is two different things, accomplishing two different goals. They are not synonymous. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 877 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 12:13 pm:    Something to be aware of, and that CSI emphasizes and my professional liability insurer likes to remind its policy holders, is that A/Es provide construction contract administration. Construction administration (i.e. management) is the contractor's responsibility. A/Es only manage the construction contract to ensure compliance with its requirements. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 83 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 12:35 pm:    Commissioning can still be confusing becasue it has evolved in recent years. Histroically it was a requirement of the contract documents usually only for operating equipment. The documents included a requirements for a process to startup, provide an operating manual, instruct the owner's personnel, and test and confirm that the equipment was operating properly. From that viewpoint the construction contract administrator was responsible to make sure that process happened properly. Total Project Commissioning has come more into prominence recently. It is a service provided outside the construction contract and is usually provided by a third party. This type of commissioning starts with the owner's criteria, to the design and documentation, to the installed construction to verify that the completed work meets the owner's criteria. It also may cover much more than just operating equipment. It is covering the whole design and construction process rather than just the construction contract requirements. See MasterFormat 01 91 00. See PRM 7.12.3.5 and 8.2.6 Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 16 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 02:23 pm:    The question of Commissioning (Cx) versus Construction Contract Administration (CA) is confused by many. Cx is a process that measures that the owner's project requirements are fulfilled and CA, at its heart, measures if the Contract Documents have been fulfilled. As Bob correctly points out, CA includes more than just that, but brushing away the chaff, that is the essential difference. CA occurs whether or not Cx is performed. There really is only one type Cx, contrary to Bob's notion; Bob was describing varying scopes of the Cx work, which varies from project to project from whole building to one or more systems. Design professionals prescribe a design solution much like doctors prescribe medicine to cure an illness. A/Es use drawings and specs; doctors use an Rx note pad. Contactors are obligated by the contract documents to build; Pharmacists are obligated to fill prescriptions as directed on the Rx note. If the doctor misdiagnosis the illness, the pharmacist cannot be blamed (if he/she fill the prescription correctly) when the patient is not cured; likewise, if the pharmacist doesn't correctly fill the prescription, the doctor cannot be blamed if the patient is not cured. The same is true of design and construction; the owner is the patient. If the A/E misunderstands the owner's requirements, the contractor cannot be blamed (if the Contract Documents were correctly followed) when the building doesn't satisfy the owner's requirements. In both cases, the courts are all too often the Commissioning authority for the medical industry and the construction industry. The Cx process as defined in the ASHRAE Guidelines adds a new player in the construction process and a new set of documents that are not present when Cx is not included. The new documents are the "Owner's Project Requirements" (OPR), and the "Basis of Design Documents" (BoD). These are similar to the old "Owner's Program" and "Project Brief." The OPR details the criteria for design and construction. The BoD is the A/E's statement of their design solution (often in the form of sketches, models, and documents similar to preliminary project descriptions) all which are developed much earlier that outline specifications. The Commissioning Authority (CxA) is the new entity and (if you follow the ASHRAE guidelines) should be involved from the time the A/E is selected (or even before) and continue through Owner Occupancy. The CxA verifies fulfillment of the OPR at every phase of project delivery from pre-design through owner occupancy. The CxA reviews BoD, Contract Documents, submittals, witnesses construction, specify testing requirements, and witnesses Cx testing. The OPR is used as a filter through which to evaluate design changes, proposed changes during construction, proposed substitutions for products, and more. I often hear Brian's question posed as "What is the difference between Cx testing and Field Quality Control (FQC) testing"? The question is not easy to answer, but often is stated as follows: FQC measures that the correct products are properly installed; while Cx testing (only a small part of the whole Cx process) measures whether the resulting construction is achieving the results prescribed in the OPR. A simple example for MEP applications is as follows: FQC for a piping system will include tests to determine if the system is installed with leak-free joints. The piping specification prescribed the types of pipe and fitting materials and joining methods; and CA verifies that those materials and methods were used and witnesses test that verifies there are no leaking joints. An example for a Cx test may include a verification that all the proper events occurred when a fire alarm occurs (some fans start, some fans stop, some doors remain open and some doors close, elevators go to a selected floor, the fire alarm sounds, and on and on). These tests are most often testing system interfaces and sequence of operations (easily identified for MEP, but not so for static building systems and assemblies). However, there is a clear definition for building-envelop commissioning in NIBS Guideline 3. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 84 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 03:37 pm:    Although pretty much an academic discussion, there historically has been another type of limited commissioning. It was the commissioning of operating equipment by the contractor within the construction contract as described above. Commissioning first appeared in MasterFormat in the 1983 edition: 01650 Starting of Systems/Commissioning 15995 System Starting/Commissioning 16970 System Starting/Commissioning The explanation from the 1988 MasterFormat Edition: "Includes requirements for putting project in operating order such as starting systems, opeating equipment, and testing to ensure correct operation and function." This was a limited commissioning dealing only with the commissioning of the products and their installation (did not include design) and did not include the owner's criteria, only meeting the requirements of the contract documents. The more current understanding of full commissioning is as Mike has described above. ASHRAE, I believe, has done the most work in explaining and defining full commissioning. For people who have been in the industry for a long time, I think there is still some confusion as to which type of commissiong is being referred to when the word is heard or read. Probably much less confusion for those newer to the industry who have only learned about full commissioning. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 303 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 06:23 pm:    The new CALGreen code adopted by California has some fairly specific requirements regarding commisioning that are applicable to some new buildings. You can download the document from http://www.bsc.ca.gov/ Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1001 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 02:59 pm:    Thank you Mike for this explanation. I am asked this question every once in a while, and I've generally said that "Commissioning" is a part of over all construction administration. Contrary to what many younger practitioners think, commissioning did exist before LEED. I remember working on many Navy and GSA projects where there was a commissioning agent on the project, and there to ascertain whether the solutions proposed by the architect and contractor actually fulfilled the Owner requirements. And as you indicated, the commissioning agent should be involved in the early phases of the project, doing an overall check against the original program. thank you for your concise analogy. Brian E. Trimble, CDT Senior Member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2010 - 02:47 pm:    Great conversation. Exactly what I was hoping for. You guys are 'da bomb!