Commissioning for Federal Facilities

Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction uilding commissioning Building commissioning has has often been likened to its roots in the Quality Control commissioning of a ship, programs of the 1970s and is B where the Owners thor- a direct product of the Total oughly verify and prove the func- Quality Management pro- 1 tional performance of all parts – grams of the 1980s. Commis- engines, compasses, sonar, radar, sioning is a direct response to radio, generators, potable water building Owners who com- systems, and so on – under all pos- plain that their facilities do not sible conditions and as a condition meet performance expecta- of acceptance before placing the tions, are extraordinarily ex- ship in service. And where the pensive to operate and Owner checks the presence of sys- maintain, lack valuable docu- tem operating and procedures mentation, and are staffed by manuals and the availability of up- personnel who are unfamiliar to-date navigation charts. And with and have never been where the crew has been properly trained on the building’s highly and thoroughly trained on the ship’s complex operations and control sys- “Building commissioning has systems’ operations and emergency tems. often been likened to the procedures. Commissioning is not commissioning of a ship.” new – ships and aircraft have been Until now, many of us thought of commissioned for years. building construction completion and turnover as physically completing an installation, throwing the switch, making a few adjustments, Goals of Commissioning: spending minimal time with the operators by ◆ Provide a safe and healthy facility. pointing to the equip- ◆ Improve energy performance and minimize ment with one hand energy consumption. and a manufacturer- ◆ Reduce operating costs. supplied operations ◆ Ensure adequate O&M staff orientation and manual (that may or training. may not match the specific equipment) ◆ Improve systems documentation. with the other, then Introduction walking away. We would return only ent sources and programs. So once when the operating personnel or the construction was completed and owner complained. beneficially accepted, the building was handed off as rapidly as pos- A successful project was not neces- sible, leaving building maintainers to sarily the one with the most satisfied struggle with any residual construc- client, optimal indoor environment, tion or operational problems. In all most reliable and efficient operation, fairness to the constructors, by this or that would have had the lowest time the Owner was usually press- possible operating and maintenance ing to move into the building, either costs. Typically, it was the one with oblivious to or willing to accept the the fewest extras and change orders risks associated with a potentially and the one with the shortest punch problematic facility. list. 2 Most existing buildings have never Further, the construction budget and undergone a formal commissioning operating budget came from differ- or quality assurance process. Many buildings are limping along ineffi- ciently in terms of performance. Owners are unaware of deficiencies Guidebook Objectives as long as the building is reasonably comfortable and occupant com- ◆ Provide an introduction to commissioning approaches to a plaints do not reach a crescendo. variety of professionals involved with the management, operation, and maintenance of Federal buildings. In reality, the building systems may be becoming increasingly unreliable ◆ Illustrate case histories, including cautionary lessons learned. and inefficient through design, inef- fective maintenance and operations procedures, outdated technologies, ◆ Provide guidance on commissioning best practices. insufficient training, occupant habits, mission changes, environmental ◆ Demonstrate how commissioning can help Federal facility changes, workplace configurations, managers meet energy efficiency goals and LEED certifica- and more. tion requirements. All of that has now changed with commissioning. As described by the ◆ Demonstrate how commissioning can be integrated in facil- Canadian Department of Public ity management and O&M programs to make those programs Works, buildings now “leave port” more efficient and effective. only when they are fully operational, function as the owner intended, are ◆ Demonstrate how different types of commissioning (such as fine-tuned for maximum perfor- retrocommissioning and continuous commissioning) can be mance, staffed with “crews” who incorporated into a variety of building types and applications, are fully trained in the regular and above and beyond the most commonly understood commis- emergency operation of the facility, sioning approaches. and furnished with a complete set of relevant operations, maintenance, Introduction facility intent and design, and emer- in terms of the systems to be com- gency procedures documentation. missioned (e.g., HVAC and electrical systems only). It is essentially a SO… WHAT IS IT? subset, or a slice of the whole building commissioning pie, and for the Commissioning is a method of risk purposes of this document, the reduction. terms will be used interchangeably. The National Conference on Build- WHAT ARE THE GOALS? ing Commissioning has established an official definition of total building The goals of commissioning are to: commissioning as follows: ■ Provide a safe and healthy “Systematic process of assuring facility. by verification and documenta- ■ Improve energy performance 3 tion, from the design phase to a and minimize energy consump- minimum of one year after tion. construction, that all facilities ■ Reduce operating costs. perform interactively in accor- ■ Ensure adequate O&M staff dance with the design documen- orientation and training. tation and intent, and in accor- ■ Improve systems documenta- dance with the owner’s operation. tional needs, including prepara- tion of operational personnel.” It’s purpose, however, is to provide a framework for a quality-oriented Total or whole building commis- team effort that reduces project sioning differs from “building com- costs while delivering system reli- missioning” inasmuch as the former ability and quality. Thereby, it en- refers to the whole process from hances long-term value to the the project planning to post-accep- Owner. tance, as well as to all of the building systems that are integrated and impact on one another, such as WHY DO WE DO IT? HVAC, lighting, electrical, plumbing, Following the David Letterman building envelope and their respec- model, the following are the top ten tive controls and technologies. reasons why people commission: Building commissioning that is not 10. For the documentation qualified as total or whole building commissioning may be more selec- 9. To ensure integration of building tive in terms of the phases during systems which the commissioning activities actually take place (e.g., the Com- 8. To prevent premature failure missioning Agent may be hired to commence work late in the design 7. For the transfer of knowledge or during the construction phase) or Introduction to building operators and owner intended and as designed; engineers and ■ Be what the Owner paid for. 6. For the performance testing of complex systems These objectives are achieved by verifying that the equipment perfor- 5. To ensure equipment accessibil- mance meets or exceeds the ity designer’s intent as documented in the project drawings, specifications, 4. To improve energy performance and design intent documentation. 3. For improved system and From the aspect of energy savings, equipment reliability commissioning has proven itself time and again. In existing buildings, 4 2. For project cost control whole-building energy savings aver- age about 15 percent at a cost of 1. To meet Owner expectations about $0.27 per square foot and with a payback of about 8.5 months. In Owners use commissioning’s sys- new construction, commissioning tematic, documented, and collabora- costs about $1.00 per square foot tive process to ensure that a building and pays back within about 4.8 and its components’ systems will: years. ■ Have high quality, reliability, In addition, consider the cost savings functionality, and maintainability; associated with worker productivity, ■ Meet energy and operational detection of failed parts and impend- efficiency goals; ing failure, and other benefits not in- ■ Operate and function as the cluded in these savings. These A major university commissioned six major buildings totaling 260,000 square feet. More than 500 “completed” variable air volume (VAV) boxes were tested with the following results: ◆ Nine were installed without the main supply air connected ◆ 52 had control programming problems ◆ 23 had control valve problems (including above-ceiling ac- tuators not connected) ◆ 25 could not achieve the maximum air flow recorded by the balancer (e.g., frozen dampers) ◆ Eight thermostats were in poor locations, such as near diffusers and heat generating sources (Source: S. Angle, Engineered Systems, January 2000.) Introduction numbers will be addressed again and workmanship quality, technical later in greater detail. specifications adherence, and code compliance. Quality control ensures Examples of common problems that the installation will pass specified commissioning addresses that drive tests (such as start-up, operating, energy costs up but may or may not hydraulic, and leakage tests), and cause discomfort or other visible ultimately, pass the final punch list. problems include: Commissioning is usually associated ■ Outside air

Load more