bsria allocation of design responsibility tn21-97

ALLOCATION OF DESIGN RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BUILDING

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Technical Note TN 21/97

C. J. Parsloe

Old Bracknell Lane West, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 7AH Tel: + 44 (0)1344 426511 Fax: + 44 (0)1344 487575 e-mail: [email protected] www.bsria.co.uk

ISBN 0 86022 4740 Printed by Oakdale Printing Co Ltd ©BSRIA 78560 September 1997

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the publishers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

©BSRIA TN 21/97 Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering Services

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BSRIA would like to thank the following sponsors for their contribution which has led to the production of this Technical Note:

Department of the Environment Arup Research and Development The Association of Consulting Engineers Bovis Construction Ltd BSC Consulting Engineers The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers Heating and Ventilating Contractors’ Association Grove Projects Ltd Ove Arup and Partners Rooley Consultants Wimpey Construction UK Zisman Bowyer and Partners 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: R Bentley S Mitchell R Bloxham-Jones C Peacey D Chinery J Pople J Davison A Preou A Faulkner C Stafford B Flude R Steer B Franklin F Simmons R Gore R Rooley J Kew D Oughton D Leeper K White D Liptrot J Wild G Manly R Wilkins Contributing from BSRIA were: G Baker, C Parsloe Every opportunity has been taken to incorporate the views of the editorial panel, but final editorial control of this document rests with BSRIA.

PREFACE

Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering Services ©BSRIATN 21/97

PREFACE

This Technical Note is an update of BSRIA TN 8/94 “The Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering Services - A code of conduct to avoid conflict”.

The original publication was published in 1994. Its development was in response to growing recognition that many of the causes of conflict in the building services industry were due to a lack of clear understanding regarding the division of responsibilities between the parties - the so-called “fuzzy edge disease” of the industry.

It was also recognised at this time that whilst these problems affected all parts of the building industry, the building services sector was particularly prone to this type of misunderstanding. It was decided that by putting their own house in order, building services professionals would be better placed to play a full part in addressing the other management issues which affect inter-disciplinary boundaries.

The release of the publication coincided with the launch of the Latham Report “Constructing the Team”. The Latham Report recommended that the roles of designers and installing contractors needed to be clarified and that the BSRIA publication offered an appropriate framework for achieving this.

During the two years following the launch of the publication, efforts were made to further promote and publicise the guidance and to obtain feedback from engineers regarding their usage of the document. This exercise was carried out through personal interviews, questionnaire survey and by invitation to an open forum workshop. The detailed findings of this study are available in a separate research report entitled “Uptake of Design Responsibilities” from BSRIA’s publications department.

The findings of this research identified a number of reasons why the guidance given in the original publication was sometimes failing to achieve the desired impact. A number of modifications to the guide were recommended and have been incorporated in this revision. Furthermore, in response to a request for illustrated revisions of the drawing definitions, this new revision has been published in conjunction with a supplementary Technical Note TN22/97 which contains example drawings in compliance with the definitions contained in this guide.

CONTENTS

©BSRIA TN 21/97 Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering Services

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

2 RESEARCH APPROACH .................................................................................................................. 2

3 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.................................................................................................. 3

3.1 The legal interpretation ................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Common industry practice ........................................................................................................... 3 3.3 The basis for a solution ................................................................................................................ 5

4 CLAUSES OF CONFLICT - SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND THEIR SOLUTIONS.......................... 6

4.1 Definitions for different types of design drawing ........................................................................ 6 4.2 The selection of plant and equipment .......................................................................................... 8 4.3 The selection and appointment of companies providing specialist design input ....................... 12 4.4 Commissioning activities ........................................................................................................... 16 4.5 Production of handover information .......................................................................................... 17

5 HOW TO AVOID CONFLICT - PRACTICAL GUIDANCE .......................................................... 20

5.1 Pro formas for allocating responsibility ..................................................................................... 20 APPENDICES

Appendix A Definitions........................................................................................................... 23 Appendix B Pro formas for allocating responsibility ........................................................…..34 FIGURES

Figure 1 Recommended routes for selection of plant and equipment...................................... 11 Figure 2 Comparison of pre-tender versus post tender appointment of specialist designers... 15

INTRODUCTION SECTION 1

©BSRIA TN 21/97 Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering Services 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The construction of a building services installation involves a combination of design and installation knowledge which may be drawn from engineers working in different organisations under a variety of contractual arrangements. Whatever the relationship between designer and installer, the successful completion of projects is only possible when there is a resolve on both sides to work together to produce the best possible solution. Many clients are well served by designers and installers acting with this intent.

In recent years however, the increased competitive nature of the building industry has led to a situation where there is decreasing scope for mutual collaboration, especially between companies employed principally as designers and companies employed principally as installers. This arrangement of appointments has certain advantages over other procurement options and yet these are sometimes negated by commercial pressures which encourage each party to exploit uncertainties in the other’s conditions of contract. Previously acceptable ambiguity over design responsibilities can sometimes become the cause of serious conflicts resulting in project delays, increased contractual claims, and increased litigation. In order to restore the situation to one in which client interests are best served, there needs to be a more robust, clearly defined division of responsibilities between the parties.

The success of any attempt to clarify issues of design responsibility will ultimately depend not only on the good will of designers and installers, but on an acknowledgement by client organisations that it is in their interest to address these problems when negotiating and agreeing contract terms. Without this commitment the actions of individual designers and installers are likely to achieve only partial success in avoiding conflict.

The research project underlying this guide has attempted to identify and address those specific issues of design responsibility which are known to be the cause of conflict between building services designers and installers. The aim was to develop practical solutions to these problems which would be acceptable to clients, designers and installing contractors. This guide explains the findings of this research and makes firm recommendations based on the solutions identified.

SECTION 2 RESEARCH APPROACH

2 Allocation of Design Responsibilities for Building Engineering Services ©BSRIA TN 21/97

2 RESEARCH APPROACH

The approach taken in the development of the research was to encourage industry support and contributions from the outset. This was seen as crucial if the problems were to be properly defined and solutions developed which would carry the eventual support of all parties.

In order to clarify where the main problems occurred, a survey of designers and installers was conducted in which those surveyed were asked what they thought were the main causes of conflict between the respective parties. The findings of this survey revealed that there was a great deal of shared experience of conflict situations, and that the main causes of these conflicts arose due to specific issues arising from uncertainty over responsibility for design. Having isolated and debated the nature of these issues, a strategy was developed whereby working groups drawn from industry were tasked with developing solutions to each of the specific problems highlighted. These solutions were then embodied within a list of design activities which, if properly allocated between the parties, would hopefully pre-empt and avoid the problem. It was anticipated that it may be beneficial if designers were to use such a list within the tender documentation as a means of clarifying the relative responsibilities of each party.

This guide has therefore been produced with three specific objectives in mind:

• to explain the root causes of conflict associated with design responsibilities as clearly and accurately as possible

• to propose methods by which the conflict situations identified

might be avoided • to provide a set of pro forma lists of design activities as an aid to

implementing the proposed recommendations.

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM SECTION 3


3 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

3.1 LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Central to the traditional form of building procurement is the idea that the installer merely installs and that it is up to the client’s appointed design engineer to provide the necessary design information. The extent of a designer’s legal responsibility for design will depend on the terms of their contract with the client, but unless there is a clear indication to the contrary, the courts appear to start from the premise that the designer is entirely responsible for design. The only way this responsibility can be devolved is with the specific consent and approval of the client. Therefore if any part of the design is delegated without the client’s authority to a separate party, the designer will be legally liable to the client for any design defects which result from the negligence of their appointee (Moresk Cleaners Ltd versus Hicks 1966). Furthermore, in the situation where a client’s agreement is given for design responsibility to be delegated, there is a suggestion that the designer may still be liable for defects which occur due to oversights which are sufficiently obvious that they ought reasonably to have detected them (investors in Industry Ltd versus South Bedfordshire DC 1986). The liability of a designer appointed for design only, usually extends only as far as a responsibility to design with reasonable care and skill and does not imply responsibility for fitness for purpose. This extended liability is usually only applied in the case of a company providing a design and build service where the courts have taken the view that the position of one who provides a physical building is analogous to that of a seller of goods (Viking Grain Storage Ltd versus T.H.White Installations Ltd 1985).

3.2 COMMON INDUSTRY PRACTICE

In practice, building services design is not a discrete activity with neatly defined edges carried out by a single company or individual, but is more typically an evolving process to which professional designers, specialist designers, manufacturers, installation managers and site tradesmen might contribute. Given the extent and complexity of the design process, it is unrealistic to attempt to define every possible design activity so that it might be allocated to one party or another. There has to be an implicit understanding between those involved regarding what design information needs to be produced, and whose responsibility it is to produce it. For the majority of design activities on the majority of projects this understanding exists. However, for a small number of situations the division of responsibilities needs to be made clear. It is the lack of a formalised method of clarifying and communicating this division of responsibilities which tends to lie at the root of many conflict situations. There is at present a number of mechanisms by which responsibility for specific design activities can be made a requirement of the company or companies appointed to install the works. These are all somewhat ad hoc, as explained in the following sections.

SECTION 3 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM


Drawings

Responsibility for some element of design is normally allocated to the installing contractor via an instruction that they produce drawings. This requirement may carry varying levels of design responsibility due to the legal interpretation that installers who exercise their own judgement in the face of a design problem may incur liability to the client for any defects which result. In the production of drawings, installers become responsible for all details added by them, such as supports and fixings, and may also be held responsible for any significant changes in service routes or components made to facilitate the installation or reduce the cost. The production of drawings can therefore incur a significant level of design responsibility for the installer depending on the precise terms of the designer’s appointment. If the designer has been appointed for the production of performance specifications and outline designs, then the installing contractor will have to make plant selections and finalise service routes such that responsibility for most of the final design will rest with them. However, if the designer has been appointed to carry out a full design including spatial co-ordination, then the amount of design responsibility allocated to the installer will be minimal, possibly extending no further than that for supports and fixings.

Contract Document Clauses

A more explicit method by which design responsibility is allocated to an installer is by the inclusion of clauses within the contract documents. This might typically include a requirement for the installer to confirm pump duties, fan duties or the selection of control and commissioning valves. The allocation of design responsibility through document clauses must be carefully monitored in the interests of both the client and the installing contractor. For the client the main problem is that inclusion of such clauses within contract documents may imply that they have agreed to a delegation of responsibility from their appointed designer to an installing contractor. Whilst experienced clients might understand the relevance of this delegation of responsibility, many inexperienced clients may not. It is therefore essential that the agreement under which the designer is appointed is specific about which design duties are permitted to be made a requirement of the installing contractor. This is particularly important when the design work is to be let on a competitive tender basis. Unless these conditions are stipulated in advance, a low priced tender may be received in the expectation that the designer can delegate some responsibility to the installer. For the installing contractor, problems will arise if the allocation of design responsibilities is not done in a clear and precise manner. Contract document clauses which are ambiguous about the extent of the installer’s role can be misinterpreted and inaccurately priced for in tenders.

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM SECTION 3


Legal Obligation

There is also an implicit responsibility for design which is placed on the installer. This is due to the fact that there is an obligation on the installer to point out to the client any clear and obvious flaws in the design (where they are in a position to identify such flaws), rather than to proceed with installation knowing it to be wrong. The installing contractor’s obligation to point out obvious mistakes or omissions in the design before proceeding with installation can occasionally give rise to conflict situations when for whatever reason, such errors are not noticed at an early enough stage. A proportion of blame might then reasonably be attributed to either party.

3.3 BASIS FOR A

SOLUTION Inevitably, problems associated with the unclear allocation of design responsibilities tend to manifest themselves as cost disputes. The solution to such problems therefore lies in achieving an initial acceptance of costs which are realistic and based on a clear mutual understanding of the work involved and each party’s role.

There are two important issues relevant to cost control which must be recognised: 1. At the tender stage it must be made clear what information is

required and in what format so that an accurate comparison of tenders can be made.

2. Post-tender cost control procedures should be established by the

designer such that the duties of the various parties in advising, agreeing and reporting on costs are clearly defined.

This is the approach taken in consideration of the specific problems discussed in this guide.

SECTION 4 CAUSES OF CONFLICT


4 CAUSES OF CONFLICT - SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND THEIR SOLUTIONS

A survey of designers and installers revealed a number of conflict areas which arise from the general ambiguities identified in section 3. The following notes summarise the nature of the problems perceived by industry professionals and suggest various means by which they might be avoided.

4.1 DEFINITIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF DESIGN DRAWING

The problem

The use of drawings is one of the principal methods by which design information is conveyed to an installing contractor. The designer’s drawings will form the basis on which the installer will tender for the installation works. Different projects require differing levels of design detail and for this reason a number of generic drawing types have been identified which are appropriate to projects of varying complexity. Whilst building services engineers know in general terms the extent of information appropriate to each drawing type, the commonly quoted definitions are lacking in detail. This can cause confusion for a client looking to appoint a design engineer, and can lead to conflict between designers and installers. For the client seeking a design service at a competitive price, it may be misleading to compare design fees quoted for the production of certain types of drawing. This is because in the absence of a clear definition for drawings, different designers may interpret their responsibilities differently and vary their cost estimates accordingly. The resulting variation in quoted fees may then be a reflection of the different amount of work each company envisages rather than a true comparison of the value offered by each company. Producing a tender bid for installation works based on a set of drawings can also incur risk for an installing contractor. The tendering installer must make some estimate of the amount of work needed to produce installation details for use by site tradesmen. The work involved in this process can vary significantly depending on the quality of information provided on the designer’s drawings. Disputes can arise when the tendering installer makes an over-optimistic assessment of the quality of the tender drawings.

There are two common situations in which conflict might arise. The first occurs when the designer has produced detailed design drawings (sometimes referred to as “general arrangements”) showing the routes of distribution systems. The installer might expect that the routes indicated are feasible, albeit with some planning of the precise positions of individual services. When this turns out not to be the case, additional work may be incurred in planning and agreeing new routes.

CAUSES OF CONFLICT SECTION 4


The second example arises when the designer has been employed to produce co-ordination drawings to demonstrate that adjoining services do not clash and how they relate to the building structure and fabric. Asked to tender on the basis of such drawings, an installing contractor might reasonably assume that the installation details can be confined primarily to the planning of fixings, supports and the sequencing of activities. If, having won the contract, the installer finds that there are physical clashes which necessitate extensive re-positioning of the services, it can become uncertain whose responsibility it is to complete this work. The installer may not have priced for such a detailed drawing exercise, whilst the designer may argue that the resolution of such problems is a legitimate part of the installation planning process. Proposed solution

Whilst there will always be differing opinions over the extent of information appropriate to different drawing types, it would nevertheless be beneficial if a more robust set of drawing definitions were available for use by clients and engineers. If a set of definitions were agreed and adopted from the outset of a project, and responsibility for their production was clearly stated, this would enable a better understanding of the extent of each party’s responsibilities for drawn information to be reached. The drawings most commonly produced in the course of developing a building services design are normally identified as follows:

• Sketch drawing • Schematic drawing • Detailed design drawing • Co-ordination drawing • Installation drawing • Installation wiring diagram • Shop drawing • Manufacturer’s drawing • Manufacturer’s certified drawing • Record drawing • Builder’s work drawing • Specialist drawing.

Alternative terminology might sometimes be used to describe the same type of drawing, but the level of drawing implied by the preceding list of terms is generally recognisable to most building services professionals.

Appendix A contains proposed definitions for each of the main drawing types referred to above. These definitions are intended to be as comprehensive as possible and in keeping with the general understanding most engineers have for each term. Whilst some engineers may wish to modify the requirements, it is considered that the definitions as they stand will provide a means by which different parties acting in goodwill can establish the extent of each other’s responsibility concerning drawn information.



These definitions are supported by drawn examples included in TN22/97 “The Allocation of Design Responsibilities - Example Drawings”. Whilst these example drawings are intended to be illustrative of the aforementioned drawing categories they are not necessarily comprehensive and priority should be given to the written definition where there is any doubt.

Appendix B (Item 1: General Design Activities) contains a pro forma which enables responsibility for production of each of the drawing types to be allocated before tender. The pro forma includes a separately identified responsibility for spatial co-ordination of the services. It is recommended that if the designer has been appointed to produce co-ordination drawings, then responsibility for resolving spatial clashes should remain with him. If the designer’s appointment does not include production of co-ordination drawings, then unless agreed otherwise, responsibility for detailed co-ordination is ultimately the responsibility of the installing contractor. Where there are to be several installing contractors a “lead” contractor must be named in the tender documents who will have overall responsibility for co-ordination.

4.2 SELECTION OF PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

The problem

The selection of major plant and equipment items and the design of the building services systems which connect to them are interdependent. However, responsibility for the design tasks involved in linking plant and systems is often the cause of confusion between designers and installers.

In order to prepare the initial design, designers have to provisionally select certain manufacturers’ equipment and plan their layouts around these items. This is the only way that physical space requirements can be determined, pipe and ductwork routes planned, and budget costs prepared. Most designers would prefer that their provisional plant selections are retained since this should ensure that their associated design decisions remain valid. They would then remain responsible for all design issues relating to their plant selection.

Regardless of the designer’s provisional plant selections it is usually the installing contractors who have the final say since it is they who are best placed to agree optimum buying conditions and delivery times. The client is usually in favour of the installing contractor making the decision since they perceive that this will ensure that the most competitive price is attained. Some public clients actually prohibit the mention of manufacturers’ names within design specifications. If the installer selects an alternative to that identified in the designer’s specification without obtaining the designer’s approval, the installer is in effect changing the design and is therefore potentially accepting responsibility for any consequences which arise as a result of their alternative plant selection. For changes to central plant items these consequences may be quite significant. The designer’s willingness to give approval will often depend on their particular conditions of appointment; unless it is identified as a separate duty in their agreement with the client, the designer may not be prepared to carry out a detailed re-evaluation of the design. The installer’s request for



approval may then be met with an acknowledgement that the alternative proposed “accords with the original design intent” but this implies no acceptance of responsibility for any design problems arising from that selection.

Conflict can arise when it is not made clear whose responsibility it is to carry out the design re-evaluation process and neither party undertakes this activity. Installing contractors may be under the false impression that the designer retains all responsibility. Subsequent problems which arise as a consequence of the plant selection can then become a potential cause for dispute.

Proposed solution

In order to avoid the problems identified, there has to be a recognition that for all plant and equipment selected by the installer, which is different from that identified by the designer and on which the design was based, there has to be a process for determining the implications on the rest of the design, and for changing the design accordingly. This activity may be carried out by either the designer or installer, as long as responsibility is clearly identified at the outset. The activity of re-evaluating the design in this way will obviously incur additional costs for whichever party undertakes the work. It is therefore implicit that whatever alternative plant selection the installer proposes, the cost savings realised from their choice must be sufficient to more than cover the cost of the re-evaluation process.

Following from these conclusions there are a number of recommendations which, if acted upon should ensure that the stated aims are achieved: 1. The designer should define plant performance requirements. This is

because they are involved in the briefing process with the client and are able to establish those priorities which are essential for a successful installation.

2. Where the designer feels it is necessary, a pre-selection procedure should be carried out whereby the designer invites quotations from selected manufacturers, evaluates the returns, and includes the selected plant item as a pre-selected item within the tender documents.

3. Where pre-selection is deemed not to be necessary, the designer should nevertheless plan their design around a provisionally selected item of plant. However, the design should not be prohibitive to the extent that only one manufacturer can meet the requirements of the design. Instead a number of options should be identified and named in the tender documents. This will enable the installer to choose from one of the names provided or to seek an alternative if they choose to do so. In the event of a problem associated with a plant model named in the specification, the designer should be responsible for its resolution.



4. Where an alternative item of plant is proposed by the installer, that proposal should be accompanied by an argued case to demonstrate that it is a viable alternative. The case for its inclusion should be assessed by the designer to ensure that it complies with their original design intent. If accepted, a re-evaluation of the design should be conducted to ensure that any consequences for the rest of the design are identified, costed and planned for. This may be done by either the designer or the installer with final responsibility resting with the party that conducts the work.

5. If the designer is to re-evaluate the design, this duty must be

identified within their conditions of appointment and an additional fee paid. If it is to be the installer’s responsibility, the installer must be made aware at tender stage so that the costs can be included within the tender price.

The recommended routes for procurement of plant and equipment items are shown in Figure 1.

Appendix B (item 2: The Selection of Plant and Equipment) contains a pro forma to facilitate the allocation of responsibility in accordance with this proposed solution. Whilst this solution is intended to improve understanding in a “traditional” contract situation, it is recognised that in practice there may be many obstacles to this approach. Furthermore, there is inevitably a degree of wastage in the process described due to the necessity to re-evaluate the design. In recognition of recent trends, it is worth noting that the problem usually has a more satisfactory solution when the installing contractor is appointed under a two-stage tender and is encouraged to contribute to the design under some form of partnering arrangement.



Figure 1 Recommended routes for selection of plant and equipment

Interprets client brief

Prepares specification of

plant performance requirements

(type and duty)

Obtains competitive quotes

Pre-selects plant

Rejects

Checks original design to ensure plant selection is

compatible

Designer Actions Installer Actions

OR

Assesses installer’s plant selection

proposals

OR

Accepts

Installs specified plant

Prepares case for inclusion of any

proposed alternative solution

Checks original design to ensure plant selection is

compatible

Prices specified option

Suggests an alternative in tender return

OR



4.3 SELECTION AND

APPOINTMENT OF COMPANIES PROVIDING SPECIALIST DESIGN INPUT

The problem

There will inevitably be times when specialist design input is required which can only be provided by a company with experience in a particular specialist field. This might typically be provided by a specialist designer (eg acoustics, and refrigeration), or by an installer of specialist systems or supplier of specialist equipment. Such an arrangement is common for suppliers of lifts, sprinkler systems, cold rooms, kitchens, or building control systems. Under normal conditions of engagement the designer can, with the client’s approval, delegate specific design duties to such a company. When this approval is given, the specialist company is responsible for the design work it does whilst the designer is usually responsible for co-ordinating the specialist’s design with the rest of the design.

It is preferable, from the designer’s point of view, that the specialist is pre-selected prior to tender (perhaps under some form of partnering arrangement), and engaged by the client to work under the direction of the designer until a main contractor is appointed. Having used the specialist’s knowledge during the design process it is then logical that the same specialist would be appointed to carry out the works on site. This would enable the overall design to be completed with the necessary degree of continuing responsibility and would ensure that the site process could be properly planned and managed. For these reasons pre-selection of specialists is generally the preferred option. However there are, from the client’s point of view, advantages under some forms of contract from having the specialist appointed post-tender as a domestic subcontractor to the main contractor. This is because there is a perception that the pre-selection procedure can be time-consuming and does not guarantee that the most competitive price is achieved. By taking out a separate design warranty agreement with a domestic sub-contractor, the client is assured of maintaining a route of contractual liability if the specialist’s design input is in any way defective, whilst at the same time guaranteeing the best opportunity for achieving the most competitive price. When the specialist is appointed after the main contract has been let, there is scope for an unclear demarcation of design responsibilities which can lead to conflict. Without the specialist’s input during the pre-tender design process, the designer may have to make assumptions about the implications of the specialist input and leave gaps in the overall design of the building to accommodate the specialist’s input at a later date. This may be acceptable when the designer is appointed to produce scheme designs and performance specifications for the engineering services or when a two-stage tendering process is to be adopted, but can cause major problems when they are appointed to produce a full design before tender. Time must be allowed after the main contract has been let for the specialist to develop their design details, and for these to be integrated by the designer into the overall design including structure and fabric. If the specialist’s proposals are significantly different from those envisaged and planned for by the designer, there may be an extensive re-design process to accommodate



the alternative proposals. Unless it is identified as a separate duty in the designer’s agreement with the client, the designer may not envisage that their responsibility extends to a major re-design exercise. The result can be a poorly co-ordinated design and site delays due to the late arrival of specialist design information. The problems are aggravated when the designer has little say in the selection of the specialist company and is forced to accept design input from a company which may be chosen primarily on the basis of cost, and which is under contract to the main installer. The designer may then be in the difficult situation of trying to resolve design problems associated with the specialist works whilst having little control over the activities of the specialist. Proposed solution

Accepting that some clients will continue to prefer the option of appointing specialist designers as domestic sub-contractors after the main contract has been let, ways must be found of ensuring that the integration of the specialist’s design is successful under these circumstances. The solution necessitates a recognition that specialists appointed post tender could involve the designer in a number of additional design duties which would not be necessary if the selection was made pre-tender. It is therefore essential to ensure that the anticipated savings achievable by appointing the specialist post tender are more than sufficient to cover the cost of these additional design duties and that there is no effect on the contract period. A number of recommendations have been established aimed at alleviating the problems identified: 1. The designer should define the essential performance requirements

of systems or equipment to be designed by a separately appointed specialist and the constraints within which the specialist must work.

2. The designer should define selection criteria with which specialist

companies must comply. It may also be appropriate to identify the names of companies whom the designer considers capable of meeting the selection criteria.

3. The designer should produce a provisional design making allowance

for future input from a specialist, and with notification of any significant constraints incorporated in the design which may affect the specialist design.

4. The designer should specify the level of design, fabrication and

installation input required from the specialist. 5. The designer should assist in the evaluation of specialists’ tender

proposals.

6. The designer should co-ordinate the specialist’s design input with the rest of the design.



7. The designer should evaluate the impact of any specialist designer’s proposals which are different from those envisaged at the pre-tender design stage.

A comparison of the relative programming of activities between pre- and post-tender specialist appointments is shown in Figure 2. Appendix B (Item 3: Selection and Appointment of Specialist Designers) contains a pro forma to facilitate the allocation of responsibility in accordance with this proposed solution. For the same reasons as described under Plant Selection, the problem described often has a better solution when two-stage tendering and partnering arrangement are employed.



Figure 2 Comparison of pre-tender versus post-tender appointment of specialist designers

Star

t

App

oint

spe

cial

ist

T

ende

r

Syst

em d

esig

n

Spec

ialis

t des

ign

Inst

alla

tion

Spec

ialis

t in

stal

latio

n

Star

tTe

nder

Appo

int s

peci

alis

t

Syst

em d

esig

n

Spec

ialis

t des

ign

Inst

alla

tion

Spec

ialis

t in

stal

latio

n

Pote

ntia

l del

ay

Exte

nded

des

ign

proc

ess

Prog

ram

me

of A

ctiv

ities

-Pr

e-Te

nder

App

oint

men

t of S

peci

alist

Prog

ram

me

of A

ctiv

ities

-Po

st-T

ende

r App

oint

men

t of S

peci

alist

Star

t

App

oint

spe

cial

ist

T

ende

r

Syst

em d

esig

n

Spec

ialis

t des

ign

Inst

alla

tion

Spec

ialis

t in

stal

latio

n

Star

tTe

nder

Appo

int s

peci

alis

t

Syst

em d

esig

n

Spec

ialis

t des

ign

Inst

alla

tion

Spec

ialis

t in

stal

latio

n

Pote

ntia

l del

ay

Exte

nded

des

ign

proc

ess

Prog

ram

me

of A

ctiv

ities

-Pr

e-Te

nder

App

oint

men

t of S

peci

alist

Prog

ram

me

of A

ctiv

ities

-Po

st-T

ende

r App

oint

men

t of S

peci

alist



4.4 COMMISSIONING

ACTIVITIES The problem

The successful implementation of a building services design is usually dependent on there being a properly conducted commissioning procedure prior to handover. The commissioning procedures relevant to most building services systems are defined in general terms within various industry-recognised guidance documents including the CIBSE Commissioning Codes and BSRIA Application Guides. However, in practice the commissioning procedures appropriate to particular projects will vary depending on the site circumstances.

This variability in commissioning requirements is the cause of many potential conflict situations, especially when the consideration of an appropriate commissioning methodology is left until after the design and installation have been well advanced. The problems caused may be inherent with the design of the system itself. If the components and equipment essential to facilitate commissioning are not incorporated in the design details the system may be technically uncommissionable when the time for commissioning arrives. It then becomes an issue of dispute as to whether the designer should have included the appropriate equipment as part of the original design, or whether the installer should have added it in the knowledge of appropriate commissioning activities. The extent of commissioning can also be a problem if not adequately defined. Under designers’ conditions of engagement, the extent of witnessing activities can be vague and open to interpretation. If the extent of the witnessing requirements is not specified, the installing contractor may not have made adequate allowance for this potentially time-consuming activity. The ultimate result of any vagueness in the specified requirements for systems commissioning is that the commissioning procedures cannot be easily programmed in relation to other services or construction activities. Since the commissioning process is dependent on the progress of systems, structure and building fabric, the programming of commissioning activities must be carefully planned in relation to those other activities. Disputes can often arise when commissioning costs are not separately identified and commissioning procedures are programmed as a single activity at the end of a project without reference to the state of readiness of other parts of the construction. Proposed solution

In order to ensure that the commissioning process is successful, the interdependency problems need to be identified and considered as early in the project as possible. It is recommended that in the first instance, these issues are addressed within the designer’s specification. For HVAC systems this recommendation is given in BSRIA Application Guides AG 2/89 and 3/89 “Commissioning of Water Systems in Buildings” and the “Commissioning of Air Systems in Buildings” and Application Handbook AH2/92 “Commissioning of BEMS - a code of practice”. The scope of a “commissioning specification” is defined in each of these documents. Based on this guidance a summary of the



information considered appropriate to a commissioning specification is included within section 5.1. It is anticipated that by fulfilling the general requirements of a commissioning specification, many of the problems associated with the commissioning activity will be resolved. In support of the commissioning specification there are a number of important recommendations which if acted upon will ensure that the commissioning is successful: 1. The designer should incorporate the appropriate facilities for

commissioning within the system design. These should be identified within the specification and design drawings.

2. The designer should advise on the importance of commissioning and recommend when it is preferable to appoint a commissioning specialist directly and independently of the installing contractor.

3. The designer, installer or a commissioning specialist should prepare

a method statement, incorporating time constraints and programme, and defining the extent of the commissioning procedures so that these can be properly allowed for within the building contractor’s programmes.

4. The designer, installer or a commissioning specialist should monitor

the progression of the installation works to ensure that the appropriate facilities are being installed, and that there are no potential obstacles to the commissioning procedure.

5. The designer should advise on the requirement for monitoring and witnessing of the commissioning results.

6. The designer or client representative should witness the results of

commissioning, and provided that the requirements of the commissioning specification are satisfied, accept the completed systems.

Appendix B (Item 4: Specifying System Commissioning Activities) contains a pro forma to facilitate the allocation of responsibility in accordance with this proposed solution.

4.5 PRODUCTION OF HANDOVER INFORMATION

The problem

As for commissioning, the problems associated with handover procedures arise due to the variability of requirements which may be appropriate under different circumstances. The Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 provides a statutory requirement for information to be supplied on how to operate the engineering services. Sections 2 and 6 of this Act can be interpreted as meaning that it is illegal for a building owner to operate the engineering services unless in possession of proper record drawings and operating instructions.



Despite the clear necessity to produce handover information, there is still a potential for disputes over the content and standard of information appropriate to a particular project. The designer may have quite specific expectations which, if not properly conveyed to the installing contractor, can result in the installer under-pricing for this activity. Part of the problem is associated with the terminology used. Although the typical contents of operating and maintenance manuals are generally agreed, the specific contents may be interpreted differently by different tending contractors. The scope of work envisaged in production of the manuals can therefore vary considerably. The same problem applies in the case of record drawings. The style and content of record drawings has been explained in the proposed definition included in Appendix A. However, installing contractors may still place a different emphasis on the work involved in the planning and production of these drawings. In order to ensure that the record drawings are produced in an organised way such that all changes to the original installation drawings are recorded, there needs to be an ongoing procedure in place for monitoring and up-dating them. However, some installers anticipate that since the project will inevitably undergo a number of changes in the course of its installation, there is little point in completing the record drawings until the end when all the changes are finalised. It may then be too late to ensure and demonstrate that all the necessary installation details have been recorded. The resulting uncertainty regarding the quality of handover information can cause the designer to delay acceptance of the system causing a potential dispute with the installer. Proposed solution

In order to ensure that the production of handover information is managed in a manner which will ensure that the quality of information produced is suitable for the building systems concerned, there needs to be a clear statement of the designer’s expectations at the outset. In support of this aim it would be beneficial to have clearly stated meanings for the terms “operating and maintenance manuals” and “record drawing”. A proposed definition for operating and maintenance manuals is provided within Appendix A. This definition is based on the advice provided in BSRIA Application Guide AG 1/87.1 “Operating and Maintenance Manuals for Building Services Installations”. In addition a definition for “record drawing” is also provided in Appendix A. In order to ensure that the overall process of producing handover information is successful, there are a number of recommendations which, it is anticipated, will help to avoid conflict: 1. The designer should interpret the client brief and establish the

maintenance priorities and options best suited for the client’s purposes.



2. The designer should specify the precise scope and content of the operating and maintenance manuals and record drawings. It might also be useful to define what level of deficiency would be considered serious enough to hold up completion.

3. The designer, client representative and installing contractor should

monitor the production of the handover information, establishing target dates for production of information, programming the drawing process, and checking the draft manuals and drawings.

4. The designer should specify milestone payments for production of

handover information, which should be retained as an incentive to the installer to produce clear and timely handover information. These sums should be clearly identified at tender stage.

Appendix B (Item 5: Production of Handover Information) contains a pro forma to facilitate the allocation of responsibility in accordance with this proposed solution. Further guidance on handover information is provided in BSRIA publication TN 15/95 “Handover Information for Building Services”.

SECTION 5 HOW TO AVOID CONFLICT - PRACTICAL GUIDANCE


5 HOW TO AVOID CONFLICT - PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

5.1 PRO FORMAS FOR ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY

Appendix B contains pro forma style lists of design activities which embody the solutions proposed in the preceding sections of this technical note. The intention is that if responsibility for each of the listed activities is agreed with the client and is then communicated to the installing contractor at the tender stage this should ensure that the installing contractor is able to price for the contract making proper allowance for their role in completing the design. It is envisaged that: • The activities listed in the pro formas should be carried out by the

designer under their agreement with the client or should be specified by them to be carried out by others; the designer should indicate where responsibility lies by marking one of the right hand columns.

• Where the activity described is not envisaged to be either the

designer’s or installing contractor’s responsibility, a third party should be named in the column headed “other”.

• For most of the activities listed, it is anticipated that the allocation of

responsibility should be to one named party only. If the user feels that responsibility for certain activities should be split, the nature of this split must be separately defined.

• The activities under each section should be completed as far as

possible in chronological order. • The activities should form a “menu” from which users can select or

modify to suit the particular requirements of a project. It must be recognised that the lists of duties are not intended to be prescriptive or comprehensive, or in any way overrule or replace the specific duties defined in the designer’s conditions of appointment. It is intended that they should act firstly as a reminder for designers when negotiating the extent of their duties with clients and when producing design information. It is also a means of clarifying for the installing contractor the extent of the design which has been completed and that which it is considered necessary for them to complete. Pro formas are provided corresponding to each of the main issues discussed in Section 4 of this Guide: 1. General Design Activities 2. Selection of Plant and Equipment

3. Selection and Appointment of Specialist Designers

4. Specifying System Commissioning Activities

5. Production of Handover Information.

HOW TO AVOID CONFLICT - PRACTICAL GUIDANCE SECTION 5


Pro forma pages are intended for reproduction and inclusion within tender documentation with right hand columns ticked or filled in as appropriate. All terms printed in bold italics in the Pro formas are defined within Appendix A.

DEFINITIONS APPENDIX - A


APPENDIX A



APPENDIX – A DEFINITIONS DRAWINGS The following suggested definitions may be used to clarify the design responsibilities incumbent on those required to produce each drawing or document. These definitions are supported by drawn examples included in TN22/97 “The Allocation of Design Responsibilities - Example Drawings”.

Sketch drawings Line diagrams and layouts indicating basic proposals, location of main items of plant, routes of main pipes, air ducts and cable runs in such detail as to illustrate the incorporation of the engineering services within the project as a whole.

APPENDIX - A DEFINITIONS


Schematic drawing A line diagram describing the interconnection of components in a complex system. The main features of a schematic drawing should be as follows: • The drawing may be a two dimensional layout with divisions to

show the distribution of the system between building levels. It may also be an isometric style layout indicating the distribution of systems across individual floor levels. The drawing would not necessarily be constructed to scale.

• The drawing should include all functional components which make

up the system ie plant items, pumps, fans, valves, strainers, terminals, electrical switchgear, distribution and components.

• Symbols and line conventions should be in accordance with a recognised source of standard symbols, such as BS1192:Part 3:1987 “Recommendations for symbols and other graphic conventions”.

• The drawing should be labelled with appropriate pipe, duct and

cable sizes where these are not shown elsewhere. • The drawing should indicate components which have a sensing and

control function and should indicate the links between them eg building management systems, fire alarms and HV controls.

• The major components indicated on the schematic drawing should

be identified so that their whereabouts in specifications and on other drawings can be easily determined.

• If required to form part of a commissioning specification, the

drawing should include all data essential to testing and commissioning including volumetric flow rates, design total pressure losses at equipment, locations of dampers, valves and flow measuring stations, electrical fault levels, current ratings, short circuit capacities and tripping times.

NB: Where a design consultant is appointed to produce a scheme design for completion by a design and build contractor, only the first three of these requirements are likely to be appropriate.



Detailed design drawing A drawing showing the intended locations of plant items and service routes in such detail as to indicate the design intent. The main features of detailed design drawings should be as follows: • Plan layouts should be to a scale of at least 1:100. Plant areas

should be to a scale of at least 1:50, and should be accompanied by cross sections.

• The drawing will not indicate the precise position of services, but it

should nevertheless be feasible to install the services within the general routes indicated. It should be possible to produce co-ordination drawings or installation drawings without major re-routing of the services.

• Pipework should be represented by single line layouts. Ductwork

should be represented by either double line or single line layouts as required to ensure that the routes indicated are feasible. Symbols and line conventions should be in accordance with a recognised source of standard symbols such as BS 1192:Part 3:1987 ‘Recommendations for symbols and other graphic conventions’.

• The drawing should indicate the space available for major service

routing in both horizontal and vertical planes.



Co-ordination drawing A drawing showing the inter-relationship of two or more engineering services and their relation to the structure and building fabric. The main features of a co-ordination drawing should be as follows: • Plan layouts should be to a scale of at least 1:50 and be accompanied

by cross sections to a scale of at least 1:20 for all congested areas. • The drawing should be spatially co-ordinated ie there should be no

physical clashes between the system components when installed at the scaled-off positions shown on the drawing. In areas where tolerances are minimal, dimensions should be provided.

• The spaces between pipe and duct runs shown on the drawing should

make allowance for the service at its widest point. Insulation, standard fitting dimensions and joint widths should therefore have been allowed for on the drawing.

• The drawing should make allowance for those plant items specified

by the designer and identified in the design specification.

• The drawing should make allowance for installation working space and space to facilitate commissioning and maintenance.

• The drawing should indicate positions of main fixing points and

supports where they have significance to the structural design. • The services should be arranged in such a way that it is possible to

demonstrate a feasible sequence of installation. • The drawing should be supported by “individual services drawings”

where these are desirable for clarity. • Plant room layouts should be to a scale of at least 1:20 and be

accompanied by cross sections and elevations to a scale of at least 1:20.



Installation drawing A drawing based on the detailed design drawing or co-ordination drawing with the primary purpose of defining that information needed by the tradesmen on site to install the works. NB Where co-ordination drawings have not been prepared in advance, responsibility for spatial co-ordination should be allocated to the “lead” installing contractor who should be named in the tender documents. All installation requirements should then be produced taking into account the needs of co-ordination. The main features of installation drawings should be as follows: • Plan layouts should be to a scale of at least 1:50 and be accompanied

by cross sections to a scale of at least 1:20 for all congested areas. • The drawing should be spatially co-ordinated, ie there should be no

physical clashes between the system components when installed at the scaled-off positions shown on the drawing.

• Allowances should be made for inclusion of all supports and fixings

necessary to install the works. • The spaces between pipe and duct runs shown on the drawing should

make allowance for the service at its widest point. Insulation, standard fitting dimensions and joint widths should therefore have been allowed for on the drawing.

• The drawing should make allowances for installation details provided from shop drawings.

• The drawing should make allowances for installation working space, space to facilitate commissioning and space to allow on-going operation and maintenance in accordance with the relevant health and safety requirements.

• Allowances should be made for plant and equipment including those which are chosen as alternatives to the designer’s specified option.

• Dimensions should be provided where the positioning of the services

is considered to be important enough not to leave to the tradesmen on site.

• Plant room layouts should be to a scale of at least 1:20 and be

accompanied by cross sections and elevations to a scale of at least 1:20.



Installation wiring diagram Drawing showing the interconnection of electric components, panels etc in accordance with the design intent indicated on the schematic drawings and incorporating the details provided on manufacturers’ certified drawings.

Shop drawing Drawing prepared by a fabricator or supplier for a particular project, and which is unique to that project. Examples include suppliers’ drawings for ductwork, pre-fabricated pipework, sprinkler systems, control and switchgear panels and associated internal wiring.

Manufacturer’s drawing

Drawing provided by a manufacturer or supplier to indicate a typical representation of the product, components or plant items to be supplied for a particular project.

Manufacturer’s certified drawing Drawing provided by a manufacturer or supplier to indicate details of the product, components or plant items and which the manufacturer or supplier guarantees the supplied equipment will comply with.

Record drawing Drawing showing the building and services installations as installed at the date of practical completion. The main features of the record drawings should be as follows: The drawings should provide a record of the locations of all the systems and components installed including pumps, fans, valves, strainers, terminals, electrical switchgear, distribution and components. • The drawings should be to a scale not less than that of the

installation drawings. • The drawings should have marked on them positions of access

points for operating and maintenance purposes. • The drawings should not be dimensioned unless the inclusion of a

dimension is considered necessary for location.



Builders’ work drawing Design stage definition: A drawing to show the provisions required to accommodate the services which significantly affect the design of the building structure, fabric and external works. Mso drawings (and schedules) of work to be carried out by building trade, and required to be costed at the design stage eg plant bases. Installation stage definition: Drawing to show requirements for building works necessary to facilitate the installation of the engineering services (other than where it is appropriate to mark out on site).

Specialist drawing A generic term for those drawings which may be supplied by a specialist supplier or sub-contractor appointed to undertake design duties in relation to a specific aspect of the project.

Tender drawing Drawing produced for the purpose of obtaining competitive tenders. The tender drawings will comprise an agreed set of drawings to suit the complexity of the project, and which comply with the specific drawing definitions included in this section.



CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals Information to enable the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of a building. The scope of content is likely to include: • system description • mode of operation • manufacturers’ technical literature • health and safety documentation • equipment schedules • parts identification and recommended spare • commissioning data • maintenance instructions • maintenance schedules • fault finding advice • emergency procedures/call out • lubrication details • modification information • advice on disposal • record drawings.

Note: Advice on assembling O&M manuals is provided in the following BSRIA publications: Application Guide AG 1/87.1: “Operating and Maintenance Manuals for Building Services Installations”.

Application Guide AG 7/97: “The CDM Regulations Health and Safety File”.

Technical Note TN 15/95: “Handover Information for Building Services”.



Commissioning Specification The document that describes in detail the technical requirements with which the commissioning service has to comply. The commissioning specification must include the following information: • The scope of works, ie details of the systems to be commissioned,

their functions and duration of operation, and an explanation of their inter-relationship with other engineering systems.

• The technical specification of the commissioning work, ie the

relevant standards to be complied with, the instruments to be used, the tolerances for test results, and the witnessing and reporting procedures required.

• Design data relevant to commissioning such as flow rates,

temperatures, operating pressures, plant capacities, illumination levels and glare indices, control logic statements, plant schematics, fault levels, noise ratings.

• A set of schematic drawings, together with a set of either detailed design drawings or co-ordination drawings each with clearly marked details of volumetric flow rates, design total pressures, design total pressure losses at equipment, pipe and duct sizes, locations of dampers, valves and flow measuring stations, electrical fault levels, current ratings, short circuit capacities and tripping times.

• System preparation details, ie the requirements for, and methods by

which systems will be prepared ready for commissioning. This will include flushing and cleaning details in the case of water systems.

Note: It is recommended that the commissioning specification is included with the associated scope, materials and workmanship requirements for each service.

APPENDIX B PRO FORMAS FOR ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY


APPENDIX - B

Pro Formas for Allocating Responsibility

PRO FORMAS FOR ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY APPENDIX - B


1.1

Prod

uctio

n of

Dra

win

gs

Sket

ch d

raw

ings

Sche

mat

ic d

raw

ings

Det

aile

d de

sign

dra

win

gs

Co-

ordi

natio

n dr

awin

g

Inst

alla

tion

draw

ings

Inst

alla

tion

wiri

ng d

raw

ings

Shop

dra

win

gs

Man

ufac

ture

r’s d

raw

ings

Man

ufac

ture

r’s c

ertif

ied

draw

ings

Rec

ord

draw

ings

Bui

lder

s’ w

ork

draw

ings

Spec

ialis

t dra

win

gs

1.2

Spat

ial c

o-or

dina

tion

(ieov

eral

l res

pons

ibilit

y fo

r res

olvi

ngdi

fficu

lt sp

atia

l cla

shes

).

1. G

ENER

AL D

ESIG

N A

CTI

VITI

ES

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

l Exp

lana

tion

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

! 1.1

Prod

uctio

n of

Dra

win

gs

Sket

ch d

raw

ings

Sche

mat

ic d

raw

ings

Det

aile

d de

sign

dra

win

gs

Co-

ordi

natio

n dr

awin

g

Inst

alla

tion

draw

ings

Inst

alla

tion

wiri

ng d

raw

ings

Shop

dra

win

gs

Man

ufac

ture

r’s d

raw

ings

Man

ufac

ture

r’s c

ertif

ied

draw

ings

Rec

ord

draw

ings

Bui

lder

s’ w

ork

draw

ings

Spec

ialis

t dra

win

gs

1.2

Spat

ial c

o-or

dina

tion

(ieov

eral

l res

pons

ibilit

y fo

r res

olvi

ngdi

fficu

lt sp

atia

l cla

shes

).

1. G

ENER

AL D

ESIG

N A

CTI

VITI

ES

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

l Exp

lana

tion

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



1. G

ENER

AL D

ESIG

N AC

TIVI

TIES

(con

t)

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion

:D

esig

ner

Inst

alle

r

1.3

Con

firm

atio

n of

pla

nt o

r sys

tem

siz

ing

Note

:Th

e de

sign

er is

resp

onsi

ble

for a

llin

stal

led

plan

t and

sys

tem

siz

es/

capa

citie

s ot

her t

han

for t

hose

item

sw

hich

are

iden

tifie

d be

low

. Th

ese

item

s re

quire

fina

l con

firm

atio

nby

the

party

indi

cate

d.

Plan

t ite

ms/

syst

ems:

(To

be c

ompl

eted

by

desi

gner

)

Oth

er

!1.

GEN

ERAL

DES

IGN

ACTI

VITI

ES (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion

:D

esig

ner

Inst

alle

r

1.3

Con

firm

atio

n of

pla

nt o

r sys

tem

siz

ing

Note

:Th

e de

sign

er is

resp

onsi

ble

for a

llin

stal

led

plan

t and

sys

tem

siz

es/

capa

citie

s ot

her t

han

for t

hose

item

sw

hich

are

iden

tifie

d be

low

. Th

ese

item

s re

quire

fina

l con

firm

atio

nby

the

party

indi

cate

d.

Plan

t ite

ms/

syst

ems:

(To

be c

ompl

eted

by

desi

gner

)

Oth

er

!



2.1

Rev

iew

the

clie

nt b

rief a

nd id

entif

y th

ose

clie

ntpr

iorit

ies

whi

ch w

ill in

fluen

ce th

e ch

oice

of p

lant

. Th

is m

ay in

clud

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s in

itial

cos

t, lif

e ex

pect

ancy

, re

liabi

lity

mai

ntai

nabi

lity

and

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

.

2.2

Iden

tify

proj

ect l

imita

tions

whi

ch m

ay in

fluen

ce th

e ch

oice

of

pla

nt.

This

may

incl

ude

cons

ider

atio

n of

fact

ors

such

as

spac

e an

d w

eigh

t lim

itatio

ns a

nd th

e ne

ed to

com

ply

with

he

alth

and

saf

ety

legi

slat

ion.

2.3

Whe

re a

ppro

pria

te, c

onsi

der t

he p

ossi

ble

appl

icat

ion

of

pack

aged

sys

tem

sol

utio

nsie

plan

t and

sys

tem

s de

sign

ed

and

supp

lied

as a

pac

kage

.

2.4

Prep

are

a de

scrip

tion

of th

e m

ain

perfo

rman

ce

requ

irem

ents

of p

lant

item

s. T

his

will

invo

lve

esta

blis

hing

pr

ovis

iona

l val

ues

for t

he n

omin

al c

apac

ities

of p

lant

, the

ra

nge

of o

pera

ting

dutie

s an

ticip

ated

, div

ersi

ties

appl

icab

le

on m

axim

um c

alcu

late

d lo

ads

and

the

requ

irem

ents

for

stan

d-by

cap

acity

.

2.5

Prep

are

desc

riptio

ns o

f ess

entia

l des

ign

feat

ures

for p

lant

ite

ms.

Thi

s m

ay in

clud

e pr

ovid

ing

deta

ils o

f the

exp

ecte

d qu

ality

of c

onst

ruct

ion

and

finis

hes,

any

ess

entia

l ene

rgy

savi

ng fe

atur

es, t

he a

cous

tic p

erfo

rman

ce, t

he a

vaila

bilit

y of

spa

res

and

the

com

patib

ility

of th

e pl

ant w

ith o

ther

eq

uipm

ent.

2. S

ELEC

TIO

N O

F PL

ANT

AND

EQ

UIP

MEN

T

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

! 2.1

Rev

iew

the

clie

nt b

rief a

nd id

entif

y th

ose

clie

ntpr

iorit

ies

whi

ch w

ill in

fluen

ce th

e ch

oice

of p

lant

. Th

is m

ay in

clud

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of fa

ctor

s su

ch a

s in

itial

cos

t, lif

e ex

pect

ancy

, re

liabi

lity

mai

ntai

nabi

lity

and

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

.

2.2

Iden

tify

proj

ect l

imita

tions

whi

ch m

ay in

fluen

ce th

e ch

oice

of

pla

nt.

This

may

incl

ude

cons

ider

atio

n of

fact

ors

such

as

spac

e an

d w

eigh

t lim

itatio

ns a

nd th

e ne

ed to

com

ply

with

he

alth

and

saf

ety

legi

slat

ion.

2.3

Whe

re a

ppro

pria

te, c

onsi

der t

he p

ossi

ble

appl

icat

ion

of

pack

aged

sys

tem

sol

utio

nsie

plan

t and

sys

tem

s de

sign

ed

and

supp

lied

as a

pac

kage

.

2.4

Prep

are

a de

scrip

tion

of th

e m

ain

perfo

rman

ce

requ

irem

ents

of p

lant

item

s. T

his

will

invo

lve

esta

blis

hing

pr

ovis

iona

l val

ues

for t

he n

omin

al c

apac

ities

of p

lant

, the

ra

nge

of o

pera

ting

dutie

s an

ticip

ated

, div

ersi

ties

appl

icab

le

on m

axim

um c

alcu

late

d lo

ads

and

the

requ

irem

ents

for

stan

d-by

cap

acity

.

2.5

Prep

are

desc

riptio

ns o

f ess

entia

l des

ign

feat

ures

for p

lant

ite

ms.

Thi

s m

ay in

clud

e pr

ovid

ing

deta

ils o

f the

exp

ecte

d qu

ality

of c

onst

ruct

ion

and

finis

hes,

any

ess

entia

l ene

rgy

savi

ng fe

atur

es, t

he a

cous

tic p

erfo

rman

ce, t

he a

vaila

bilit

y of

spa

res

and

the

com

patib

ility

of th

e pl

ant w

ith o

ther

eq

uipm

ent.

2. S

ELEC

TIO

N O

F PL

ANT

AND

EQ

UIP

MEN

T

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



2.6

Sele

ct o

n a

prov

isio

nal b

asis

thos

e m

anuf

actu

rers

’ pr

oduc

es w

hich

mos

t clo

sely

mee

t the

pro

ject

requ

irem

ents

of

per

form

ance

, qua

lity

and

budg

et a

s es

tabl

ishe

d fro

mpr

evio

usdu

ties

2.1

-2.4

.

2.7

Eval

uate

the

impa

ct o

f pro

visi

onal

pla

nt s

elec

tions

on

the

over

all b

uild

ing

desi

gn.

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed to

am

end

the

build

ing

layo

uts

or s

truct

ural

det

ails

acc

ordi

ngly

. C

onfir

m

prov

isio

nal p

lant

sel

ectio

ns.

2.8

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed fo

r pre

-sel

ectio

n of

pla

nt.

Whe

re

appr

opria

te, i

nvite

quo

tatio

ns, r

epor

t upo

n of

fers

rece

ived

an

d se

lect

equ

ipm

ent.

2.9

Inco

rpor

ate

prov

isio

nal a

nd p

re-s

elec

ted

plan

t mak

es,

mod

els

and

dutie

s in

the

spec

ifica

tion.

In

the

case

of

prov

isio

nal s

elec

tions

incl

ude

the

nam

es o

f alte

rnat

ive

prod

ucts

whi

ch c

ompl

y w

ith th

e se

lect

ion

crite

ria.

2.10

Prep

are

a re

port

in c

onsi

dera

tion

of a

nyal

tern

ativ

e pl

ant

sele

ctio

ns p

ropo

sed

subs

eque

nt to

the

issu

e of

the

tend

er

docu

men

ts.

Advi

se w

heth

er th

e al

tern

ativ

e co

mpl

ies

with

th

e se

lect

ion

crite

ria e

stab

lishe

d fro

m d

utie

s 2.

1-2.

4.

2. S

ELEC

TIO

N O

F PL

ANT

AND

EQ

UIP

MEN

T (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!

2.6

Sele

ct o

n a

prov

isio

nal b

asis

thos

e m

anuf

actu

rers

’ pr

oduc

es w

hich

mos

t clo

sely

mee

t the

pro

ject

requ

irem

ents

of

per

form

ance

, qua

lity

and

budg

et a

s es

tabl

ishe

d fro

mpr

evio

usdu

ties

2.1

-2.4

.

2.7

Eval

uate

the

impa

ct o

f pro

visi

onal

pla

nt s

elec

tions

on

the

over

all b

uild

ing

desi

gn.

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed to

am

end

the

build

ing

layo

uts

or s

truct

ural

det

ails

acc

ordi

ngly

. C

onfir

m

prov

isio

nal p

lant

sel

ectio

ns.

2.8

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed fo

r pre

-sel

ectio

n of

pla

nt.

Whe

re

appr

opria

te, i

nvite

quo

tatio

ns, r

epor

t upo

n of

fers

rece

ived

an

d se

lect

equ

ipm

ent.

2.9

Inco

rpor

ate

prov

isio

nal a

nd p

re-s

elec

ted

plan

t mak

es,

mod

els

and

dutie

s in

the

spec

ifica

tion.

In

the

case

of

prov

isio

nal s

elec

tions

incl

ude

the

nam

es o

f alte

rnat

ive

prod

ucts

whi

ch c

ompl

y w

ith th

e se

lect

ion

crite

ria.

2.10

Prep

are

a re

port

in c

onsi

dera

tion

of a

nyal

tern

ativ

e pl

ant

sele

ctio

ns p

ropo

sed

subs

eque

nt to

the

issu

e of

the

tend

er

docu

men

ts.

Advi

se w

heth

er th

e al

tern

ativ

e co

mpl

ies

with

th

e se

lect

ion

crite

ria e

stab

lishe

d fro

m d

utie

s 2.

1-2.

4.

2. S

ELEC

TIO

N O

F PL

ANT

AND

EQ

UIP

MEN

T (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



2.11

Advi

se w

heth

er th

e al

tern

ativ

e su

gges

ted

is a

ccep

tabl

e.

2.12

Fully

re-e

valu

ate

all p

arts

of t

he s

ervi

ces

and

build

ing

desi

gn w

hich

may

be

affe

cted

by

acce

ptan

ce o

f al

tern

ativ

e pl

ant s

elec

tions

.

2.13

If ac

cept

ed, a

men

d th

e de

sign

to in

corp

orat

eth

e al

tern

ativ

e ite

m o

f pla

nt.

2. S

ELEC

TIO

N O

F PL

ANT

AND

EQ

UIP

MEN

T (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!

2.11

Advi

se w

heth

er th

e al

tern

ativ

e su

gges

ted

is a

ccep

tabl

e.

2.12

Fully

re-e

valu

ate

all p

arts

of t

he s

ervi

ces

and

build

ing

desi

gn w

hich

may

be

affe

cted

by

acce

ptan

ce o

f al

tern

ativ

e pl

ant s

elec

tions

.

2.13

If ac

cept

ed, a

men

d th

e de

sign

to in

corp

orat

eth

e al

tern

ativ

e ite

m o

f pla

nt.

2. S

ELEC

TIO

N O

F PL

ANT

AND

EQ

UIP

MEN

T (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



3.1

Rev

iew

the

clie

nt b

rief a

nd id

entif

y th

ose

clie

ntre

quire

men

ts w

hich

will

nece

ssita

te d

esig

n in

put f

rom

a

spec

ialis

t des

igne

r, su

b-co

ntra

ctor

or s

uppl

ier,

and

the

timin

g of

thei

r app

oint

men

t.

3.2

Def

ine

the

esse

ntia

l per

form

ance

requ

irem

ents

of

syst

ems

to b

e de

sign

ed b

y a

spec

ialis

t. T

his

may

in

volv

e es

tabl

ishi

ng n

umer

ical

crit

eria

for t

he n

omin

al

capa

citie

s of

pla

nt, t

he ra

nge

of o

pera

ting

dutie

s an

ticip

ated

and

con

side

ratio

n of

the

requ

irem

ents

for

subm

ittin

g sa

mpl

es a

nd p

roto

type

s.

Opt

ion

1 -A

ppoi

ntm

ent B

efor

e M

ain

Tend

er

3.3

Def

ine

the

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

with

whi

ch s

peci

alis

t co

mpa

nies

mus

t com

ply.

Pre

pare

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion

defin

ing

the

desi

gn w

ork

requ

ired

from

the

spec

ialis

t.

Car

ry o

ut p

re-q

ualif

icat

ion.

Inv

ite a

nd o

btai

n te

nder

s,re

port

on te

nder

s re

ceiv

ed a

nd a

rran

ge a

ppoi

ntm

ent o

f sp

ecia

list.

3.4

Exch

ange

info

rmat

ion

with

the

sele

cted

spe

cial

ist t

o in

corp

orat

e th

eir d

esig

n in

to o

vera

ll de

sign

.

3.5

Arra

nge

the

prep

arat

ion

of a

pro

gram

me

for t

he

spec

ialis

t’s c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ity fo

r inc

orpo

ratio

n in

to th

e m

ain

cont

ract

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion.

3. S

ELEC

TIO

N A

ND

APP

OIN

TMEN

T O

F SP

ECIA

LIST

DES

IGN

ERS

*

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

* A

spec

ialis

t des

igne

r is

unde

rsto

od to

be

an in

stal

ler o

f spe

cial

ist s

yste

ms

or a

sup

plie

r of s

peci

alis

t equ

ipm

ent f

or w

hich

des

ign

prov

isio

ns a

re

ne

cess

ary.

Exa

mpl

es in

clud

e lif

t man

ufac

ture

rs, c

ontro

ls s

peci

alis

ts, s

prin

kler

sys

tem

spe

cial

ists

etc

.

! 3.1

Rev

iew

the

clie

nt b

rief a

nd id

entif

y th

ose

clie

ntre

quire

men

ts w

hich

will

nece

ssita

te d

esig

n in

put f

rom

a

spec

ialis

t des

igne

r, su

b-co

ntra

ctor

or s

uppl

ier,

and

the

timin

g of

thei

r app

oint

men

t.

3.2

Def

ine

the

esse

ntia

l per

form

ance

requ

irem

ents

of

syst

ems

to b

e de

sign

ed b

y a

spec

ialis

t. T

his

may

in

volv

e es

tabl

ishi

ng n

umer

ical

crit

eria

for t

he n

omin

al

capa

citie

s of

pla

nt, t

he ra

nge

of o

pera

ting

dutie

s an

ticip

ated

and

con

side

ratio

n of

the

requ

irem

ents

for

subm

ittin

g sa

mpl

es a

nd p

roto

type

s.

Opt

ion

1 -A

ppoi

ntm

ent B

efor

e M

ain

Tend

er

3.3

Def

ine

the

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

with

whi

ch s

peci

alis

t co

mpa

nies

mus

t com

ply.

Pre

pare

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion

defin

ing

the

desi

gn w

ork

requ

ired

from

the

spec

ialis

t.

Car

ry o

ut p

re-q

ualif

icat

ion.

Inv

ite a

nd o

btai

n te

nder

s,re

port

on te

nder

s re

ceiv

ed a

nd a

rran

ge a

ppoi

ntm

ent o

f sp

ecia

list.

3.4

Exch

ange

info

rmat

ion

with

the

sele

cted

spe

cial

ist t

o in

corp

orat

e th

eir d

esig

n in

to o

vera

ll de

sign

.

3.5

Arra

nge

the

prep

arat

ion

of a

pro

gram

me

for t

he

spec

ialis

t’s c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ity fo

r inc

orpo

ratio

n in

to th

e m

ain

cont

ract

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion.

3. S

ELEC

TIO

N A

ND

APP

OIN

TMEN

T O

F SP

ECIA

LIST

DES

IGN

ERS

*

Des

ign

Activ

ityR

espo

nsib

ility

(ple

ase

tick)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

* A

spec

ialis

t des

igne

r is

unde

rsto

od to

be

an in

stal

ler o

f spe

cial

ist s

yste

ms

or a

sup

plie

r of s

peci

alis

t equ

ipm

ent f

or w

hich

des

ign

prov

isio

ns a

re

ne

cess

ary.

Exa

mpl

es in

clud

e lif

t man

ufac

ture

rs, c

ontro

ls s

peci

alis

ts, s

prin

kler

sys

tem

spe

cial

ists

etc

.

!



3. S

ELEC

TIO

N A

ND

APP

OIN

TMEN

T O

F SP

ECIA

LIST

DES

IGN

ERS

(con

t)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

3.6

Mak

e ap

prop

riate

arra

ngem

ents

for t

he

spec

ialis

t’s p

re-d

eter

min

ed c

osts

to b

ein

corp

orat

ed w

ithin

the

mai

n te

nder

docu

men

tatio

n.

Opt

ion

2 -A

ppoi

ntm

ent A

fter M

ain

Tend

er

3.7

Con

tribu

te to

the

desi

gn o

f the

bui

ldin

g,

agre

eing

pro

visi

onal

allo

wan

ces

for t

he s

ervi

ces

inst

alla

tions

to b

e de

sign

ed la

ter b

y a

spec

ialis

t.

3.8

Def

ine

the

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

with

whi

ch s

peci

alis

tco

mpa

nies

mus

t com

ply.

Ide

ntify

com

pani

esw

hich

mee

t thi

s cr

iteria

and

arra

nge

for n

ames

to b

e in

clud

ed w

ithin

the

mai

n te

nder

do

cum

ents

as

appr

opria

te.

3.9

Prep

are

a de

scrip

tion

of th

e de

sign

, fab

ricat

ion

and

inst

alla

tion

inpu

t req

uire

d fro

m th

esp

ecia

list c

ompa

ny a

nd a

rrang

e fo

r inc

lusi

on

with

in th

e m

ain

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion.

3.10

Advi

se th

e co

ntra

ctor

with

in th

e m

ain

tend

erdo

cum

ents

of t

he ti

me

requ

ired

to re

view

subm

issi

ons

from

spe

cial

ist c

ompa

nies

inor

der t

o fu

lfil d

uty

3.13

.

3.11

Advi

sete

nder

ers

of s

igni

fican

t allo

wan

ces

orco

nstra

ints

inco

rpor

ated

in th

e m

ain

desi

gn th

atm

ay a

ffect

the

spec

ialis

t des

ign.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!3.

SEL

ECTI

ON

AN

D A

PPO

INTM

ENT

OF

SPEC

IALI

ST D

ESIG

NER

S (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

3.6

Mak

e ap

prop

riate

arra

ngem

ents

for t

he

spec

ialis

t’s p

re-d

eter

min

ed c

osts

to b

ein

corp

orat

ed w

ithin

the

mai

n te

nder

docu

men

tatio

n.

Opt

ion

2 -A

ppoi

ntm

ent A

fter M

ain

Tend

er

3.7

Con

tribu

te to

the

desi

gn o

f the

bui

ldin

g,

agre

eing

pro

visi

onal

allo

wan

ces

for t

he s

ervi

ces

inst

alla

tions

to b

e de

sign

ed la

ter b

y a

spec

ialis

t.

3.8

Def

ine

the

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

with

whi

ch s

peci

alis

tco

mpa

nies

mus

t com

ply.

Ide

ntify

com

pani

esw

hich

mee

t thi

s cr

iteria

and

arra

nge

for n

ames

to b

e in

clud

ed w

ithin

the

mai

n te

nder

do

cum

ents

as

appr

opria

te.

3.9

Prep

are

a de

scrip

tion

of th

e de

sign

, fab

ricat

ion

and

inst

alla

tion

inpu

t req

uire

d fro

m th

esp

ecia

list c

ompa

ny a

nd a

rrang

e fo

r inc

lusi

on

with

in th

e m

ain

tend

er d

ocum

enta

tion.

3.10

Advi

se th

e co

ntra

ctor

with

in th

e m

ain

tend

erdo

cum

ents

of t

he ti

me

requ

ired

to re

view

subm

issi

ons

from

spe

cial

ist c

ompa

nies

inor

der t

o fu

lfil d

uty

3.13

.

3.11

Advi

sete

nder

ers

of s

igni

fican

t allo

wan

ces

orco

nstra

ints

inco

rpor

ated

in th

e m

ain

desi

gn th

atm

ay a

ffect

the

spec

ialis

t des

ign.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



3. S

ELEC

TIO

N AN

D AP

POIN

TMEN

T O

F SP

ECIA

LIST

DES

IGNE

RS *

(con

t.)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

3.12

Eval

uate

and

repo

rt up

on th

e sp

ecia

list

desi

gner

’s p

ropo

sals

with

in th

e m

ain

cont

ract

tend

er.

3.13

Prep

are

a re

port

in c

onsi

dera

tion

of a

nyal

tern

ativ

e pl

ant s

elec

tions

or a

rrang

emen

ts

prop

osed

sub

sequ

ent t

o th

e is

sue

of th

e te

nder

docu

men

ts.

Advi

se w

heth

er th

e al

tern

ativ

eco

mpl

ies

with

the

perfo

rman

ce c

riter

iaes

tabl

ishe

d fro

m d

utie

s 3.

1-3

.2.

Iden

tify

the

estim

ated

cos

t and

pro

gram

me

for c

arry

ing

out a

deta

iled

re-e

valu

atio

n of

the

desi

gn to

in

corp

orat

e th

e al

tern

ativ

e pr

opos

als.

3.14

Mon

itor t

he s

peci

alis

t des

ign

inpu

t for

com

plia

nce

with

the

desi

gn in

tent

.

3.15

Eval

uate

the

impa

ct o

f the

spe

cial

ist d

esig

n on

thos

e pa

rts o

f the

ove

rall

desi

gn le

ftpr

ovis

iona

l. A

men

d an

d co

mpl

ete

the

desi

gn a

sap

prop

riate

.

3.16

Rev

iew

the

cont

ract

or’s

pro

gram

me

to e

nsur

eth

at a

ppro

pria

te ti

me

allo

wan

ce h

as to

be

mad

efo

r the

mai

n de

sign

er to

fulfi

l his

obl

igat

ions

as

laid

out

abo

ve.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!3.

SEL

ECTI

ON

AND

APPO

INTM

ENT

OF

SPEC

IALI

ST D

ESIG

NERS

* (c

ont.)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

3.12

Eval

uate

and

repo

rt up

on th

e sp

ecia

list

desi

gner

’s p

ropo

sals

with

in th

e m

ain

cont

ract

tend

er.

3.13

Prep

are

a re

port

in c

onsi

dera

tion

of a

nyal

tern

ativ

e pl

ant s

elec

tions

or a

rrang

emen

ts

prop

osed

sub

sequ

ent t

o th

e is

sue

of th

e te

nder

docu

men

ts.

Advi

se w

heth

er th

e al

tern

ativ

eco

mpl

ies

with

the

perfo

rman

ce c

riter

iaes

tabl

ishe

d fro

m d

utie

s 3.

1-3

.2.

Iden

tify

the

estim

ated

cos

t and

pro

gram

me

for c

arry

ing

out a

deta

iled

re-e

valu

atio

n of

the

desi

gn to

in

corp

orat

e th

e al

tern

ativ

e pr

opos

als.

3.14

Mon

itor t

he s

peci

alis

t des

ign

inpu

t for

com

plia

nce

with

the

desi

gn in

tent

.

3.15

Eval

uate

the

impa

ct o

f the

spe

cial

ist d

esig

n on

thos

e pa

rts o

f the

ove

rall

desi

gn le

ftpr

ovis

iona

l. A

men

d an

d co

mpl

ete

the

desi

gn a

sap

prop

riate

.

3.16

Rev

iew

the

cont

ract

or’s

pro

gram

me

to e

nsur

eth

at a

ppro

pria

te ti

me

allo

wan

ce h

as to

be

mad

efo

r the

mai

n de

sign

er to

fulfi

l his

obl

igat

ions

as

laid

out

abo

ve.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



4. S

PEC

IFYI

NG

SYS

TEM

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ING

AC

TIVI

TIES

Des

ign

Activ

ity

Des

ign

4.1

Ensu

re th

at th

e se

lect

ed s

yste

ms

will

mee

t the

clie

nt’s

brie

f an

d th

at th

eir c

omm

issi

onin

g re

quire

men

ts a

re c

ompa

tible

w

ith a

ny p

roje

ct re

stra

int c

once

rnin

g se

ctio

nal

hand

over

/pha

sing

.

4.2

Iden

tify

and

inco

rpor

ate

into

sys

tem

des

igns

the

esse

ntia

l co

mpo

nent

s an

d fe

atur

es n

eces

sary

to e

nabl

e th

e pr

oper

pr

epar

atio

n an

d co

mm

issi

onin

g of

bui

ldin

g se

rvic

es.

4.3

Rev

iew

all

desi

gns

to e

nsur

e th

at s

yste

ms

can

be p

rope

rly

prep

ared

, and

are

com

mis

sion

able

.

4.4

Prep

are

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion.

Man

agem

ent

4.5

Prod

uce

a co

mm

issi

onin

g m

etho

d st

atem

ent a

nd lo

gic

diag

ram

for i

nteg

ratio

n in

to th

e bu

ildin

g co

ntra

ctor

’s

cons

truct

ion

and

finis

hes

prog

ram

mes

.

4.6

Prod

uce

a flu

shin

g, c

hem

ical

cle

anin

g an

d w

ater

trea

tmen

t m

etho

d st

atem

ent,

logi

c di

agra

m a

nd p

rogr

amm

e fo

r in

tegr

atio

n in

to th

e bu

ildin

g co

ntra

ctor

’s c

onst

ruct

ion,

co

mm

issi

onin

g an

d fin

ishe

s pr

ogra

mm

es.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!4.

SPE

CIF

YIN

G S

YSTE

M C

OM

MIS

SIO

NIN

G A

CTI

VITI

ES

Des

ign

Activ

ity

Des

ign

4.1

Ensu

re th

at th

e se

lect

ed s

yste

ms

will

mee

t the

clie

nt’s

brie

f an

d th

at th

eir c

omm

issi

onin

g re

quire

men

ts a

re c

ompa

tible

w

ith a

ny p

roje

ct re

stra

int c

once

rnin

g se

ctio

nal

hand

over

/pha

sing

.

4.2

Iden

tify

and

inco

rpor

ate

into

sys

tem

des

igns

the

esse

ntia

l co

mpo

nent

s an

d fe

atur

es n

eces

sary

to e

nabl

e th

e pr

oper

pr

epar

atio

n an

d co

mm

issi

onin

g of

bui

ldin

g se

rvic

es.

4.3

Rev

iew

all

desi

gns

to e

nsur

e th

at s

yste

ms

can

be p

rope

rly

prep

ared

, and

are

com

mis

sion

able

.

4.4

Prep

are

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion.

Man

agem

ent

4.5

Prod

uce

a co

mm

issi

onin

g m

etho

d st

atem

ent a

nd lo

gic

diag

ram

for i

nteg

ratio

n in

to th

e bu

ildin

g co

ntra

ctor

’s

cons

truct

ion

and

finis

hes

prog

ram

mes

.

4.6

Prod

uce

a flu

shin

g, c

hem

ical

cle

anin

g an

d w

ater

trea

tmen

t m

etho

d st

atem

ent,

logi

c di

agra

m a

nd p

rogr

amm

e fo

r in

tegr

atio

n in

to th

e bu

ildin

g co

ntra

ctor

’s c

onst

ruct

ion,

co

mm

issi

onin

g an

d fin

ishe

s pr

ogra

mm

es.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



4. S

PEC

IFYI

NG

SYS

TEM

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ING

AC

TIVI

TIES

(con

t.)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

4.7

Atte

nd c

omm

issi

onin

g m

eetin

gs a

s ne

cess

ary

OR

Arra

nge

and

chai

r com

mis

sion

ing

mee

tings

as

nece

ssar

y.

4.8

Com

men

t on

the

adeq

uacy

of s

yste

ms

for c

omm

issi

onin

g as

det

aile

d on

spec

ialis

ts’ d

raw

ings

and

man

ufac

ture

rs’

shop

dra

win

gspr

ior t

o ac

tual

man

ufac

ture

at w

orks

. En

sure

com

men

ts a

re in

corp

orat

ed in

to fi

nish

ed p

rodu

cts

4.9

Car

ry o

ut s

ite in

spec

tions

, to

ensu

re th

at th

e co

mm

issi

onin

g fa

cilit

ies

are

bein

g in

stal

led.

Che

ck

com

plia

nce

with

spe

cifie

d gu

ides

and

sta

ndar

ds.

4.10

Mon

itor t

he o

n-go

ing

prog

ress

of t

he p

rocu

rem

ent,

man

ufac

ture

, ins

talla

tion

and

com

mis

sion

ing

of a

ll pl

ant

item

s.

4.11

Asse

ss th

e ef

fect

s of

any

ant

icip

ated

del

ays

to th

e se

rvic

es

inst

alla

tion

and

the

com

plet

ion

of in

terfa

ces

with

the

build

ing

wor

ks c

ritic

al to

the

com

mis

sion

ing

prog

ram

me.

Form

ulat

estra

tegi

esto

ove

rcom

e po

tent

ial d

elay

s.

4.12

Esta

blis

h an

agr

eed

set o

f pro

form

a do

cum

enta

tion

rela

ting

to th

e co

mm

issi

onin

g an

d te

stin

g of

pla

nt a

nd

syst

ems.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Add

ition

alE

xpla

ntio

n:D

esig

ner

Inst

alle

rO

ther

!4.

SPE

CIF

YIN

G S

YSTE

M C

OM

MIS

SIO

NIN

G A

CTI

VITI

ES (c

ont.)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

4.7

Atte

nd c

omm

issi

onin

g m

eetin

gs a

s ne

cess

ary

OR

Arra

nge

and

chai

r com

mis

sion

ing

mee

tings

as

nece

ssar

y.

4.8

Com

men

t on

the

adeq

uacy

of s

yste

ms

for c

omm

issi

onin

g as

det

aile

d on

spec

ialis

ts’ d

raw

ings

and

man

ufac

ture

rs’

shop

dra

win

gspr

ior t

o ac

tual

man

ufac

ture

at w

orks

. En

sure

com

men

ts a

re in

corp

orat

ed in

to fi

nish

ed p

rodu

cts

4.9

Car

ry o

ut s

ite in

spec

tions

, to

ensu

re th

at th

e co

mm

issi

onin

g fa

cilit

ies

are

bein

g in

stal

led.

Che

ck

com

plia

nce

with

spe

cifie

d gu

ides

and

sta

ndar

ds.

4.10

Mon

itor t

he o

n-go

ing

prog

ress

of t

he p

rocu

rem

ent,

man

ufac

ture

, ins

talla

tion

and

com

mis

sion

ing

of a

ll pl

ant

item

s.

4.11

Asse

ss th

e ef

fect

s of

any

ant

icip

ated

del

ays

to th

e se

rvic

es

inst

alla

tion

and

the

com

plet

ion

of in

terfa

ces

with

the

build

ing

wor

ks c

ritic

al to

the

com

mis

sion

ing

prog

ram

me.

Form

ulat

estra

tegi

esto

ove

rcom

e po

tent

ial d

elay

s.

4.12

Esta

blis

h an

agr

eed

set o

f pro

form

a do

cum

enta

tion

rela

ting

to th

e co

mm

issi

onin

g an

d te

stin

g of

pla

nt a

nd

syst

ems.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Add

ition

alE

xpla

ntio

n:D

esig

ner

Inst

alle

rO

ther

!



4. S

PEC

IFYI

NG

SYS

TEM

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ING

AC

TIVI

TIES

(con

t.)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

4.13

Appr

ove

the

prop

osed

set

of i

nstru

men

ts fo

r the

com

mis

sion

ing

and

test

ing

wor

ks.

4.14

Ensu

re th

at th

e in

stru

men

tatio

n is

per

iodi

cally

cal

ibra

ted

as n

eces

sary

and

reco

rds

reta

ined

.

4.15

Witn

ess

the

flush

ing,

cle

anin

g an

d tre

atm

ent o

f sys

tem

s in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.16

Witn

ess

pre-

com

mis

sion

ing

activ

ities

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.17

a)C

omm

issi

on a

ll sy

stem

s to

met

hod,

logi

can

d pr

ogra

mm

e (s

ee 4

.5) a

nd re

cord

resu

lts.

b)W

itnes

s sp

ecifi

ed d

emon

stra

tion

of s

yste

mco

mm

issi

onin

g re

sults

.

4.18

Witn

ess

and

reco

rd th

e sp

ecifi

ed d

emon

stra

tion

and

test

ing

of p

lant

item

s an

d sy

stem

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.19

Esta

blis

h w

ith th

e bu

ildin

g co

ntra

ctor

pro

cedu

res

to a

llow

th

e de

mon

stra

tion

of n

orm

al e

mer

genc

y, s

hutd

own

and

stan

dby

mod

e op

erat

ion

of p

lant

and

sys

tem

s.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!4.

SPE

CIF

YIN

G S

YSTE

M C

OM

MIS

SIO

NIN

G A

CTI

VITI

ES (c

ont.)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

4.13

Appr

ove

the

prop

osed

set

of i

nstru

men

ts fo

r the

com

mis

sion

ing

and

test

ing

wor

ks.

4.14

Ensu

re th

at th

e in

stru

men

tatio

n is

per

iodi

cally

cal

ibra

ted

as n

eces

sary

and

reco

rds

reta

ined

.

4.15

Witn

ess

the

flush

ing,

cle

anin

g an

d tre

atm

ent o

f sys

tem

s in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.16

Witn

ess

pre-

com

mis

sion

ing

activ

ities

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.17

a)C

omm

issi

on a

ll sy

stem

s to

met

hod,

logi

can

d pr

ogra

mm

e (s

ee 4

.5) a

nd re

cord

resu

lts.

b)W

itnes

s sp

ecifi

ed d

emon

stra

tion

of s

yste

mco

mm

issi

onin

g re

sults

.

4.18

Witn

ess

and

reco

rd th

e sp

ecifi

ed d

emon

stra

tion

and

test

ing

of p

lant

item

s an

d sy

stem

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.19

Esta

blis

h w

ith th

e bu

ildin

g co

ntra

ctor

pro

cedu

res

to a

llow

th

e de

mon

stra

tion

of n

orm

al e

mer

genc

y, s

hutd

own

and

stan

dby

mod

e op

erat

ion

of p

lant

and

sys

tem

s.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



4. S

PEC

IFYI

NG

SYS

TEM

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

ING

AC

TIVI

TIES

(con

t)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

4.20

Witn

ess

dem

onst

ratio

n of

sam

e to

spe

cifie

d re

quire

men

ts.

4.21

Witn

ess

the

parti

al lo

ad te

stin

g of

pla

nt to

the

clie

nt a

nd

desi

gner

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e co

mm

issi

onin

g sp

ecifi

catio

n .

4.22

Witn

ess

the

oper

atio

n of

the

BMS

on s

ite to

the

spec

ified

re

quire

men

ts.

4.23

Witn

ess

the

func

tiona

l tes

ting

of a

ll sa

fety

inte

rlock

s in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion.

4.24

Witn

ess

the

dem

onst

ratio

n of

aco

ustic

test

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.25

Witn

ess

the

oper

atio

n of

pla

nt a

nd s

yste

ms

for

spec

ified

pe

riods

of t

ime

to p

rove

pla

nt re

liabi

lity.

4.26

Prod

uce

com

mis

sion

ing

repo

rt de

tailin

g th

e re

sults

of t

he

com

mis

sion

ing

and

com

men

ting

on th

e pe

rform

ance

of

syst

ems.

4.27

Ensu

re th

at a

ll pl

ant s

ettin

gs a

re re

cord

ed, i

nclu

ding

ap

prop

riate

refe

renc

e to

pla

nt it

ems.

The

reco

rds

shou

ld b

e in

corp

orat

ed w

ithin

the

oper

atin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce

man

uals

.

4.28

Acce

pt c

ompl

eted

sys

tem

s.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!4.

SPE

CIF

YIN

G S

YSTE

M C

OM

MIS

SIO

NIN

G A

CTI

VITI

ES (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

4.20

Witn

ess

dem

onst

ratio

n of

sam

e to

spe

cifie

d re

quire

men

ts.

4.21

Witn

ess

the

parti

al lo

ad te

stin

g of

pla

nt to

the

clie

nt a

nd

desi

gner

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e co

mm

issi

onin

g sp

ecifi

catio

n .

4.22

Witn

ess

the

oper

atio

n of

the

BMS

on s

ite to

the

spec

ified

re

quire

men

ts.

4.23

Witn

ess

the

func

tiona

l tes

ting

of a

ll sa

fety

inte

rlock

s in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion.

4.24

Witn

ess

the

dem

onst

ratio

n of

aco

ustic

test

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

spec

ifica

tion .

4.25

Witn

ess

the

oper

atio

n of

pla

nt a

nd s

yste

ms

for

spec

ified

pe

riods

of t

ime

to p

rove

pla

nt re

liabi

lity.

4.26

Prod

uce

com

mis

sion

ing

repo

rt de

tailin

g th

e re

sults

of t

he

com

mis

sion

ing

and

com

men

ting

on th

e pe

rform

ance

of

syst

ems.

4.27

Ensu

re th

at a

ll pl

ant s

ettin

gs a

re re

cord

ed, i

nclu

ding

ap

prop

riate

refe

renc

e to

pla

nt it

ems.

The

reco

rds

shou

ld b

e in

corp

orat

ed w

ithin

the

oper

atin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce

man

uals

.

4.28

Acce

pt c

ompl

eted

sys

tem

s.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



5. P

RODU

CTIO

N O

F HA

NDO

VER

INFO

RMAT

ION

Des

ign

Activ

ity

5.1

Assi

st th

e cl

ient

in d

evel

opin

g an

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce s

trate

gy.

Advi

se o

n an

app

ropr

iate

met

hod

of p

rocu

ring

mai

nten

ance

exp

ertis

e an

d re

com

men

d th

e re

quire

d te

chni

cal c

apab

ilitie

s of

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce s

taff.

5.2

Def

ine

the

scop

e an

d co

nten

t of

oper

atin

g an

dm

aint

enan

ce m

anua

lsap

prop

riate

to th

e si

ze o

f pro

ject

, th

e cl

ient

’s o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

stra

tegy

and

the

tech

nica

l cap

abilit

y of

the

mai

nten

ance

sta

ff.

5.3

Def

ine

the

requ

irem

ent f

or

reco

rd d

raw

ings

appr

opria

te

to th

e cl

ient

’s o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

stra

tegy

.

5.4

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed fo

r a s

peci

alis

t aut

hor f

or p

rodu

ctio

n of

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

ls.

5.5

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed fo

r a s

epar

ate

surv

ey o

f ins

talle

d sy

stem

s to

faci

litat

e pr

oduc

tion

of

reco

rd d

raw

ings

5.6

Prep

are

a sp

ecifi

catio

n fo

r op

erat

ing

and

mai

nten

ance

m

anua

ls.

Spec

ify th

e se

ctio

n he

adin

gs a

nd re

quire

d te

chni

cal c

onte

nt o

f the

man

uals

.

5.7

Prep

are

a sp

ecifi

catio

n fo

r re

cord

dra

win

gs.

Spec

ify

cont

ent,

form

of d

eliv

ery

and

the

met

hod

of p

rodu

ctio

n of

th

e dr

awin

gs to

be

prod

uced

.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lEx

plan

tion

:D

esig

ner

Inst

alle

rO

ther

!5.

PRO

DUCT

ION

OF

HAND

OVE

R IN

FORM

ATIO

N

Des

ign

Activ

ity

5.1

Assi

st th

e cl

ient

in d

evel

opin

g an

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce s

trate

gy.

Advi

se o

n an

app

ropr

iate

met

hod

of p

rocu

ring

mai

nten

ance

exp

ertis

e an

d re

com

men

d th

e re

quire

d te

chni

cal c

apab

ilitie

s of

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce s

taff.

5.2

Def

ine

the

scop

e an

d co

nten

t of

oper

atin

g an

dm

aint

enan

ce m

anua

lsap

prop

riate

to th

e si

ze o

f pro

ject

, th

e cl

ient

’s o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

stra

tegy

and

the

tech

nica

l cap

abilit

y of

the

mai

nten

ance

sta

ff.

5.3

Def

ine

the

requ

irem

ent f

or

reco

rd d

raw

ings

appr

opria

te

to th

e cl

ient

’s o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

stra

tegy

.

5.4

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed fo

r a s

peci

alis

t aut

hor f

or p

rodu

ctio

n of

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

ls.

5.5

Advi

se o

n th

e ne

ed fo

r a s

epar

ate

surv

ey o

f ins

talle

d sy

stem

s to

faci

litat

e pr

oduc

tion

of

reco

rd d

raw

ings

5.6

Prep

are

a sp

ecifi

catio

n fo

r op

erat

ing

and

mai

nten

ance

m

anua

ls.

Spec

ify th

e se

ctio

n he

adin

gs a

nd re

quire

d te

chni

cal c

onte

nt o

f the

man

uals

.

5.7

Prep

are

a sp

ecifi

catio

n fo

r re

cord

dra

win

gs.

Spec

ify

cont

ent,

form

of d

eliv

ery

and

the

met

hod

of p

rodu

ctio

n of

th

e dr

awin

gs to

be

prod

uced

.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lEx

plan

tion

:D

esig

ner

Inst

alle

rO

ther

!



5. P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

OF

HAN

DO

VER

INFO

RMAT

ION

(con

t)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

5.8

Def

ine

wha

t lev

el o

f doc

umen

tatio

n, c

omm

issi

onin

g re

sults

an

d ot

her i

nfor

mat

ion

mus

t be

avai

labl

e pr

ior t

o pr

actic

al

com

plet

ion

and

hand

over

. Ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt p

ossi

ble

impl

icat

ions

of p

hase

d ha

ndov

er a

nd p

artia

lpo

sses

sion

.

5.9

Prod

uce

oper

atio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

lsin

acc

orda

nce

with

the

spec

ified

requ

irem

ents

.

5.10

Ensu

re th

at in

form

atio

n ne

eded

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e op

erat

ing

and

mai

nten

ance

man

uals

is o

btai

ned

as th

e w

orks

pro

gres

s. I

dent

ify in

divi

dual

sou

rces

of i

nfor

mat

ion.

5.11

Esta

blis

h ta

rget

dat

es fo

r whe

n in

form

atio

n m

ust

be a

vaila

ble

to th

e au

thor

of t

he o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

man

uals

. Ad

vise

on

times

cale

s fo

r pr

oduc

tion

of m

aint

enan

ce in

form

atio

n re

lativ

e to

key

dat

esie

inst

alla

tion

star

t dat

e, s

ettin

g to

wor

k, s

tart

date

s fo

r te

stin

g an

d co

mm

issi

onin

g an

d ha

ndov

er d

ates

.

5.12

Mon

itor t

he p

rogr

amm

e fo

r pro

duct

ion

of o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

man

uals

and

adju

st d

ates

to a

llow

for

prog

ress

of t

he p

roje

ct.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!5.

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N O

F H

AND

OVE

R IN

FORM

ATIO

N (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

5.8

Def

ine

wha

t lev

el o

f doc

umen

tatio

n, c

omm

issi

onin

g re

sults

an

d ot

her i

nfor

mat

ion

mus

t be

avai

labl

e pr

ior t

o pr

actic

al

com

plet

ion

and

hand

over

. Ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt p

ossi

ble

impl

icat

ions

of p

hase

d ha

ndov

er a

nd p

artia

lpo

sses

sion

.

5.9

Prod

uce

oper

atio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

lsin

acc

orda

nce

with

the

spec

ified

requ

irem

ents

.

5.10

Ensu

re th

at in

form

atio

n ne

eded

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e op

erat

ing

and

mai

nten

ance

man

uals

is o

btai

ned

as th

e w

orks

pro

gres

s. I

dent

ify in

divi

dual

sou

rces

of i

nfor

mat

ion.

5.11

Esta

blis

h ta

rget

dat

es fo

r whe

n in

form

atio

n m

ust

be a

vaila

ble

to th

e au

thor

of t

he o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

man

uals

. Ad

vise

on

times

cale

s fo

r pr

oduc

tion

of m

aint

enan

ce in

form

atio

n re

lativ

e to

key

dat

esie

inst

alla

tion

star

t dat

e, s

ettin

g to

wor

k, s

tart

date

s fo

r te

stin

g an

d co

mm

issi

onin

g an

d ha

ndov

er d

ates

.

5.12

Mon

itor t

he p

rogr

amm

e fo

r pro

duct

ion

of o

pera

ting

and

mai

nten

ance

man

uals

and

adju

st d

ates

to a

llow

for

prog

ress

of t

he p

roje

ct.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!



5. P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

OF

HAN

DO

VER

INFO

RMAT

ION

(con

t)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

5.13

Rec

eive

, ins

pect

and

com

men

t on

the

cont

ents

of t

he

oper

atin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

ls in

ord

er to

ens

ure

com

plia

nce

with

the

spec

ified

requ

irem

ents

.

5.14

Mod

ify a

nd u

pdat

e op

erat

ing

deta

ils to

refle

ctco

mm

issi

onin

g re

sults

.

5.15

Acce

pt th

e co

mpl

eted

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

ls o

n be

half

of th

e cl

ient

.

5.16

Iden

tify

key

date

s an

d in

terv

als

at w

hich

dra

ft.re

cord

dra

win

gsw

ill be

insp

ecte

d.

5.17

Mod

ify th

e re

cord

dra

win

gsas

the

wor

ks p

rogr

ess

so th

at

all a

ltera

tions

from

the

inst

alla

tion

draw

ings

are

reco

rded

as

wor

kpro

ceed

s.

5.18

Insp

ect d

raft

reco

rd d

raw

ings

at a

gree

d in

terv

als

and

com

men

t on

thei

r con

tent

with

resp

ect t

o th

e si

ze a

nd

posi

tions

of i

nsta

lled

syst

ems

and

plan

t.

5.19

Acce

pt th

e co

mpl

eted

reco

rd d

raw

ings

on b

ehal

f of t

he

clie

nt.

5.20

Prio

r to

hand

over

, mak

e re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r the

com

men

cem

ent a

nd c

arry

ing

out o

f ope

ratio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce d

urin

g an

d af

ter t

he D

efec

ts L

iabi

lity

Perio

d.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!5.

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N O

F H

AND

OVE

R IN

FORM

ATIO

N (c

ont)

Des

ign

Activ

ity

5.13

Rec

eive

, ins

pect

and

com

men

t on

the

cont

ents

of t

he

oper

atin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

ls in

ord

er to

ens

ure

com

plia

nce

with

the

spec

ified

requ

irem

ents

.

5.14

Mod

ify a

nd u

pdat

e op

erat

ing

deta

ils to

refle

ctco

mm

issi

onin

g re

sults

.

5.15

Acce

pt th

e co

mpl

eted

ope

ratin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce m

anua

ls o

n be

half

of th

e cl

ient

.

5.16

Iden

tify

key

date

s an

d in

terv

als

at w

hich

dra

ft.re

cord

dra

win

gsw

ill be

insp

ecte

d.

5.17

Mod

ify th

e re

cord

dra

win

gsas

the

wor

ks p

rogr

ess

so th

at

all a

ltera

tions

from

the

inst

alla

tion

draw

ings

are

reco

rded

as

wor

kpro

ceed

s.

5.18

Insp

ect d

raft

reco

rd d

raw

ings

at a

gree

d in

terv

als

and

com

men

t on

thei

r con

tent

with

resp

ect t

o th

e si

ze a

nd

posi

tions

of i

nsta

lled

syst

ems

and

plan

t.

5.19

Acce

pt th

e co

mpl

eted

reco

rd d

raw

ings

on b

ehal

f of t

he

clie

nt.

5.20

Prio

r to

hand

over

, mak

e re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r the

com

men

cem

ent a

nd c

arry

ing

out o

f ope

ratio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce d

urin

g an

d af

ter t

he D

efec

ts L

iabi

lity

Perio

d.

Res

pons

ibilit

y (p

leas

e tic

k)

Addi

tiona

lExp

lant

ion:

Des

igne

rIn

stal

ler

Oth

er

!

bsria allocation of design responsibility tn21-97

Documents

building services industry

building industry

bsria publication

building services sector

services professionals

bsria staff

acknowledgements bsria

update of bsria tn