case study - the life-cycle of commissioning for new ... · commissioning service provider: ......

Owner/Facility Manager: Dan Kailey and Matt BurkholderNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)

Commissioning Service Provider: Mike Luffred Eaton Energy Solutions, Inc. (Eaton)

Design Professional: Charlie RowlandRTKL/KlingStubbins, Joint Venture (JV)

Construction Manager: Mike LloydClark Balfour Beatty Construction - NCE, A Joint Venture (CBB)

The Life-Cycle of Commissioning for New ConstructionA Case Study at NGA Campus East

Approved for Public Release on PA #14-091

Agenda

• NCE Project Scope• NCE Commissioning Scope• Commissioning Process• Perspectives from

– Owner– Facility Manager– Design Professional– General Contractor– Commissioning Provider


NGA Campus East (NCE) Project Scope

• New headquarters facility for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

• Fort Belvoir North Area• Located in Springfield, Virginia• Largest BRAC 2005 building

project – 2.4 million ft2 - $1.7 billion

• Largest U.S. Government LEED 2.2 Gold project

• Eaton was Commissioning Authority (CxA) for all phases

– Design through warranty– LEED 2.2 Enhanced Cx

• Also provided third party QA


NGA Campus East (NCE) Project Scope

Visitor Control Center (VCC)

Parking Garage

Main Office Building (MOB)

Tech Center (TECH)

Central Utility Plant (CUP)

Remote Inspection Facility (RIF))


NCE Commissioning Scope

• Commissioning Scope of work– Commissioning Authority (CxA) for Campus

• Main Office Building• Central Utility Plant• Technology Center• Parking Garage• Visitor Control Center• Remote Inspection Facility• Water Feature Pump House


NCE Commissioning Scope

• Cx Scope of work (continued)• Implemented ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005 Commissioning• In pursuit of LEED 2.2 Credits EA 3.1 (Enhanced Cx)• Services Covered

– Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing– Building Automation & Power Management Systems– Building Envelope Systems– Life Safety Systems– Elevators / Escalators– Data / Voice Systems– Acoustical


How well have we done?

• Commissioning Definitions• LEED Requirements• How the Cx Project Leadership Team (PLT) worked

within the project’s governance– Phases of Commissioning– Use of Metrics and “Macro” Schedule tools to manage

expectations of senior leaders not familiar with the “black box” of the Cx process

– Successes and Challenges


Definition of Commissioning

“The Commissioning Process is a quality-oriented process for achieving, verifying, and documenting that the performance of facilities, systems, and assemblies meets defined objectives and criteria.”

- ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005

• The process is performed specifically to ensure that the finished facility operates in accordance with the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) and the construction documents.

• To be successful the commissioning process must be integrated into all phases and major elements of the project


• Prerequisite – Fundamental Cx required for LEED– Review owner’s requirements, develop plan, create final report– Verify performance and incorporate Cx into construction documents– Counts for Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1

• Point Credit – Enhanced Cx– Before Construction: Conduct design review, review submittals– After Construction: Verify training of O&M staff, review operations

after turnover– Counts for Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3

LEED – Fundamental(during construction)

LEED – Enhanced (before construction)

LEED – Enhanced(after construction)

LEED for New Construction v 2.2


Project governance

Program Board

Executive Leadership Team

Project Leadership

Team: Site

Project Leadership

Team: CUP/Tech

Project Leadership

Team: Main Bldg

Project Leadership

Team: Commissioning

Project Leadership

Team: Infrastructure

Project Leadership

Team:Ops/Deployment

Project Leadership

Team: Turnover

Stakeholders Represented at each level:USACE, NGA, DPW, Designer, Builder, IT, Security, Deployment, Facility Ops

The Commissioning project leadership team (PLT) was comprised of a cross section of members fromseveral other PLT’s and successfully integrated the Cx process into all major project facilities andelements through the resources provided by the independent third Party Commissioning Authority.


Commissioning PLT


Commissioning Process Flow


Commissioning Phases


Levels of Inspection & TestingPre Functional Inspections &

Tests

CONSTRUCTION TESTING Participants

Level 1 Factory Witness Tests - Where called for in Specifications JV, QC, QA, CxA, NGA

Level 2a On-Site Equipment Delivery Inspections QC, QA

Level 2b Installed Equipment Inspections (PFC) JV, CxA, QA, QC

Level 2c Prior to Energy or Fluid Connection Inspections CxA, QA, QC

Level 2d Manufacturers Factory Start-up and Inspections CxA, QA, QC

Level 2e As required for mechanical systems complete TAB and TAB Verification JV, CxA, QA, QC

Functional Performance Tests ACCEPTANCE TESTING Participants

Level 3 Functional Performance Tests - With Loads CxA, QA, QC, NGA

Level 3 Functional Performance Tests - Controls and External Monitoring Inspections CxA, QA, QC, NGA

Integrated Systems Testing INTEGRATED SYSTEM TESTING Participants

Level 4 Identify reliability constraints that result from normal and adverse operation tests.

All Parties

Level 4 Prove the Engineer's design for capacity and failover. All Parties

Level 4a Enhanced testing to verify monitoring and control system accuracy All Parties

Acronyms:AE – Design Professional

CxA – Eaton

QA – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Quality Assurance

QC – CBB Quality Control and Commissioning Coordinator


Main Office Building Sequence

C

K LJ

F

North Bar

South Bar

Constructed, Commissioned & turned over by “Segment”


Metrics and “Macro” Schedule Tools

• Helped manage senior leader expectations of progress for functional (acceptance) testing

• Used during Construction Phase of Cx• Tracking Mechanisms Evolved

– Macro schedule included both electrical and mechanical functional testing activities

– Metrics included deferred testing– Cx PLT wrote two simple Cx fact sheets targeted to senior

leadership providing updates of the NCE Commissioning Program

Revised 4/14/2011Mechanical H G F E D * C * Ellipse * B* A *

Projected U&P Dates 4/22/2011 4/29/2011 5/6/2011

Segment TAB Work Completed 4/21/2011 4/22/2011

Segment TAB Report Completed by CBB/Pierce 4/26/2011 5/3/2011

Segment TAB Report Submitted to USACE 3/9/2010 4/9/2010 10/25/2010 10/27/2010 1/14/2011 3/2/2011 4/4/2011 4/27/2011 5/4/2011

RTU PFCs Completed by CBB/Pierce 4/13/2011 4/8/2011 4/22/2011 4/22/2011

RTU PFCs Submitted to USACE 7/15/2010 7/23/2010 9/3/2010 10/1/2010 3/25/2011 4/15/2011 4/10/2011 4/24/2011 4/24/2011

RTU PFCs Approved 4/1/2011 4/22/2011 4/17/2011 5/1/2011 5/1/2011

BAS Pre‐PVT Completed by CBB/Pierce/Siemens 4/12/2011 4/15/2011 4/8/2011 4/20/2011 4/20/2011

BAS Pre‐PVT Submitted 7/8/2010 7/23/2010 2/1/2011 2/1/2011 4/14/2011 4/17/2011 4/10/2011 4/22/2011 4/22/2011

BAS Pre‐PVT Approved 4/21/2011 4/24/2011 4/17/2011 4/29/2011 4/29/2011

FPT Start 5/15/2010 7/13/2010 10/5/2010 10/8/2010 11/15/2010 11/23/2010 2/21/2011 2/11/2011 4/11/2011

FPT RTU Start Date 4/4/2011 4/25/2011 4/19/2011 4/29/2011 5/2/2011

FPT Floor Level Completion (VAVs) 9/3/2010 9/3/2010 9/3/2010 9/3/2010 2/18/2011 2/27/2011 4/8/2011 4/15/2011 4/22/2011

FPT Completion RTU 4/29/2011 4/29/2011 4/29/2011 4/29/2011 4/29/2011 5/20/2011 5/14/2011 5/24/2011 5/27/2011

BAS PVT Completion 2/23/2011 2/23/2011 4/29/2011 4/29/2011 5/6/2011 5/27/2011 5/21/2011 5/31/2011 6/3/2011Deferred Water TAB & Verification Complete 440 system 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 4/27/2011 3/28/20011

Deferred Water TAB & Verification Complete Hot Water system 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/30/2011 4/12/2011Deferred Water TAB & Verfi cation Complete 520 system 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 7/8/2011 5/2/2011

Deferred Air TAB Verification Complete 5/16/2011 5/23/2011 5/30/2011 6/6/2011 6/13/2011 6/20/2011 5/27/2011 6/3/2011 6/10/2011 5/9/2011

Deferred Air FPT Requirements Complete 5/23/2011 5/30/2011 6/6/2011 6/13/2011 6/20/2011 6/27/2011 6/3/2011 6/10/2011 6/17/2011 5/16/2011

ElectricalU&P PFCs Approved 10/1/2010 9/14/2010 10/1/2010 10/1/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 10/7/2010 9/23/2010

FPT Completion (less lighting) 10/5/2010 10/5/2010 10/11/2010 11/12/2010 11/12/2010 12/10/2010 11/12/2010 12/6/2010 11/12/2010

PMS PVT Complete 1/12/2010 1/13/2010 7/23/2010 8/6/2010 12/23/2010 12/23/2010 12/23/2010 12/23/2010 12/23/2010

S. Bar Cx Completion vs. APT E Float: ‐105 APT E 1/14/2011 4/29/2011

N. Bar Cx Completion vs. APT F Float: ‐63 APT F 4/1/2011 6/3/2011

Deferred Cx Completion vs. APT F Float: ‐98 7/8/2011

General Notes1. Deferred water TAB i s expected to be completed by 4/29/2011 in the CUP and 7/8/2011 i n the MOB (~100 work days)

2. Deferred Water TAB Verifi cati on wil l be completed immediately fol lowing Deferred TAB of each indivi dual system.

3. **Start Date for Deferred a ir TAB Va l idation and Rooftop Unit FPTs i s based upon the removal of ALL partitions in the MOB on approximatel y 5/9/2011 a fter fi re ala rm tes ting i s completed.

4. Deferred air TAB cons is ts of rooftop AHUs , toi let exhaus t, s ta irwel l pressuri zati on fans , miscel laneous exhaus t; 5 work days per segment.

5. Deferred FPT Requirements (rooftop AHUs , toi l et exhaus t, miscel laneous exhaus t) wil l most l ikel y occur during off‐hours ; 5 work days per segment.

6. RTU FPTs are projected to take about 5 weeks to complete per segment minus deferred i tems.

7. Firs t floor of the North Bar along with the el l ipse may not be completed and turned over unti l 4/25/2011; this wil l impact completion of fi rs t floor TAB, Mechanical FPTs and Mechanica l PVTs .

8. PFCs wil l be tracked as completed once they are s igned off by both EMC and USACE.

9. *The dates shown above for the north bar compl eti on do NOT incl ude the work associa ted with the amenities areas on the 1s t floor.

LEGENDWORKING ITEM U&P Deferred COMPLETE Sub. Comp.

MOB Commissioning ScheduleSegment

Complete

U&P

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Sub. Comp.

**Deferred Start Date

Complete

Deferred

Sub. Comp.

CompletionS. Bar Cx CompleteN. Bar Cx Complete

Deferred Cx Complete


Successes & ChallengesSuccesses

• Complied with LEED v2.2 CxCredits

• Independent 3rd Party CxA: – Helped lead a fully integrated

project team to ensured the Cxprocess was integrated into all major project facilities and elements

– Enforced compliance of acceptance testing

– Developed clear metrics for functional and integrated system testing which helped managed expectations of owner

– Captured lessons learned – Was contracted to provide post

construction Cx services during warranty period

Challenges• Phased construction presented

several challenges – Operations contractor not fully

mobilized during first major project turnover

– Major facilities were not functionally tested under load and permanent power before turnover

– Final TAB report not yet complete

• CxA was not selected until mid-design phase

• Final Report not yet completed


Owner Perspective – Design & Construction

Successes• Provided valuable experience

and lessons learned for application in future construction projects

• Thorough testing of mission-critical power and cooling systems provided a very high level of confidence in their reliability (subsequently proved by unexpected utility power losses – June 2012 Derecho)

• Provided a treasure trove of information for ongoing O&M of the Facility

Challenges• Had to overcome USACE’s

concern of managing a third party CxA – not their typical approach

• Speed and complexity of the project created inevitable schedule crunch –commissioning wasn’t on the construction contractor’s schedule in enough detail

• The last 5% of a project takes 95% of the effort – we’re not quite finished yet


Owner Perspective – Operations & Maintenance

Successes• Base operations support

contractor attained invaluable training and experience through participation in Cxactivities

• Provided opportunity to move into continuous CX

Challenges• How do we take the mountain

of data provided from the Construction CX task and translate that into a Continuous CX process?

• The delay in completing CX makes the transition to continuous CX more challenging


Design Professional Perspective

Successes

• Innovative Systems– Chilled Beams– Dual Temperature Chilled

Water System– “Pond” Standby Water

Storage– ETFE Roof System

• False Loading– Modified boiler/chiller

systems

Challenges

• Phased Turnover– Balancing Issues– System Turndown Issues

• Late Changes to the Program


General Contractor Perspectives

• Requirements for Successful Commissioning– Schedule

• Early development of construction schedule• Must incorporate ALL Cx activities with realistic

durations– Need to know the scope of the Cx process– Must have all the test scripts early

• Use the schedule to manage the commissioning process

– Review and update the schedule weekly



• Requirements for Successful Commissioning– Early Involvement of All Stakeholders

• Owner, Design Team, Construction Manager, General Contractor, Subcontractors, Commissioning Authority

– Clearly defined roles and responsibilities » Who documents the process» Who has authority to make changes» Who has authority to sign off on items

– Accountability between stakeholders– Develop relationships with all stakeholders

» Know each members’ goals and risks



• Requirements for Successful Commissioning– Subcontractor Management

• Demand a dedicated commissioning team from appropriate subcontractors

• Meet regularly with principals of the subcontractors– Hold each sub accountable for their

responsibilities– Listen to their ideas and welcome their input



• Requirements for Successful Commissioning– Staffing

• Incorporate appropriate staffing into all budgets and cost proposals

• Evaluate the requirements for each staff position– Select the “Right” person for each position– Delicate balance between project management,

field supervision, and engineering



• Takeaways– Commissioning begins prior to proposal submission– Early collaboration of all stakeholders– Develop a realistic construction schedule that

incorporates all commissioning activities– Manage the subcontractors and hold them accountable– Drive the schedule


Commissioning Provider Perspective

Successes

• Many Potential Show Stoppers Issues were Identified Early

• Warranty Issues Seem Minimal

• Results of Post Construction Occupancy Survey Favorable

• BRAC Mission was Accomplished

Challenges

• Security Requirements• Multiple Tracking Tools Used• Scale of Project• Overcoming Contractors

Preconceived Notions of Cx


Wrapping UpLessons Learned• Cx is a defined process that needs to be followed.• Clearly defined Cx expectations early to all. In particular the

definition of DONE.• Cx is only as effective as the commitment of the owner’s

representative.• UFGS master specs need to be updated to reflect current

Cx standards.• Increase facility management engineering capabilities to

address increase in complexity of facilities.• Partnering works.• “Quality is a victim of schedule”.


Questions


References

• ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005 – The Commissioning Process

• USGBC LEED® for New Construction & Major Renovations version 2.2 – October 2005


case study - the life-cycle of commissioning for new ... · commissioning service provider: ......

Documents