F i n a l R e p o r t Building Commissioning Practices in ... · 529 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600...

529 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204 telephone: 503.827.8416 • 800.411.0834fax: 503.827.8437

F i n a l R e p o r t

Building Commissioning Practices in NewConstruction and Existing Building Markets in the Pacific Northwest

prepared by

SBW Consulting, Inc.

report # 98-017

October 1998

SBW Consulting, Inc.Report No. 9804

FINAL REPORT

Building CommissioningPractices in New Constructionand Existing Building Markets

in the Pacific Northwest

Submitted to

NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE522 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 410,

Portland, Oregon 97204

Submitted by

SBW CONSULTING, INC.2820 Northup Way, Suite 230

Bellevue, WA 98004

in conjunction with

R.W. BECKand

KAPLAN ENGINEERING

October 1998

Building Commissioning in the Pacific Northwest

SBW Consulting, Inc. Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................Exec-1

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

2. SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION................................................................... 2

2.1 SAMPLE OF BUILDING OWNERS............................................................................ 22.2 SAMPLE OF COMMISSIONING SERVICE PROVIDERS ..................................................... 3

3. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................ 5

3.1 TELEPHONE SURVEYS....................................................................................... 53.2 ASSIGNING A COMMISSIONING LEVEL SCORE ........................................................... 53.3 RELIABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONING LEVEL SCORE .................................................. 93.4 ASSIGNING AN IMPORTANCE SCORE ..................................................................... 11

4. PRIVATE SECTOR NEW CONSTRUCTION MARKET ANALYSIS........................... 12

4.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDING OWNERS.................................... 124.2 LEVEL OF COMMISSIONING IN RECENT NEW CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 124.3 ATTRIBUTES OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONING MARKETS............................ 134.4 EXPECTED GROWTH IN NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONING MARKETS ........................ 224.5 BENEFITS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONING.................................................. 234.6 BARRIERS TO NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONING ................................................. 254.7 POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FOR EXPANDING NEW CONSTRUCTION COMMISSIONING MARKETS..... 27

5. PRIVATE SECTOR EXISTING BUILDING MARKET ANALYSIS............................. 31

5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING BUILDING OWNERS .................................................. 315.2 LEVEL OF COMMISSIONING IN EXISTING BUILDINGS.................................................. 315.3 ATTRIBUTES OF EXISTING BUILDING COMMISSIONING MARKETS ................................... 325.4 EXPECTED GROWTH IN EXISTING BUILDING COMMISSIONING MARKETS.......................... 375.5 BENEFITS OF EXISTING BUILDING COMMISSIONING ................................................... 385.6 BARRIERS TO EXISTING BUILDING COMMISSIONING................................................... 405.7 POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FOR EXPANDING EXISTING BUILDING COMMISSIONING MARKETS....... 42

6. SURVEY RESULTS FOR COMMISSIONING SERVICE PROVIDERS........................ 45

7. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INTERVENING IN THE COMMISSIONING MARKETS ....... 48

7.1 SELECTING THE BEST STRATEGIES....................................................................... 487.2 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................ 497.3 CASE STUDIES............................................................................................... 507.4 TAX CREDITS................................................................................................ 52

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Private Sector Building Owner Survey Results

A1: New Construction Practices

A2: Building Operation Practices


SBW Consulting, Inc. Page ii

Appendix B: Public Sector Building Owner Survey Results

B1: New Construction Practices

B2: Building Operation Practices

Appendix C: Analysis of Benefits, Barriers, and Strategies for Public Sector BuildingOwners

Appendix D: Commissioning Service Provider Survey Results

Appendix E: Private Sector Building Owner Survey

Part 2 - New Construction Practices

Part 3 - Building Operations Practices Same Respondent

Part 4 - Building Operations Practices Different Respondent

Appendix F: Public Sector Building Owner Survey

Part 2 - New Construction Practices

Part 3 - Building Operations Practices Same Respondent

Part 4 - Building Operations Practices Different Respondent

Appendix G: Commissioning Service Provider Survey


SBW Consulting, Inc. Page iii

TABLES

Table 1: Quota and Completions for the Sample of Private Building Owners........................................3Table 2: Completed Service Provider Surveys by Primary Type of Business........................................4Table 3: Method for Calculating Commissioning Level Score for New Construction .............................7Table 4: Continuation of New Construction Scoring............................................................................8Table 5: Method for Calculating Commissioning Level Score for Existing Buildings ............................9Table 6: Reliability of New Construction Commissioning Level Scores.............................................. 10Table 7: Reliability of Existing Building Commissioning Level Scores .............................................. 11Table 8: New Construction - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area in Sample ......................... 12Table 9: Level of Commissioning in Recent New Construction .......................................................... 13Table 10: New Construction - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area by Commissioning

Level............................................................................................................................... 14Table 11: New Construction - Familiarity with the Terms "Commissioning" and "Functional

Performance Testing"....................................................................................................... 14Table 12: New Construction - Implemented Commissioning and FPT................................................ 15Table 13: New Construction - Separate Commissioning Specifications and Budget............................. 16Table 14: New Construction - Design Review and Design Review Effectiveness ................................ 16Table 15: New Construction - Who Conducts FPT............................................................................ 17Table 16: New Construction - Future Role of FPT............................................................................ 17Table 17: New Construction - When Does HVAC Testing Staff Join Project...................................... 18Table 18: New Construction - Installation Checklists and Independent Spot Checks of Controls .......... 18Table 19: New Construction - Trending with BAS and Documentation Beyond Pass/Fail .................... 19Table 20: New Construction - Documentation of Problems, Testing Staff Hand-Off to Operators

and Operators Involved in Design/Construction Reviews.................................................... 19Table 21: New Construction - HVAC System Types......................................................................... 20Table 22: New Construction - Constant-Volume Package Rooftop Tests............................................ 20Table 23: New Construction - VAV Packaged Rooftop Tests ............................................................ 20Table 24: Continuation of VAV Packaged Rooftop Tests .................................................................. 21Table 25: New Construction - Central Chiller System Tests............................................................... 21Table 26: Continuation of Central Chiller System Tests .................................................................... 22Table 27: Future Role of FPT and Selling Potential for New Construction Markets............................. 23Table 28: Benefits of New Construction Commissioning (Rank) ........................................................ 24Table 29: Benefits of New Construction Commissioning (Raw Importance Score).............................. 25Table 30: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in New Construction Markets (Rank) ........... 26Table 31: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in New Construction Markets (Raw

Importance Score) ........................................................................................................... 27Table 32: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in New Construction Markets

(Rank)............................................................................................................................. 29Table 33: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in New Construction Markets

(Raw Importance Score)................................................................................................... 30Table 34: Existing Buildings - Number of Owners, Buildings, and Floor Area in the Sample ............... 31Table 35: Level of Commissioning in Existing Buildings .................................................................. 32Table 36: Existing Buildings - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area by Commissioning

Level in Sample ............................................................................................................... 33Table 37: Existing Buildings - Familiarity with the Terms "Commissioning" and "Functional

Performance Testing"....................................................................................................... 33Table 38: Existing Buildings - Preventive Maintenance and Fraction of Buildings Receiving

O&M Surveys ................................................................................................................. 34Table 39: Existing Buildings - Motivations for O&M Surveys ........................................................... 34Table 40: Existing Buildings - Conducted Functional Performance Tests ........................................... 35


SBW Consulting, Inc. Page iv

Table 41: Existing Buildings - Fraction of Buildings Receiving FPT for HVAC, Lighting andRefrigeration.................................................................................................................... 35

Table 42: Existing Buildings - Motivations for FPT.......................................................................... 36Table 43: Existing Buildings - Who Does FPT?................................................................................ 36Table 44: Existing Buildings - Future Role of FPT............................................................................ 37Table 45: Future Role of FPT and Selling Potential for Existing Building Markets.............................. 38Table 46: Benefits from Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Rank).................................... 39Table 47: Benefits from Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Raw Importance Score).......... 40Table 48: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Rank)............ 41Table 49: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Raw

Importance Score) ........................................................................................................... 42Table 50: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in Existing Building Markets

(Rank)............................................................................................................................. 43Table 51: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in Existing Building Markets

(Raw Importance Score)................................................................................................... 44Table 52: Service Providers - Actively Market Commissioning and Market Growth............................ 45Table 53: Service Providers - New and Existing Markets, Public and Private Markets and Last

Year's Projects................................................................................................................. 45Table 54: Service Providers - Work by Market Segment.................................................................... 46Table 55: Service Providers - Services Provided for New Construction............................................... 46Table 56: Service Providers - New Construction Services (Continued) ............................................... 46Table 57: Service Providers - New Construction Services Continued) ................................................ 47Table 58: Service Providers - Existing Building Services .................................................................. 47Table 59: Service Providers - Existing Building Services (Continued) ................................................ 47


SBW Consulting, Inc. Page Exec-1

Executive Summary

Background and Purpose

This market study, sponsored by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ("the Alliance"), is aninvestigation of the commercial building commissioning practices and related attitudes currentlyprevailing in the Pacific Northwest. It has been undertaken to provide the information needed to developa strategic plan for making commissioning “business as usual” in the Pacific Northwest over the next fiveto ten years. The effort involved a telephone survey of public and private sector Building Owner’sRepresentatives and Commissioning Service Providers in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon,Idaho, and Montana). Data from the surveys has been used to characterize baseline-commissioningpractices and develop strategies for encouraging growth of the private sector commissioning market.

Sample Design and Selection

Two samples were developed for this research. The first sample is a group of building owners, i.e., thebuyers of commissioning services (demand-side). The second sample was a group of firms who providecommissioning services, referred to as commissioning service providers (supply-side). Collectinginformation from both the demand-side and supply-side allows this study to fully characterize thecommissioning markets.

The research was limited to market segments that members of the Northwest CommissioningCollaborative believed were likely to be important future markets for commissioning services. TableExec - 1 provides a list of the market segments surveyed and the quota established for each segment. Thetable also shows the number of owners for which surveys were completed. These owners were askedabout new construction practices if they had projects that reached substantial completion during the lastthree years. We also sought respondents that could describe commissioning practices for buildings thathad been occupied for more than five years (existing buildings market).

Table Exec - 1: Quota and Completions for the Sample of Private Building Owners

Sample of Building Owners Number of Responses for…

Quota Complete

New Construction

Practices

Existing Building

Operation Practices

All Segments 130 130 95 97

Groceries 11 10 8 6

Hospitals 12 16 15 12

Hotels 16 8 3 7

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living 11 18 16 10

Offices (Commercial) 26 22 15 17

Offices (High Tech Ind) 22 16 8 16

Retail Stores 21 26 19 16

Universities/Colleges 11 14 11 13

Sector/Market Segment



A sample of 20 commissioning services providers was developed. As shown in Table Exec-2, thissample came equally from two different sources. One half was derived from various directories ofcommissioning agents and firms actively promoting their commissioning services in the PacificNorthwest. The other half was derived from the building owner surveys. Each building ownerrespondent was asked for the name of the person that most frequently conducts functional performancetests for their company. This sample design ensured a broader representation of firms that might play animportant part in the commissioning markets, including those which primarily sell other services.

Table Exec - 2: Completed Service ProviderSurveys by Primary Type ofBusiness

Primary Type of Business

Established Commissioning

Providers

Testing Firms Referred by

Building Owners

All Types 10 10

HVAC Designer 2 1HVAC Contractor 1 3TAB Contractor 0 3Controls Contractor 0 1Commissioning 7 0Other 0 2

Data Collection and Analysis

Telephone Survey

Data was collected for this market study through telephone interviews. Great effort was expended to findand recruit the best respondent for each building owner. For new construction, we sought a mid-levelproject manager, someone who had to be familiar with the owner's current and recent practices, but wasclose enough to the project front line to know about specific commissioning activities. For existingbuilding information, we sought a supervisor in the building owner's facility operations staff.

Commissioning Level Score

One of the important goals of this study was to establish a method for measuring the level ofcommissioning in recent new construction and for the existing building market (buildings occupied formore than five years). This needed to be a repeatable methodology so that a similar study could beperformed some years from now to measure the impact of the Alliance's interventions in thecommissioning market. A multi-attribute scoring method was developed to measure the level ofcommissioning in both markets. Certain questions from the interviews were selected as being keyindicators of the level of commissioning. The highest possible score in this system is 300.

Importance Score

The other major goal of this study was to gather information that could be used in formulating a strategicplan for expanding and enhancing the commissioning markets. A series of questions were asked of bothbuilding owner representatives and commissioning service providers about the benefits ofcommissioning, barriers to the expansion of commissioning activities, and strategies for overcomingthose barriers. The respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of each benefit, barrier, or strategy



in two ways. First, they were asked to rate the importance of each separately on a three-point scale. Onceall on each list had been evaluated, the respondent was then asked to choose the most important benefit,barrier, or strategy. A joint importance score was computed for each benefit, barrier, or strategy for eachrespondent.

Private Sector New Construction Market Analysis

Table Exec-3 shows the number of owners, projects, and floor area associated with the responses to thenew construction surveys. Across all market segments, the responses describe 569 projects with morethan 28 million square feet of floor area that reached substantial completion in the last three years.

Table Exec - 3: New Construction - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area in Sample

New Construction (Substantial Completion 1995-98)

Number of Projects Total Floor Area

Floor Area / Project

Market Segment

Number of

Owners Total # Miss(000's Sq.

Ft.) # Miss(000's Sq. Ft./Project)

All Segments 95 569 2 28,760 4 50.54Groceries 8 94 0 3,229 0 34.35Hospitals 15 80 0 2,089 1 26.11Hotels 3 9 0 507 0 56.28Nursing Homes/Assisted Living 16 98 0 3,623 1 36.97Offices (Commercial) 15 50 0 5,185 0 103.70Offices (High Tech Ind) 8 34 0 3,158 0 92.88Retail Stores 19 166 2 10,273 2 61.89Universities/Colleges 11 38 0 697 0 18.33

# Miss - Number of responses missing, either Don't Know or Not Asked

Responses from the surveys were used in assigning a "Level of Commissioning" score to each buildingowner participating in the market study. The mean scores for each market segment are shown in TableExec - 4.



Table Exec - 4: Level of Commissioning in Recent New Construction

Percent of Floor Area with Low, Medium and High Commissioning

Scores

Low (0 to 100

Medium (100 to 200)

High (200 to 300)

All Segments (N=95) 124 42% 39% 19%

Groceries (N=8) 88 75% 25%

Hospitals (N=15) 177 13% 33% 53%

Hotels (N=3) 76 67% 33%

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=16) 107 50% 31% 19%

Offices (Commercial) (N=15) 131 27% 53% 20%

Offices (High Tech Industrial) (N=8) 142 50% 13% 38%

Retail Stores (N=19) 106 47% 53%

Universities/Colleges (N=11) 125 45% 45% 9%


Mean Commissioning Level Score (300 point

scale) New Construction (Substantial Completion

1995-98)

Private Sector Existing Building Market Analysis

Table Exec - 5 shows the number of owners, buildings, and floor area associated with the existingbuilding surveys. Across all market segments, the responses described typical commissioning practicesfor 97 building owners, responsible for 1,650 buildings, containing more than 102 million square feet offloor area.

Table Exec - 5: Existing Buildings - Number of Owners, Buildings, and Floor Area in the Sample

Existing Buildings (Occupied for at Least Five Years)

Number of Buildings Total Floor Area

Floor Area / Building

Market Segment

Number of

Owners Total # Miss (000's Sq.

Ft.) # Miss (000's Sq.

Ft./Building)

All Segments 97 1650 0 102,939 5 62.39 Groceries 6 212 0 6,290 1 29.67 Hospitals 12 131 0 15,371 0 117.34 Hotels 7 36 0 4,020 2 111.67

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living 10 100 0 5,432 0 54.32 Offices (Commercial) 17 166 0 18,030 1 108.61 Offices (High Tech Ind) 16 230 0 15,339 0 66.69 Retail Stores 16 481 0 29,817 1 61.99 Universities/Colleges 13 294 0 8,640 0 29.39




As shown in Table Exec- 6, the existing building markets display somewhat higher commissioning scoresthan the new construction markets. A less complete set of factors was considered in forming these scores.

Table Exec - 6: Level of Commissioning in Existing Buildings


Scores

Low (0 to 100

Medium (100 to

200)

High (200 to

300)

All Segments (N=97) 153 40% 9% 51%

Groceries (N=6) 94 50% 33% 17%

Hospitals (N=12) 193 25% 8% 67%

Hotels (N=7) 168 43% 57%

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=10) 123 60% 40%



Retail Stores (N=16) 109 50% 19% 31%

Universities/Colleges (N=13) 153 46% 54%



scale) Existing Buildings (Occuppied for at Least

Five Years)

Survey Results for Commissioning Service Providers

Interviews were also conducted with a sample of 20 commissioning service providers. Ten of therespondents are representatives of firms found in various directories of commissioning agents or firmsactively promoting their commissioning services in the Pacific Northwest. The other ten were cited bybuilding owners as being the person that most frequently conducts functional performance tests for theircompany. These service providers were asked about the same topics as were the building ownerrepresentatives. Table Exec - 8 shows the type and size of the markets served by these firms.

Table Exec - 7: Service Providers - New and Existing Markets, Public and Private Markets andLast Year's Projects

Percent of Commissioning Work in New and Existing Markets

Percent of Commissioning Work in Public and Private Markets

Commissioning Related Projects in the Last Year

New Construc-

tionExisting Buildings Other* Public Private Other*

Number of Projects Floor Area

All ProvidersHVAC Designer (N=3) 93% 7% 0% 43% 57% 0% 14 1,450,000 HVAC Contractor (N=4) 65% 35% 0% 64% 36% 0% 92 18,500,000 TAB Contractor (N=3) 73% 27% 0% 45% 55% 0% 116 175,000 Controls Contractor (N=1) 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 75Commissioning (N=7) 69% 31% 0% 21% 79% 0% 56 3,730,000 Other (N=2) 46% 55% 0% 95% 6% 0% 46 675,000 Total (N=20) 69% 31% 0% 45% 55% 0% 399 24,530,000

Sample/Primary Business of the Firm



Strategic Plan for Intervening in the Commissioning Markets

The purpose of this strategic plan is to identify specific market interventions that will achieve the goal ofmaking commissioning "business as usual" over the next 5 to 10 year period. Our surveys of buildingowners and service providers produced considerable evidence that substantial portions of the newconstruction and existing building markets already practice aspects of commissioning. It is possible toconclude that commissioning is "business as usual," for at least a portion of these markets. However, thisstudy also demonstrates that there is ample room for expanding these practices. Expansion could beachieved by bringing more market segments to higher levels of commissioning practice. In addition,expansion could come from improving the depth, scope, and quality of commissioning practice.

The market study provides significant information about what interventions might be effective. Thiscomes from the opinions of owners' representatives about what would help advance the practice ofcommissioning in their own organizations. These same respondents also provided substantial informationabout perceived benefits of commissioning and barriers to its expanded practice. These opinions werereinforced by commissioning service providers who were asked the same questions. Clearly, we can notknow for sure what actions will be effective. However, the best place we have to start is with the peoplewho are on the front line, either buying commissioning services (owners representatives) or selling thoseservices (commissioning service providers). The market study provides a wealth of information fromboth of these perspectives.

As detailed as the market study was, it still only provides broad directions for the strategic plan.Deciding, in detail, how to pursue these strategic directions will have to be left to organizations thatbroadly represent the market of commissioning service buyers and sellers, such as the NorthwestCommissioning Collaborative and the Alliance.

Three strategic directions have been identified.

Education

Participants in the new construction market clearly desire educational programs that will explain testingprocedures and the benefits of commissioning. Two educational programs are needed. The first wouldfocus on members of the design community. For all market segments this should include designengineers. For most market segments the program should also address architects. The second programwould focus on the education of building owners.

There are three types of educational programs needed for the existing building markets. For some marketsegments, the provision of technical assistance for first time users is an important strategy. Educationalprograms for building owners will be important for a number of market segments. Finally, buildingoperator education is needed in many market segments

Case Studies

The lack of documented benefits was the 3rd most important barrier to commissioning in the newconstruction market. Well-crafted case studies might be the solution to this barrier although this strategywas ranked 5th overall. Certain market segments clearly see the value of case studies. Service providersalso ranked this strategy 2nd. Informal comments from respondents indicate that they would need casestudies that are specific to the type of buildings built by their organization. Respondents may believe thatcase studies would be too generic to be of use and thus discount them as an important strategy. Someadditional research should be done to determine where market segment specific case studies would be of



value. We also have some indication from owners who have built large numbers of buildings that casestudies would have to be done for one of their buildings, in order for the results to be useful.

In the exiting building market, case studies were ranked 3rd. Some market segments also gave a highrank to technical assistance for first time users of testing procedures. These two strategies can beeffectively combined. Case studies for first time users will clearly demonstrate the benefits ofcommissioning. Clearly, service providers are keen on the combination of these two strategies, as theyranked them 1st and 2nd.

Tax Incentives

Tax credits were the 2nd rank strategy for existing building markets and the 4th rank strategy for newconstruction markets. This is a complex topic and it is not clear what actions would be effective. Moreresearch should be conducted with market segment representatives to identify the specific tax credits theyfeel would be effective. This research could also identify and examine existing tax credits that have beenused for similar purposes, such as the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit. Further specification of theaction plan in this area will have to be accomplished by the experts that conduct this additional research.

What Not to Do

Sometimes what is not to be done is just as important what is to be done. The surveys for both newconstruction and existing buildings clearly identified two actions that should not be taken.

1. Professional Certification. The certification of commissioning service providers has been muchdebated over recent years. The markets do not place a high value on certification.

2. Non-Financial Awards. Some commissioning programs have relied on non-financial awards,e.g., certificates of merit, to expand the practice of commissioning. Again, the markets placelittle value on these awards.

The Alliance has limited resources for intervening in the commissioning markets. It is vital that theseresources be narrowly focused on the best possible strategies and not be diverted to common butineffective actions.


SBW Consulting, Inc. Page 1

1. Introduction

This market study, sponsored by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ("the Alliance"), is aninvestigation of the commercial building commissioning practices and related attitudes currentlyprevailing in the Pacific Northwest. It has been undertaken to provide the information needed to developa strategic plan for making commissioning “business as usual” in the Pacific Northwest over the next fiveto ten years. The effort involved a telephone survey of public and private sector Building Owner’sRepresentatives and Commissioning Service Providers in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon,Idaho, and Montana). Data from the surveys has been used to characterize baseline-commissioningpractices and develop strategies for encouraging growth of the commissioning market.

Specific objectives of this research are to:

• Determine the most appropriate market segments for commissioning.

• Identify current barriers to commissioning service delivery and broader adoption of buildingcommissioning practices.

• Determine what opportunities exist for overcoming barriers to commissioning.

• Establish a measurement technique for commissioning practices that will allow quick assessmentof market transformation effects.

One hundred and thirty surveys have been conducted with representatives of private sector buildingowners. The detailed results from the private sector surveys are tabulated in Appendix A. Strategicanalyses of the private-sector survey results, along with results from twenty surveys completed withcommissioning service providers, appear in various sections of the main body of this document. Thedetailed results of the service provider surveys are tabulated in Appendix D. The survey instruments usedwith the private sector building owners appears in Appendix E and the instrument used with serviceproviders appears in Appendix G.

In addition, fifty surveys were completed, with the help of government agency staff from each of the fourparticipating states, with public building owners. A detailed tabulation of these public sector surveyresults appears in Appendix B and a set of summary analyses of responses to questions concerningcommissioning benefits, barriers and strategies for enhancing the commissioning market appear inAppendix C. The survey instrument used with public sector building owners appears in Appendix F.



2. Sample Design and Selection

Two samples were developed for this research. The first sample is a group of building owners, i.e., thebuyers of commissioning services (demand-side). The second sample was a group of firms who providecommissioning services, referred to as commissioning service providers (supply-side). Collectinginformation from both the demand-side and supply-side allows this study to fully characterize thecommissioning markets. The following sections describe how each of these samples was developed.

2.1 Sample of Building Owners

The primary data source for the private sector building owners sample was the American BusinessInformation (ABI) – businessUSA database. This database contains 10 million business/organizationlistings compiled from yellow page listings for the entire country and supplemented by information fromother sources and ABI’s own surveys. It provides the business name, address, telephone number, contactname, employment (by ranges), sales (by ranges), primary and three auxiliary SIC codes to describe theline of business, identification of headquarters or branch offices, number of years listed in the telephonebook, and the size of the telephone book advertisement.

For a number of market segments, we supplemented the ABI listing with listings from Puget SoundBusiness Journal Office Leasing Guide, Portland Business Journal, and the BOMA Portland OfficeLeasing Guide. In addition, certain parts of the sample were uncovered by "networking" withrespondents. For example, once we understood how difficult it would be to identify the firms that buildnew hotels, we started asking each respondent in that segment to suggest other firms that they knew hadrecently built hotels. Other kinds of networking were also necessary. For example, many retail listings inABI were for firms that only lease space. We would ask these firms for the name of the firm that ownsthe building they lease.

The research was limited to market segments that members of the Northwest CommissioningCollaborative 1 believed were likely to be important future markets for commissioning services. Table 1provides a list of the market segments surveyed and the quota established for each segment. A sample listcontaining at least three times the targeted number of completed surveys for each market segment wasdeveloped. The table also shows the number of owners for which surveys were completed. These ownerswere asked about new construction practices if they had projects that reached substantial completion2

during the last three years. We also sought respondents that could describe commissioning practices forbuildings that had been occupied for more than five years (existing buildings market). The count ofowners providing information about new and existing practices is also shown in Table 1.

1 The Northwest Commissioning Collaborative provided invaluable guidance, throughout the course of this

study, on the importance of various market segments and numerous other research design issues.2 For new buildings, the date when the work or designated portion of the work is sufficiently complete in

accordance with the contract documents so the owner can occupy or utilize the space for its intended use.



Table 1: Quota and Completions for the Sample of Private Building Owners

Sample of Building Owners Number of Responses for…

Quota Complete

New Construction

Practices

Existing Building

Operation Practices

All Segments 130 130 95 97

Groceries 11 10 8 6

Hospitals 12 16 15 12

Hotels 16 8 3 7

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living 11 18 16 10

Offices (Commercial) 26 22 15 17

Offices (High Tech Ind) 22 16 8 16

Retail Stores 21 26 19 16

Universities/Colleges 11 14 11 13


The goal of this sample was to include owners that would account for a large fraction of the regional floorspace in each market segment. The floor area covered by the completed sample of owners is shown inTable 8 (New Construction) and Table 34 (Existing Buildings).

2.2 Sample of Commissioning Service Providers

A sample of 20 commissioning services providers was developed. This sample came equally from twodifferent sources. One half was derived from various directories of commissioning agents and firmsactively promoting their commissioning services in the Pacific Northwest. The other half was derivedfrom the building owner surveys. Each building owner respondent was asked for the name of the personthat most frequently conducts functional performance tests3 for their company. This sample designensured a broader representation of firms that might play an important part in the commissioning markets,including those which primarily sell other services.

Table 2 provides a breakdown of the two parts of the service provider sample, showing the number offirms by their primary type of business.

3 Defined as the process of determining the ability of a building system to perform in accordance with the design

intent, through all of the intended modes of operation.



Table 2: Completed Service Provider Surveys by Primary Type of Business

Primary Type of Business

Established Commissioning

Providers

Testing Firms Referred by

Building Owners

All Types 10 10

HVAC Designer 2 1HVAC Contractor 1 3TAB Contractor 0 3Controls Contractor 0 1Commissioning 7 0Other 0 2



3. Data Collection and Analysis

3.1 Telephone Surveys

Data was collected for this market study through telephone interviews. The interview instruments used inthis study are provided in Appendices E, F, and G. Appendix E contains a copy of the instrument used tocollect new construction and existing building data from representatives of private sector building owners.Appendix F contains a very similar instrument used to collect this same information from representativesof public sector building owners. Appendix G contains the instrument used to collect information fromcommissioning service providers.

Great effort was expended to find and recruit the best respondent for each building owner. For newconstruction, we sought a mid-level project manager, someone who had to be familiar with the owner'scurrent and recent practices, but was close enough to the project front line to know about specificcommissioning activities. Some owners outsource construction project management. In those cases, wespoke with the outsource firm and found a project manager who was familiar with the building owner's(their client) current and recent practices. For existing building information, we sought a supervisor in thebuilding owner's facility operations staff.

A recruitment specialist on our team was responsible for obtaining agreement from each owner'sorganization to participate in the survey and identifying the best respondent for new construction andexisting building information. The contact was passed to one of our mechanical engineers who wasresponsible for completing the interview. The interview involves a sufficiently technical dialogue that ithad to be conducted by an engineer who had considerable background in building systems, particularlyHVAC systems. At the start of each interview, our engineer would ask a number of questions intended toconfirm that we had the best respondent. In a number of cases, other better respondents were identifiedand contacted before we completed the survey.

Responses recorded from the telephone interview were entered in an MS ACCESS database. Thedatabase field names assigned to each question in this database are shown on the interview instruments inAppendices E, F, and G.

3.2 Assigning a Commissioning Level Score

One of the important goals of this study was to establish a method for measuring the level ofcommissioning in recent new construction and for the existing building market (buildings occupied formore than five years). This needed to be a repeatable methodology so that a similar study could beperformed some years from now to measure the impact of the Alliance's interventions in thecommissioning market.

A multi-attribute scoring method was developed to measure the level of commissioning in both markets.Certain questions from the interviews were selected as being key indicators of the level ofcommissioning. Each of these questions were given a weight based on our study team's assessment oftheir relative importance (weight ranged from 1 = least importance to 5 = most importance) in measuringthe level of commissioning. Similarly, a response score (1 = lowest level of commissioning and 5 =highest level of commissioning) was assigned to each possible response to these questions. Tables 3 and4 list the questions that were included in the new construction scoring system along with the questionweights and the response scores. The highest possible score in this system is 300.

An additional rule was applied to the portion of the score associated with the HVAC system testingquestions (15a, 15b, and 15c). Some of the respondents claimed that the tests described in these questions



were typically performed, although they did not always receive documentation of the test results (question15d). The study team felt that this might be an indication that the tests were not performed. To correctthis problem, the score for questions 15a, 15b and 15c were reduced if the answer to question 15d was not"always." If the respondent reported that documentation was received "sometimes," the score wasreduced by 50%. If the response was "never," the score was reduced by 90%.

Table 5 lists the weights and response scores that defined the existing building scoring method. Asignificantly less detailed discussion was completed with existing building respondents and thus there arefewer questions involved in this scoring method. The highest possible score for this method was 66.However, these scores were scaled-up to a maximum of 300 so that the results for both markets could bepresented in a comparable format.

The precision of both new construction and existing building scores is expected to be low. Thus, a scoreof 100 is probably not significantly different from a score of 125. To emphasize this fact, we have placedall respondents in one of three scoring categories:

• Scores from 0 to 100



Many of the survey results presented in Section 4, 5, and 6 show the fraction of respondents in each ofthese scoring categories.



Table 3: Method for Calculating Commissioning Level Score for New Construction

Question Number Question

Question Weight Response

ResponseScore

3 2 Yes 5No 0

Don't know 0

4 3 Yes 5Sometimes 3

No 0Don't know 0

5 4 Yes 5Sometimes 3

No 0Don't know 0

7 2 Yes 5No 0

Don't know 08 4 Member of the company's staff 4

Prime contractor for the project 2HVAC or controls system designer or engineer 2

HVAC or controls system contractor 2Test and Balance (TAB) subcontractor 2Test and Balance (TAB) independent 3

Independent contractor 4Independent commissioning agent 5

Don't Know 010 4 Schematic design 5

Design development 5Construction documents 4

1st 75% 3Last 25% 2

Acceptance 2Post-acceptance 1

Don't know 011 2 Yes 5

Sometimes 3No 0

Don't know 012 3 Very 5

Somewhat 3Not 0

Don't know 013a 3 Always 5

Sometimes 3Never 0

Don't know 013b 3 Always 5

Sometimes 3Never 0

Don't know 013c 4 Always 5

Sometimes 3Never 0

Don't know 0

Are checklists provided which document that all components are installed according to design documents?

Are controls and test and balance results independently spot checked?

Is trending conducted with the building automation system or separate monitoring equipment and docu-mentation provided (within the first year)?

Who usually conducts the tests to assure that the systems are working properly?

When are people involved with HVAC system testing first brought into the project?

Do you usually have the person responsible for the HVAC system testing complete a design review before construction begins?How effective are these design reviews in finding design issues that need to be resolved?

Have you ever implemented building commissioning on any of the buildings you’ve constructed (for ___________)?

In your project specs, do you include a separate section that deals with commissioning?

Do you have a separate line item in your project budgets for commissioning?

Have you ever conducted functional performance testing on equipment and systems in the buildings you construct [for



Table 4: Continuation of New Construction Scoring



ResponseScore

13d 4 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

13e 5 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

13f 3 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

14 2 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

15a 1 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

15b 4 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

15c 3 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

15d 4 Always 5Sometimes 3

Never 0Don't know 0

Mid-level testing. Specific wording for each of HVAC system types.

Trending / monitoring. Specific wording for each of three HVAC system types.

Documentation received. Specific wording for each of three HVAC system types.

Is documentation provided on the problems found by the testing and how to correct them?

Do those conducting the tests participate in “handing-off” of the building to operations staff?

How often do building operations staff attend design and construction progress review meetings?

Most basic testing (on/off). Specific wording for each of three HVAC system types.

Are test results, besides the basic TAB report, documented beyond a pass/fail indication?



Table 5: Method for Calculating Commissioning Level Score for Existing Buildings



ResponseScore

3 1 Yes 1No 0

Don't know 0

4 2 Yes 1

No 0

Don't know 04 3 none 0

less than 1/4 11/4 to 1/2 21/2 to 3/4 3

More than 3/4 45 2 Yes 5

No 0Don't know 0

5 4 none 0less than 1/4 1

1/4 to 1/2 21/2 to 3/4 3

More than 3/4 46 5 Company staff 4

Mech./Elec. contractor 2Independent agent 5

Don't know 0

Approximately what fraction of these buildings have been tested?

Who usually conducts the functional performance tests on older buildings?

Does your organization have a preventative maintenance program for its buildings in the Pacific Northwest?

Has your company conducted operations and maintenance surveys in buildings that have been occupied for more than five years? These could be whole building surveys or surveys of specific systems such as HVAC.Approximately what fraction of these buildings have been surveyed?

Has your company conducted functional performance tests on the existing systems and equipment in these same buildings?

3.3 Reliability of the Commissioning Level Score

There are many sources of error in the commissioning level scores. Much of the information used in thescoring is qualitative and subject to interpretation. It is difficult to quantitatively measure the reliabilityof this scoring method. One technique is to independently derive a second score. This was done byasking the mechanical engineer conducting the interview to place each of the respondent's organizationson a five point commissioning level scale, based on their overall impression of the scope and depth of theowner's commissioning activities. The interviewer was asked to consider the entire dialogue with eachrespondent, including the informal commentary that was not recorded in the survey database. This five-point scale was scaled-up to a 300-point maximum so that it could be compared to commissioning levelscore computed by the methods shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Separate assessments were made by theinterviewer for new construction and existing building commissioning levels. Table 6 compares theinterviewer judgement score to the more formal algorithm for each of the new construction marketsegments. In general, given the expected precision of these scales, the two scoring methods are highlyconsistent, which provides some assurance as to the reliability of the scores. Table 7 shows thiscomparison for the existing building market segments, and the result is similar.



One of the primary sources of error in the scoring method is that respondents may not be fullyknowledgeable about their firm's new construction or existing building commissioning practices. Ourrecruitment staff and the interviewing engineer went to great lengths to find the best respondent for eachbuilding owner. However, a final judgement about the quality of the respondent was not possible untileach interview was complete. At that time the interviewer was asked to assess their level of confidencethat the respondent was the best available spokesperson for that building owner. Tables 6 and 7 show thedistribution among three confidence levels (low, medium and high) for each new construction andexisting building market segment. For new construction, our interviewer gave a medium or highconfidence of having spoken to the best respondent for 82 percent of the sample. For existing buildings,this level of confidence was achieved for 96 percent of the sample.

Table 6: Reliability of New Construction Commissioning Level Scores

Interviewer Judgement

Scoring Algorithm Low Medium High

All Segments (N=95) 127 124 17% 27% 56%Groceries (N=8) 84 88 25% 13% 63%Hospitals (N=15) 175 177 13% 27% 60%Hotels (N=3) 50 76 0% 0% 100%Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=16) 80 107 38% 31% 31%Offices (Commercial) (N=15) 145 131 7% 33% 60%Offices (High Tech Ind) (N=8) 159 142 0% 13% 88%Retail Stores (N=19) 130 106 21% 37% 42%Universities/Colleges (N=11) 130 125 10% 20% 70%

Market Segment

Level of Interviewer Confidence that Best Respondent was

Interviewed


PercentMean Commissioning Level

Score (300 point scale)



Table 7: Reliability of Existing Building Commissioning Level Scores

Interviewer Judgement

Scoring Algorithm Low Medium High

All Segments (N=97) 150 153 4% 20% 76%Groceries (N=6) 125 94 17% 17% 67%Hospitals (N=12) 156 193 8% 25% 67%Hotels (N=7) 161 168 14% 29% 57%Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=10) 113 123 0% 30% 70%Offices (Commercial) (N=17) 172 186 0% 29% 71%Offices (High Tech Ind) (N=16) 192 167 0% 6% 94%Retail Stores (N=16) 108 109 6% 19% 75%Universities/Colleges (N=13) 150 153 0% 8% 92%

Market Segment

Level of Interviewer Confidence that Best Respondent was

Interviewed


PercentMean Commissioning Level

Score (300 point scale)

3.4 Assigning an Importance Score

The other major goal of this study was to gather information that could be used in formulating a strategicplan for expanding and enhancing the commissioning markets. A series of questions were asked of bothbuilding owner representatives and commissioning service providers about the benefits ofcommissioning, barriers to the expansion of commissioning activities, and strategies for overcomingthose barriers. In each case, a long list of benefits, barriers, or strategies was discussed with therespondents. The respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of each benefit, barrier, or strategyin two ways. First, they were asked to rate the importance of each separately on a three-point scale. Onceall on each list had been evaluated, the respondent was then asked to choose the most important benefit,barrier, or strategy. They were allowed to select more than one "most" important if they couldn't decideon just one.

A joint importance score was computed for each benefit, barrier, or strategy for each respondent. Thescore was equal to 1 if the respondent assigned an importance of "very" on the three point scale. Thescore was equal to 3 if the respondent selected the item as the most important in the list. The score was 4if the respondent rated the benefit, barrier or strategy as both "very" important and most important in thelist. These scores were summed by market segment and for the sample as a whole and were used to rankthe lists of benefits, barriers, and strategies. The results of these rankings were important considerationsin formulating the strategic plan that is described in the last section of this document.



4. Private Sector New Construction Market Analysis

This section provides selected results from the interviews with building owner representatives concerningtheir new construction commissioning practices and related factors. Included are all of the responses thatwere used in formulating the commissioning level scores. In addition, information is presented thatdescribes other features of the commissioning activities that are relevant to the formulation of thestrategic plan. All of the results summarized in this section are for the private sector sample .

4.1 Characteristics of New Construction Building Owners

Table 8 shows the number of owners, projects, and floor area associated with the responses to the newconstruction surveys. Across all market segments, the responses describe 569 projects with more than 28million square feet of floor area that reached substantial completion in the last three years.

Table 8: New Construction - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area in Sample


Number of Projects Total Floor Area

Floor Area / Project

Market Segment

Number of

Owners Total # Miss(000's Sq.

Ft.) # Miss(000's Sq. Ft./Project)

All Segments 95 569 2 28,760 4 50.54Groceries 8 94 0 3,229 0 34.35Hospitals 15 80 0 2,089 1 26.11Hotels 3 9 0 507 0 56.28Nursing Homes/Assisted Living 16 98 0 3,623 1 36.97Offices (Commercial) 15 50 0 5,185 0 103.70Offices (High Tech Ind) 8 34 0 3,158 0 92.88Retail Stores 19 166 2 10,273 2 61.89Universities/Colleges 11 38 0 697 0 18.33


4.2 Level of Commissioning In Recent New Construction

As described in Section 3, responses from the surveys were used in assigning a "Level ofCommissioning" score to each building owner participating in the market study. The mean scores foreach market segment are shown in Table 9.



Table 9: Level of Commissioning in Recent New Construction


Scores

Low (0 to 100

Medium (100 to 200)

High (200 to 300)

All Segments (N=95) 124 42% 39% 19%

Groceries (N=8) 88 75% 25%

Hospitals (N=15) 177 13% 33% 53%

Hotels (N=3) 76 67% 33%

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=16) 107 50% 31% 19%



Retail Stores (N=19) 106 47% 53%

Universities/Colleges (N=11) 125 45% 45% 9%



scale) New Construction (Substantial Completion

1995-98)

One of the most striking conclusions of this study is that elements of commissioning are "business asusual" in the Pacific Northwest. This is particularly true, as shown in Table 9, for certain marketsegments like Hospitals, where more than half of recent new construction has a high commissioningscore. More than a third of the High Tech Office segment also falls in this category. These high scoresdo not indicate that all possible commissioning practices have been applied. But they do demonstrate thatsignificant commissioning activity is present in the market.

Both high and low scores are of strategic interest. It may be easy to continue sales of commissioningservices to those organizations that already consider it an important part of standard construction practice,i.e., those with high score. This can provide a stable base for an expanding commissioning industry.Markets with low score should either be ignored or special programs should be developed that canovercome the resistance to commissioning in those markets.

4.3 Attributes of the New Construction Commissioning Markets

The following tables show a number of important attributes of the commissioning market as expressed bythe new construction respondents. Many of these attributes were used in constructing the level ofcommissioning scores.

Table 10 shows how the 95 new construction respondents are distributed across the commissioning levelscale. The smallest portion of the owners, projects and floor has the highest level of commissioning.



Table 10: New Construction - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area by CommissioningLevel


Owners Projects Floor Area

Market Segment Sum Missing Sum MissingSum (000's

Sq. Ft.) Missing

All Segments

0 and 100 40 0 259 2 11,302 3100 and 200 37 0 206 0 11,553 1200 and 300 18 0 104 0 5,905 0All Cx Scores 95 0 569 2 28,760 4

Percent of Owners WithCx Score Between

Respondents were asked about their familiarity with the terms "commissioning" and "functionalperformance testing." As seen in Table 11, the fraction of respondents familiar with these terms riseswith the commissioning level score. These questions were not part of the commissioning level scoringand thus this relationship lends more credence to the scoring procedure.

This table, as will be the case with many others in this analysis, also shows the percent of floor area andprojects that are associated with each of the possible responses to the survey questions. In addition, thenumber of respondents associated with each scoring level is shown in parentheses, e.g., (N=40). Percentsare rounded to the closest whole number. For each question, these percents for all response categories,e.g., Yes, No and Other, add to 100 percent, plus or minus the rounding error.

Table 11: New Construction - Familiarity with the Terms "Commissioning" and"Functional Performance Testing"


Familiar with the Term "Commissioning"

Familiar with the Term "Functional Performance

Testing"

Yes No Other* Yes No Other*

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=40) 48% 53% 0% 43% 53% 5%100 and 200 (N=37) 70% 30% 0% 59% 41% 0%200 and 300 (N=18) 89% 11% 0% 89% 11% 0%All Cx Scores (N=95) 64% 36% 0% 58% 40% 2%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 59% 41% 0% 53% 46% 1%Percent of Floor Area 68% 32% 0% 54% 45% 1%

Market Segment


* "Other" includes "Don't Know", "Did Not Ask", and "Not Applicable (N/A)" responses.

Table 12 shows the fraction of the respondents that implemented commissioning or functionalperformance testing (FPT). This question is used in the commissioning level score. However, it



contributes only a small portion of the overall score. Again, we see the fraction of "yes" responses risingwith the commissioning level score. More respondents had conducted FPT than commissioning. Theterm commissioning, although familiar to many people, is not well defined. The interview was designedto avoid the use of this word as much as possible. Instead, the interviewer tried to establish a commondefinition for FPT with each respondent. FPT is a core commissioning activity. The presence of FPTwas considered a strong indication of the presence of commissioning, even if the respondents were notfamiliar with or misunderstood the term "commissioning."

Table 12: New Construction - Implemented Commissioning and FPT


Implemented Commissioning for Any Buildings

Conducted Functional Performance Testing


All Segments



Market Segment



Tables 13 through 20 tabulate the survey results for a number of other project-level attributes of the newconstruction commissioning activities.



Table 13: New Construction - Separate Commissioning Specifications and Budget

Separate Commissioning Section in Project Specifications

Separate Commissioning Line Item in Project Budgets

Yes NoSome-times Other* Yes No

Some-times Other*

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=40) 3% 93% 0% 5% 0% 98% 0% 3%100 and 200 (N=37) 24% 76% 0% 0% 5% 86% 0% 8%200 and 300 (N=18) 44% 56% 0% 0% 28% 61% 11% 0%All Cx Scores (N=95) 19% 79% 0% 2% 7% 86% 2% 4%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 23% 76% 0% 1% 12% 82% 5% 2%Percent of Floor Area 26% 73% 0% 1% 19% 76% 2% 3%


Market Segment



Table 14: New Construction - Design Review and Design Review Effectiveness

Person Responsible for HVAC System Testing Completes a Pre-

Construction Design Review Effectiveness of Design Reviews

Yes NoSome-times Other* Very

Some-what Not Other*

All Segments




Market Segment





Table 15: New Construction - Who Conducts FPT

Who Conducts HVAC Functional Performance Tests

Company Staff

Prime Contrac-

tor

HVAC or Controls System

Designer or Engineer

HVAC or Controls System

Contractor

Test and Balance (TAB)

Subcon-tractor

Test and Balance (TAB)

Indepen-dent

Indepen-dent

Contrac-tor

Indepen-dent

Commis-sioning Agent Other*

No Testing Done

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=40) 8% 0% 8% 45% 18% 20% 3% 0% 0% 0%100 and 200 (N=37) 19% 0% 16% 24% 3% 24% 8% 5% 0% 0%

200 and 300 (N=18) 28% 6% 11% 17% 0% 17% 0% 22% 0% 0%All Cx Scores (N=95) 16% 1% 12% 32% 8% 21% 4% 6% 0% 0%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 10% 1% 8% 25% 17% 24% 7% 9% 0% 0%Percent of Floor Area 15% 3% 4% 22% 10% 30% 6% 9% 0% 0%



Market Segment


Table 16: New Construction - Future Role of FPT


Future Role of HVAC Functional Performance Test

Greater Lesser Same Other*

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=40) 35% 0% 45% 20%100 and 200 (N=37) 49% 0% 43% 8%200 and 300 (N=18) 39% 0% 44% 17%All Cx Scores (N=95) 41% 0% 44% 15%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 39% 0% 51% 9%Percent of Floor Area 43% 0% 50% 7%


Market Segment




Table 17: New Construction - When Does HVAC Testing Staff Join Project


When HVAC Testing Staff Are First Brought into a Project

Schematic Design

Design Develop-

ment

Construc-tion

Documents

First 75% of Construc-tion Period

Last 25% of Construction

Period Acceptance

Post-Accept-

ance Other*No Testing

Done

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=40) 8% 0% 3% 15% 50% 10% 3% 13% 0%100 and 200 (N=37) 22% 0% 0% 8% 46% 3% 3% 19% 0%200 and 300 (N=18) 28% 0% 17% 11% 0% 0% 0% 44% 0%All Cx Scores (N=95) 17% 0% 4% 12% 39% 5% 2% 21% 0%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 9% 0% 6% 9% 59% 4% 1% 13% 0%Percent of Floor Area 13% 0% 6% 9% 49% 5% 0% 18% 0%

Market Segment



Table 18: New Construction - Installation Checklists and Independent Spot Checks of Controls

Installation Checklists ProvidedIndependent Spot Check of Controls

and Test and Balance Results

AlwaysSome-times Never Other* Always

Some-times Never Other*

All Segments




How Often are (or do) …


Market Segment




Table 19: New Construction - Trending with BAS and Documentation Beyond Pass/Fail

Trending with Building Automation System

Test Results Documented Beyond Pass/Fail



All Segments






Market Segment


Table 20: New Construction - Documentation of Problems, Testing Staff Hand-Off to Operatorsand Operators Involved in Design/Construction Reviews

Documentation of Problems FoundTesting Staff Participate in Hand-Off

to Operations StaffOperations Staff Attend Design and

Construction Progress Review Meetings


Some-times Never Other* Always


All Segments

0 and 100 (N=40) 18% 3% 60% 20% 43% 5% 40% 13% 20% 18% 55% 8%100 and 200 (N=37) 51% 19% 19% 11% 57% 14% 30% 0% 38% 24% 35% 3%200 and 300 (N=18) 94% 6% 0% 0% 83% 11% 6% 0% 56% 22% 22% 0%All Cx Scores (N=95) 45% 9% 33% 13% 56% 9% 29% 5% 34% 21% 41% 4%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 53% 5% 35% 7% 48% 7% 43% 3% 24% 19% 54% 2%Percent of Floor Area 64% 6% 24% 6% 49% 6% 42% 3% 35% 12% 52% 1%




Market Segment


In addition to the project-level attributes, we also asked questions that are more detailed about FPT forHVAC systems. These questions were tailored to the specific testing requirements of three different typesof HVAC systems. The number of owners who cited each type as typical of the systems used in theirprojects is shown in Table 21. Tables 22 through 26 show how frequently each type of testing wasperformed and documented for each of these three HVAC system types.



Table 21: New Construction - HVAC System Types

System TypeNumber of

Owners

Constant-Volume Packaged Rooftop 44VAV Packaged Rooftop 26Central Chiller System 16Do Not Know or Missing 9

Table 22: New Construction - Constant-Volume Package Rooftop Tests


Constant-Volume Packaged Rooftop

Confirm Automatic On/Off Controls Verify Damper Operation How Often are Tests Documented


Some-times Never Other* Always


All Segments

0 and 100 (N=19; 13; 2)** 58% 5% 0% 37% 47% 5% 5% 42% 5% 0% 58% 37%100 and 200 (N=22; 7; 5)** 77% 9% 9% 5% 91% 5% 0% 5% 73% 5% 18% 5%200 and 300 (N=3; 6; 9)** 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

All Cx Scores (N=44; 26; 16)** 70% 7% 5% 18% 73% 5% 2% 20% 45% 2% 34% 18%Percent of Projects/Buildings 79% 3% 4% 14% 70% 14% 3% 13% 50% 1% 38% 11%Percent of Floor Area 61% 4% 17% 18% 73% 7% 4% 16% 57% 1% 28% 14%

Market Segment


* "Other" includes "Don't Know", "Did Not Ask", and "Not Applicable (N/A)" responses.** The three N values refer to the number of respondents whose buildings typically contained Constant-Volume Packaged Rooftop

Units, VAV Packaged Rooftop Units, and Central Chiller Systems, respectively.

Table 23: New Construction - VAV Packaged Rooftop Tests

Confirm Automatic On/Off Controls

Thermostats Adjusted to Test Fan Speeds, Duct Pressures and VAV Box

Damper Positions'



All Segments

0 and 100 (N=19; 13; 2)** 46% 0% 15% 38% 46% 0% 8% 46%100 and 200 (N=22; 7; 5)** 57% 0% 0% 43% 14% 43% 14% 29%200 and 300 (N=3; 6; 9)** 100% 0% 0% 0% 83% 17% 0% 0%All Cx Scores (N=44; 26; 16)** 62% 0% 8% 31% 46% 15% 8% 31%



VAV Packaged Rooftop

Market Segment






Table 24: Continuation of VAV Packaged Rooftop Tests

Room Temperatures Monitored for Several Days How Often are Tests Documented



All Segments




VAV Packaged Rooftop

Market Segment




Table 25: New Construction - Central Chiller System Tests


Central Chiller Systems

Chilled Water and Condensing Water Temperature Controls Tested

On/Off Control Confirmed on Chillers, Towers and Pumps



All Segments



Market Segment






Table 26: Continuation of Central Chiller System Tests


Central Chiller Systems

Chiller, Tower, and Pump Status and Chilled Water Temperature Monitored

for Several Days How Often are Tests Documented



All Segments



Market Segment




4.4 Expected Growth In New Construction Commissioning Markets

Functional Performance Testing (FPT) is a core service within the commissioning market. Attitudesabout the future role of FPT are indicative of the market's overall interest in commissioning. Unlike theexisting building market, none of the new construction respondents expects a lesser future role for FPT.In fact, as shown in Table 27, 41 percent expect a greater role. Considerable variability exists acrossmarket segments, but in general, the potential for growth is strong.

In general, the expectations of service providers for high future sales potential match the ownersexpectation for increasing FPT. However, there are major disconnects for certain market segments. Forexample, 50 percent of Groceries expect a greater role for FPT, but only 5 percent of providers see thissector as having high potential for future sales. Service provider expectations are too high in othersegments, such as Hospitals, where 65 percent of providers expect high potential, but only 47 percent ofowners expect to expand the role of FPT.

These data have a number of strategic uses. They can be used immediately by service providers toimprove the targeting of their marketing efforts. In formulating a long-term plan, we can chose toconcentrate on markets that are moving rapidly, i.e., where most participants expect to expand their use ofFPT and probably other related commissioning practices.



Table 27: Future Role of FPT and Selling Potential for New Construction Markets

Future Role of New Construction Functional Performance Test

(Percent of Owners)

Greater Lesser SameDon't Know High Moderate Low

Don't Know

All Segments (N=95) 41% 44% 15% 29% 31% 28% 13%

Groceries (N=8) 50% 38% 13% 5% 10% 65% 20%

Hospitals (N=15) 47% 40% 13% 65% 15% 10% 10%

Hotels (N=3) 33% 67% 5% 40% 45% 10%

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=16) 31% 44% 25% 15% 35% 30% 20%

Offices (Commercial) (N=15) 53% 33% 13% 25% 45% 20% 10%

Offices (High Tech Industrial) (N=8) 50% 50% 60% 25% 5% 10%

Retail Stores (N=19) 26% 58% 16% 10% 40% 40% 10%

Universities/Colleges (N=11) 45% 36% 18% 45% 40% 5% 10%


Potential Opportunity for Selling New Construction Commissioning Services

(Percent of Providers)

4.5 Benefits of New Construction Commissioning

Table 28 is the first of a series of tables that show the results of the "importance scoring" described inSection 3. In this table, a series of benefits were ranked according to the importance score. The rawscore that is the basis for this ranking is shown in Table 29. The rank of each benefit was determined asfollows. First rank was assigned to the highest raw importance score. The next highest was assignedsecond rank, and so on down to the lowest score. If two benefits had the same raw score they receivedthe same rank and the next rank was skipped. Thus if a rank is missing from the series, there must havebeen at least on tie among the higher rank benefits. For example, the All Segments ranking, shows a tiefor 7th place, thus no 8th rank appears in that list.

Tables 28 and 29 show the results of the ranking and scoring for the importance of various newconstruction commissioning benefits. A somewhat surprising conclusion is that owners cite "Greaterenergy efficiency" as the third most important benefit. This is not true for some markets, like High TechOffices, where owners put this benefit in 12th place. This attitude was counterbalanced by Retail Stores,Commercial Offices, and Hospitals that all ranked this benefit in 2nd place. Clearly, service providers willbe surprised by the owners' attitudes, as they placed this benefit in 8th place.

The other benefits ranked 2nd (fewer occupant complaints) and 1st (reduced operations and maintenanceexpenses) were less surprising. Service providers seem to anticipate the value of reducing occupantcomplaints: they also ranked this benefit 2nd. However, they are disconnected from the value of reducedoperations and maintenance expense, as they ranked this benefit 5th.

It seems evident that in order for the strategic plan to be a success, it must address the highest valuebenefits of commissioning. These vary somewhat by sector, for example, the 3rd most important benefitfor retail store owners is fewer post-acceptance operational deficiencies. This may have a lot to do withthe firm deadlines they face for opening facilities and the extreme cost of customer dissatisfaction iffacilities open with major flaws. Another example is the 3rd rank given by hotel owners to less litigation.This may reflect the generally complex arrangements that are used to develop hotels. We found thatmany of these owners are not the ultimate operators of the facilities, but develop these properties to be



used by other organizations. Another, not too surprising example, is the high rank given to increasedoccupant productivity by High Tech Offices and Universities.

Table 28: Benefits of New Construction Commissioning (Rank)

Benefits All

Seg

men

ts (N

=95)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=8)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=15)

Hot

els

(N=3

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (N

=16)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=15)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=8

)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=19)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=11)

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs (N

=20)

Fewer contractor call-backs 6 7 7 6 8 6 5 4 8 4

Fewer warranty claims 11 12 8 6 10 6 6 8 9 9

Less litigation involving occupants, designers or contractors

12 7 13 3 10 6 14 10 9 6

Fewer building operator complaints. 7 5 8 11 8 13 6 6 11 3

Fewer occupant complaints 2 2 1 2 14 1 1 4 1 2

Takes less time to get system up and running optimally

7 7 11 6 10 14 2 8 4 6

Fewer post-acceptance operational deficiencies

4 6 4 6 2 3 8 3 4 1

More complete/higher quality operations and maintenance manuals.

13 14 12 11 4 10 8 13 11 9

Better operations and maintenance training

10 7 5 6 3 10 8 11 14

Greater energy efficiency 3 4 2 3 6 2 12 2 4 8

Enhanced professional credibility or reputation for you or your staff.

13 13 13 11 10 5 8 12 11

Increase productivity for building occupants

9 7 8 11 6 10 3 14 2 11

Increased equipment lifetime 5 2 5 3 4 4 12 7 2 12

Reduced operations and maintenance expenses

1 1 3 1 1 6 4 1 7 5

Rank by Importance



Table 29: Benefits of New Construction Commissioning (Raw Importance Score)

Benefits All

Seg

men

ts (N

=95)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=8)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=15)

Hot

els

(N=3

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (N

=16)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=15)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=8

)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=19)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=11)

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs (N

=20)

Fewer contractor call-backs 72 4 11 2 8 11 8 20 8 16

Fewer warranty claims 56 3 10 2 6 11 7 10 7 10

Less litigation involving occupants, designers or contractors

48 4 7 3 6 11 2 8 7 12

Fewer building operator complaints. 61 7 10 1 8 7 7 15 6 21

Fewer occupant complaints 126 10 33 5 4 24 15 20 15 30

Takes less time to get system up and running optimally

61 4 9 2 6 6 13 10 11 12

Fewer post-acceptance operational deficiencies

91 6 15 2 15 15 6 21 11 32

More complete/higher quality operations and maintenance manuals.

45 0 8 1 11 8 6 5 6 10

Better operations and maintenance training

59 4 13 2 14 8 6 7 5 0

Greater energy efficiency 115 9 31 3 10 19 5 27 11 11

Enhanced professional credibility or reputation for you or your staff.

45 1 7 1 6 12 6 6 6 0

Increase productivity for building occupants

60 4 10 1 10 8 10 4 13 9

Increased equipment lifetime 83 10 13 3 11 14 5 14 13 5

Reduced operations and maintenance expenses

128 22 23 6 18 11 9 29 10 13

Raw Importance Score

4.6 Barriers to New Construction Commissioning

Table 30 and 31 shows how owners and providers rank and score the importance of various barriers to anexpanded role for commissioning. There is unanimous agreement that the most important barrier is theadded cost of testing. The strategic plan must include actions that will counter-act this belief, if this is aproblem of owner perceptions. If it is a real problem, i.e., benefits do not outweigh the costs ofcommissioning, actions must be taken to reduce the cost of testing. Carefully constructed, objective casestudies can be used to determine whether costs are higher than they need to be, or if not, to demonstrate toowners that commissioning costs are outweighed by commissioning benefits.

There is some variation in the ranking of other barriers across market segments. Retail respondents arealone in ranking the lack of a certification process for testing vendors 3rd. Hotels, Commercial Offices



and Universities are the only sectors where respondents thought that "a belief that tests are part ofstandard practice" was a very important barrier. They shared this opinion with the service providers whoalso gave this barrier 2nd rank. The added cost of specifying tests should also be given carefulconsideration, as 3 market sectors ranked it 3rd, along with service providers, and 3 more sectors ranked it4th.

Table 30: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in New Construction Markets (Rank)

Barriers All

Seg

men

ts (N

=95)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=8)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=15)

Hot

els

(N=3

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (N

=16)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=15)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=8

)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=19)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=11)

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs (N

=20)

Not knowing who to hire to perform these tests

6 3 10 9 8 5 10 5 4 8

A belief that the tests are part of standard design/ construction practices

4 2 6 1 5 2 5 4 3 2

Not knowing how to organize or implement these tests

8 3 10 9 8 6 7 7 8 5

The added cost of developing test specifications

5 3 3 4 4 8 3 11 4 3

The added cost of conducting tests 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

The added contractor costs to resolve issues

8 8 5 4 5 9 10 6 8 6

The lines of responsibility in the design and construction team get confused if an independent agent performs the tests

10 10 6 9 3 9 5 10 11 9

Lack of documented benefits 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 2 2 4

Disruption of construction schedule 2 7 2 1 2 3 1 7 6 9

Lack of standardized testing procedures 11 10 8 4 8 9 7 9 8 11

Lack of certification process for testing service vendors

7 8 9 4 8 6 7 3 6 7

Rank by Importance



Table 31: Barriers to Expande d Role for Commissioning in New Construction Markets (RawImportance Score)

Barriers All

Seg

men

ts (N

=95)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=8)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=15)

Hot

els

(N=3

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (N

=16)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=15)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=8

)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=19)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=11)

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs (N

=20)


32 6 1 1 3 6 0 9 6 4

A belief that the tests are part of standard design/ construction practices

60 8 6 5 4 18 2 10 7 24


25 6 1 1 3 5 1 7 1 7


43 6 11 2 5 3 7 3 6 10

The added cost of conducting tests 160 13 26 5 33 28 13 22 20 32

The added contractor costs to resolve issues

25 1 7 2 4 2 0 8 1 6

The lines of responsibility in the design and construction team get confused if an independent agent performs the tests

24 0 6 1 8 2 2 5 0 3

Lack of documented benefits 68 6 10 2 4 13 7 12 14 9

Disruption of construction schedule 84 2 14 5 21 17 13 7 5 3

Lack of standardized testing procedures 20 0 5 2 3 2 1 6 1 2


31 1 3 2 3 5 1 11 5 5


4.7 Possible Strategies for Expanding New Construction Commissioning Markets

Tables 32 and 33 show how owners and service providers rank and score the importance of variousstrategies that might be used to expand the commissioning market. This information provides the mostspecific guidance in formulating the strategic plan. It also provides immediate feedback to serviceproviders about how they can effectively market their services.

The table clearly indicates that various educational strategies should be pursued. These should focus ondesign engineers, architects and building owners, which were given respectively, 1st, 2nd and 3rd rank, inthe overall by building owners. Service providers agree on the importance of educating building owners



and architects, but they rank design engineers 5th. Groceries are alone in ranking the education ofcontractors 2nd. This may reflect a special problem that deserves attention.

Commercial Offices and Retail Stores ranked tax credits 1st. This strategy tied for 2nd with Groceries.Overall, building owners ranked tax credits 4th. This could be an extremely challenging strategic arena.Modifying state and local tax laws is possible, but difficult. More detailed discussions are needed withrepresentatives of the markets that ranked this highest. We need to understand what tax credits would beeffective and whether there are similar tax programs for other purposes that have been effective. Theinterest in tax credits may be indicative of a general interest in incentives. Each of the respondents wasasked if they could think of other strategies. A substantial fraction mentioned rebates or other financialincentives for commissioning projects. Perhaps, the desire for tax credits is just an indication of a broaderdesire for cash incentives of some sort.

In the overall, case studies ranked 5th. This seems consistent with the high rankings given to education, ascase studies could be an important part of an educational strategy. Service providers seem to agree, asthey ranked this strategy 2nd, along with Commercial Offices and Retail Stores. Three other sectorsranked this strategy 4th.

These tables also show what not to do in the strategic plan. Certification of testing firms was ranked 10th

in importance and non-financial awards was ranked 14th. Certification has been greatly debated, andservice providers in general will be relieved that building owners generally agree that this is of littleimportance.



Table 32: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in New Construction Markets(Rank)

All

Seg

men

ts (

N=9

5)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=8)

Hos

pita

ls (

N=1

5)

Hot

els

(N=3

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (

N=1

6)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=15)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h T

ech

Indu

stria

l) (N

=8)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=19)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=11)

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs (

N=2

0)

4 2 7 8 4 1 11 1 14 7

7 6 12 8 7 3 4 9 6 11

9 10 9 4 12 9 6 9 5 13

10 10 11 2 10 12 11 5 8 8

5 9 4 8 10 2 4 2 4 2

6 5 4 4 7 8 8 5 3 4

14 12 14 11 14 14 13 14 13 13

Building owners3 7 1 2 3 3 3 7 9 1

Architects2 2 3 1 2 12 2 9 2 3

Design Engineers 1 1 2 4 1 6 1 2 1 5

Contractors 8 2 10 4 5 11 6 4 7 6

Trade Conventions 13 7 12 11 12 10 10 7 12 8

Trade Publications 10 12 6 11 7 5 13 12 10 10

Internet 12 12 7 11 6 6 8 13 11 11

Technical assistance for first-time users of testing proceduresNon-financial awards programs and free publicity in trade journalsEducation programs explaining test procedures and benefits for

Providing information about test procedures and benefits through:

Strategies

Rank by Importance

Tax credits

Standardized test proceduresStandardized test specifications for construction documents

Certification for testing firms

Case studies that demonstrate benefits of testing



Table 33: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in New Construction Markets (RawImportance Score)

All

Seg

men

ts (

N=9

5)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=8)

Hos

pita

ls (

N=1

5)

Hot

els

(N=3

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (

N=1

6)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=15)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h T

ech

Indu

stria

l) (N

=8)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=19)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=11)

Ser

vice

Pro

vide

rs (

N=2

0)

72 8 8 1 13 25 2 15 0 9

54 6 3 1 7 13 8 7 9 3

46 2 7 2 5 7 6 7 10 2

38 2 5 5 6 2 2 9 7 5

68 3 14 1 6 14 8 11 11 28

65 7 14 2 7 8 5 9 13 15

9 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 2

Building owners81 4 23 5 14 13 9 8 5 32

Architects83 8 15 6 17 2 11 7 17 19

Design Engineers 107 13 16 2 19 9 12 11 25 12

Contractors 53 8 6 2 10 3 6 10 8 11

Trade Conventions 31 4 3 0 5 5 4 8 2 5

Trade Publications 38 1 10 0 7 11 1 4 4 4

Internet 36 1 8 0 8 9 5 2 3 3

Technical assistance for first-time users of testing proceduresNon-financial awards programs and free publicity in trade journalsEducation programs explaining test procedures and benefits for


Strategies


Tax credits

Standardized test proceduresStandardized test specifications for construction documents





5. Private Sector Existing Building Market Analysis

Interviews were also conducted with owner representatives concerning commissioning related activitiesfor their stock of buildings that have been occupied for more than five years (our definition of the existingbuilding market).

5.1 Characteristics of Existing Building Owners

Table 34 shows the number of owners, buildings, and floor area associated with the responses to thesesurveys. Across all market segments, the responses described typical commissioning practices for 97building owners, responsible for 1,650 buildings, containing more than 102 million square feet of floorarea.

Table 34: Existing Buildings - Number of Owners, Buildings, and Floor Area in the Sample


Number of Buildings Total Floor Area

Floor Area / Building

Market Segment

Number of

Owners Total # Miss (000's Sq.

Ft.) # Miss (000's Sq.

Ft./Building)

All Segments 97 1650 0 102,939 5 62.39 Groceries 6 212 0 6,290 1 29.67 Hospitals 12 131 0 15,371 0 117.34 Hotels 7 36 0 4,020 2 111.67

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living 10 100 0 5,432 0 54.32 Offices (Commercial) 17 166 0 18,030 1 108.61 Offices (High Tech Ind) 16 230 0 15,339 0 66.69 Retail Stores 16 481 0 29,817 1 61.99 Universities/Colleges 13 294 0 8,640 0 29.39


5.2 Level of Commissioning In Existing Buildings

As shown in Table 35, the existing building markets display somewhat higher commissioning scores thanthe new construction markets. A less complete set of factors was considered in forming these scores, asdescribed in Section 3. In particular, no questions were asked about specific functional performance tests(FPT) for each type of HVAC system. However, the interview was sufficiently detailed to provideconvincing evidence that many building owners practice FPT of some sort. Considerable variations existacross market segments. There are some similarities to the patterns observed in the new constructionmarkets, with low scores going to Groceries and Retail Stores and the highest score going to Hospitals.

Although commissioning scores are high, these existing building markets may not be fertile grounds forservice providers. Based on other survey results we know that owner’s staff conducts FPT for more than50 percent of existing building floor area (Table 43). This is dramatically different than for newconstruction where only 15 percent of project floor area are tested by owner's staff (Table 15). This isconsistent with the finding from service providers that they do only 31 percent of their commissioningbusiness in the existing building market (Table 53). Making commissioning business as usual in the



existing building market may require strategies that are focused on the owner's staff and not on the serviceproviders.

Table 35: Level of Commissioning in Existing Buildings


Scores

Low (0 to 100

Medium (100 to 200)

High (200 to 300)

All Segments (N=97) 153 40% 9% 51%

Groceries (N=6) 94 50% 33% 17%

Hospitals (N=12) 193 25% 8% 67%

Hotels (N=7) 168 43% 57%

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=10) 123 60% 40%



Retail Stores (N=16) 109 50% 19% 31%

Universities/Colleges (N=13) 153 46% 54%



scale) Existing Buildings (Occuppied for at Least

Five Years)

5.3 Attributes of Existing Building Commissioning Markets

As for new construction, the survey gathered considerable information about conditions of the existingbuilding commissioning market. This information was compiled from representatives of building ownerswho were knowledgeable about their organization's building operating practices, specifically as it appliedto buildings that had been occupied for more than five years. This is a dramatically different market thanthe new construction market. The commissioning process is inherently different, as are the skills andbackgrounds of the building owner's staff.

Table 36 shows the distribution of the commissioning level scores across building owners. Unlike thenew construction markets, the existing building markets seem to contain a large number of owners whichdo little commissioning and a large number that do a lot, with a small group in the mid-range.



Table 36: Existing Buildings - Number of Owners, Projects, and Floor Area by CommissioningLevel in Sample


Owners Buildings Floor Area

Market Segment Sum Missing Sum MissingSum (000's

Sq. Ft.) Missing

All Segments

0 and 100 39 0 586 0 26,631 4100 and 200 9 0 313 0 16,300 0200 and 300 49 0 751 0 60,008 1All Cx Scores 97 0 1,650 0 102,939 5


As shown in Table 37, the relationship between the number of respondents familiar with the term"commissioning" and FPT and the commissioning score was not as strong as seen in the new constructionresponses. The term "commissioning" has mostly been used to refer to new construction activities. It isnot surprising to find more confusion about these terms in the existing building market.

Table 37: Existing Buildings - Familiarity with the Terms "Commissioning" and"Functional Performance Testing"


Familiar with the Term "Commissioning"

Familiar with the Term "Functional Performance

Testing"


All Segments

0 and 100 (N=39) 48% 52% 0% 87% 5% 8%100 and 200 (N=9) 67% 33% 0% 100% 0% 0%

200 and 300 (N=49) 56% 44% 0% 100% 0% 0%All Cx Scores (N=97) 54% 46% 0% 95% 2% 3%


Market Segment



Tables 38 through 44 show the results for a variety of questions that characterize activities related tocommissioning in existing buildings. Included are all of the responses that were used in forming theexisting building commissioning score.



Table 38: Existing Buildings - Preventive Maintenance and Fraction of BuildingsReceiving O&M Surveys

Have a Preventive Maintenance (PM)

ProgramConduct Operations and Maintenance

(O&M) Surveys

Fraction of Buildings

Yes No Other* 0 < 1/41/4 to 1/2

1/2 to 3/4 > 3/4

All Segments





Market Segment


Table 39: Existing Buildings - Motivations for O&M Surveys

Motivations for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Surveys(when applicable)

Percent that Selected …

Operator Complaint

Occupant Complaint

Change in Building Use

Cost Reduction

Done on Periodic

ScheduleOther

Reasons

All Segments




Market Segment




Table 40: Existing Buildings - Conducted Functional Performance Tests


Conducted Functional Performance Tests

Yes No Other*

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=39) 0% 100% 0%100 and 200 (N=9) 56% 33% 11%200 and 300 (N=49) 100% 0% 0%All Cx Scores (N=97) 56% 43% 1%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 58% 37% 5%Percent of Floor Area 67% 27% 6%

Market Segment



Table 41: Existing Buildings - Fraction of Buildings Receiving FPT for HVAC, Lighting andRefrigeration

HVAC Systems Automatic Sweep Lighting Controls Refrigeration Systems

Fraction of Buildings Fraction of Buildings Fraction of Buildings

0 < 1/41/4 to

1/21/2 to

3/4 > 3/4 0 < 1/41/4 to

1/21/2 to

3/4 > 3/4 0 < 1/41/4 to 1/2

1/2 to 3/4 > 3/4

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=39) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%100 and 200 (N=9) 67% 0% 0% 22% 0% 67% 0% 0% 11% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 11%200 and 300 (N=49) 2% 12% 4% 8% 73% 4% 4% 2% 6% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%All Cx Scores (N=97) 47% 6% 2% 6% 37% 47% 2% 1% 4% 14% 5% 0% 0% 0% 2%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 47% 4% 3% 11% 33% 49% 6% 1% 6% 11% 3% 0% 0% 0% 9%Percent of Floor Area 35% 6% 3% 10% 45% 39% 7% 2% 5% 12% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Conduct Functional Performance Testing on ..



Market Segment



Table 42: Existing Buildings - Motivations for FPT

Percent that Selected … Percent that Selected …

Operator Complaint

Occupant Complaint

Change in Building Use

Cost Reduction

Done on Periodic

ScheduleOther

Reasons

All Segments



Motivations for Functional Performance Testing(when applicable)


Market Segment


Table 43: Existing Buildings - Who Does FPT?

Who Conducts Functional Performance Tests

Company Staff

Mechanical / Electrical Contractor

Indepen-dent Testing

AgentOther

Personnel Other*No Testing

Done

All Segments





Market Segment

• "Other" includes "Don't Know", "Did Not Ask", and "Not Applicable (N/A)" responses.



Table 44: Existing Buildings - Future Role of FPT

Future Role of Functional Performance Test

Greater Lesser Same Other*

All Segments

0 and 100 (N=39) 36% 5% 44% 15%100 and 200 (N=9) 44% 0% 56% 0%200 and 300 (N=49) 47% 6% 41% 6%All Cx Scores (N=97) 42% 5% 43% 9%

Percent of Projects/Buildings 41% 4% 51% 3%Percent of Floor Area 46% 3% 46% 5%



Market Segment


5.4 Expected Growth In Existing Building Commissioning Markets

In general, a large portion of the market expects a greater future role for FPT and thus probably for othercommissioning activities. However, there are some instances, notably in Universities, where owners maybe retrenching. This could be due to poor returns on a portion of their previous testing program.

Provider's selling expectation do not seem to be sufficiently strong in general with only 28% seeing highgrowth opportunities, while 42% of owners expected a greater future role for FPT. However, if suppliersrealize that the owner’s staff does much of this work, their expectations may be realistic. There aredisconnects between provider and owner expectations in certain segments including Hotels, NursingHomes, and Retail Stores.



Table 45: Future Role of FPT and Selling Potential for Existing Building Markets

Future Role of Existing Building Functional Performance Testing (Percent of Owners)

Greater Lesser SameDon't Know High Moderate Low

Don't Know

All Segments (N=97) 42% 5% 43% 9% 28% 26% 31% 14%

Groceries (N=6) 17% 67% 17% 5% 15% 60% 20%

Hospitals (N=12) 58% 8% 25% 8% 60% 15% 15% 10%

Hotels (N=7) 43% 43% 14% 5% 30% 55% 10%

Nursing Homes/Assisted Living (N=10) 40% 40% 20% 15% 35% 25% 25%

Offices (Commercial) (N=17) 41% 47% 12% 35% 35% 20% 10%

Offices (High Tech Industrial) (N=16) 63% 6% 25% 6% 45% 30% 10% 15%

Retail Stores (N=16) 31% 63% 6% 10% 25% 50% 15%

Universities/Colleges (N=13) 31% 23% 46% 50% 25% 15% 10%

Potential Opportunity for Selling Existing Building Commissioning Services

(Percent of Providers)


5.5 Benefits of Existing Building Commissioning

Table 46 is the first of a series of tables that show the results of the "importance scoring" described inSection 3. In this table, a series of benefits were ranked according to the importance score. The rawscore that is the basis for this ranking is shown in Table 47. The rank of each benefit was determined asfollows. First rank was assigned to the highest raw importance score. The next highest was assignedsecond rank, and so on down to the lowest score. If two benefits had the same raw score they receivedthe same rank and the next rank was skipped. Thus if a rank is missing from the series, there must havebeen at least on tie among the higher rank benefits. For example, there is a three-way tie for 3rd place inGroceries, thus no 4th or 5th rank appears in that list.

The ranking of commissioning benefits is very similar to that found for the new construction market.Again, the top three rank benefits include fewer occupant complaints, reduced operations andmaintenance expenses and greater energy efficiency, although the rank order is somewhat different. Inthe 4th rank is increased equipment lifetime, and based on the raw scores, in Table 47, this is nearly asimportant as greater energy efficiency.



Table 46: Benefits from Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Rank)

Benefits All S

egm

ents

(N=9

7)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=6)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=12)

Hot

els

(N=7

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssist

ed L

iving

(N=1

0)

Offic

es (C

omm

ercia

l) (N

=17)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=1

6)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=16)

Uni

vers

ities/

Col

lege

s (N

=13)

Fewer occupant complaints 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

Increased building occupant productivity 5 3 6 5 5 6 4 5 5

Greater energy efficiency 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3

Increased equipment lifetime 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 4 2

Reduced operations and maintenance expense

2 1 2 4 1 4 2 2 4

Less litigation involving occupants 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 6

Rank by Importance



Table 47: Benefits from Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Raw Importance Score)

Benefits All S

egm

ents

(N=9

7)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=6)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=12)

Hot

els

(N=7

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssist

ed L

iving

(N=1

0)

Offic

es (C

omm

ercia

l) (N

=17)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=1

6)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=16)

Uni

vers

ities/

Col

lege

s (N

=13)

Fewer occupant complaints 209 6 28 19 14 40 39 34 29

Increased building occupant productivity 63 6 6 4 6 8 12 9 12

Greater energy efficiency 136 6 18 18 15 21 13 25 20

Increased equipment lifetime 131 7 19 7 9 27 12 24 26

Reduced operations and maintenance expense

149 13 24 6 19 15 26 27 19

Less litigation involving occupants 44 1 9 4 3 11 5 5 6


5.6 Barriers to Existing Building Commissioning

Tables 48 and 49 show that the two sides of the cost/benefit equation (added cost of testing and lack ofdocumented benefits) are the most important barriers to expanding commissioning practices in theexisting building markets. This is consistent with the overall market opinion found for new construction,but here there is even less variability across market segments. Obviously, strategies are needed for eithercontrolling costs or objectively documenting that benefits outweigh costs.



Table 48: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (Rank)

Barriers All S

egm

ents

(N=9

7)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=6)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=12)

Hot

els

(N=7

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssist

ed L

iving

(N=1

0)

Offic

es (C

omm

ercia

l) (N

=17)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=1

6)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=16)

Uni

vers

ities/

Col

lege

s (N

=13)


6 5 6 4 4 4 7 6 4


7 4 6 2 4 5 6 7 7


3 3 4 4 2 3 5 4 3

The added cost of conducting tests 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Lack of documented benefits 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 2

Lack of standardized testing procedures 4 5 4 4 4 6 4 2 6


5 5 3 4 4 7 3 5 5

Rank by Importance



Table 49: Barriers to Expanded Role for Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (RawImportance Score)

Barriers All S

egm

ents

(N=9

7)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=6)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=12)

Hot

els

(N=7

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssist

ed L

iving

(N=1

0)

Offic

es (C

omm

ercia

l) (N

=17)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=1

6)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=16)

Uni

vers

ities/

Col

lege

s (N

=13)


19 0 2 2 1 8 1 1 4


15 1 2 5 1 4 2 0 0


53 4 5 2 10 9 5 9 9

The added cost of conducting tests 193 10 29 13 26 36 26 27 26

Lack of documented benefits 93 19 9 3 8 17 14 12 11

Lack of standardized testing procedures 36 0 5 2 1 2 6 19 1


23 0 6 2 1 1 7 3 3


5.7 Possible Strategies for Expanding Existing Building Commissioning Markets

Table 50 and 51 show how owners rank the importance of various strategies that might be used to expandthe existing building commissioning market. The desire for educational programs is strong as was foundfor the new construction markets. However, the focus here is on building operators, although 5 of themarkets rank education of owners 1st, 2nd or 3rd. The focus on operator education is not surprising giventhe amount of commissioning that is being done by owner's staff. Looking at the raw scores in Table 51,there is little difference in the importance assigned to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ranked strategies, respectively,case studies, building owner education, and technical assistance for first time users. These comprise alogical set of highly related actions, and all need to be given serious consideration in the strategic plan.

The 3rd ranked strategy, case studies, parallels the two most important barriers (Tables 48 and 49), whichrelated to costs and benefits. Case studies if done objectively, could provide the information neededabout benefits, especially, if they focus on those benefits ranked most important by building owners.Case studies might also uncover cost problems and potential solutions, i.e., ways to improve the costeffectiveness of various commissioning services.



Building owners ranked tax credits 2nd. This might be a general expression of interest in financialincentives. As in the case of new construction, when asked for other strategies besides those listed in thetable a substantial fraction mentioned rebates or other financial incentives for commissioning projects.More information is needed to understand the types of tax credits that might be implemented and whetherthey would be effective in expanding commissioning practice, or whether the markets just desire somesort of cash incentives.

This table also shows what not to do in the strategic plan. Certification of testing firms was ranked 9th inimportance and non-financial awards was ranked 12th. As with the new construction markets, it seemsthat the service providers can cease the debate over certification.

Table 50: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in Existing Building Markets(Rank)

All

Seg

men

ts (N

=97)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=6)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=12)

Hot

els

(N=7

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (N

=10)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=17)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=1

6)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=16)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=13)

2 5 4 2 2 1 1 7 3

6 5 10 9 7 8 4 4 9

9 8 11 9 10 6 12 8 10

3 3 5 7 1 5 5 1 2

5 5 3 5 5 4 1 5 1

12 8 12 3 11 12 9 12 5

Building owners 4 1 2 1 4 3 7 3 5

Building operator 1 1 1 5 3 2 3 5 4

Contractors 8 4 6 7 9 10 8 11 7

Trade Conventions 10 8 8 12 7 11 5 10 11

Trade Publications 10 8 7 11 12 7 11 9 11

Internet 7 8 8 3 6 9 10 2 7


Rank by Importance

Non-financial awards programs and free publicity in trade journalsEducation programs explaining test procedures


Technical assistance for first time users of testing procedures

Strategies

Standardized test procedures


Tax credits



Table 51: Strategies for Expanding the Role of Commissioning in Existing Building Markets (RawImportance Score)

All

Seg

men

ts (N

=97)

Gro

cerie

s (N

=6)

Hos

pita

ls (N

=12)

Hot

els

(N=7

)

Nur

sing

Hom

es/A

ssis

ted

Livi

ng (N

=10)

Offi

ces

(Com

mer

cial

) (N

=17)

Offi

ces

(Hig

h Te

ch In

dust

rial)

(N=1

6)

Ret

ail S

tore

s (N

=16)

Uni

vers

ities

/Col

lege

s (N

=13)

93 1 10 9 14 21 18 9 11

50 1 3 2 5 7 16 11 5

29 0 2 2 3 11 1 6 4

92 9 9 3 17 12 9 20 13

84 1 11 4 9 15 18 10 16

24 0 1 6 1 2 6 1 7

Building owners 88 10 13 11 11 16 8 12 7

Building operator 96 10 14 4 13 19 17 10 9

Contractors 36 2 7 3 4 5 7 2 6

Trade Conventions 27 0 4 0 5 3 9 3 3

Trade Publications 27 0 5 1 0 9 4 5 3

Internet 47 0 4 6 6 6 5 14 6


Technical assistance for first time users of testing procedures

Strategies

Standardized test procedures


Tax credits



Non-financial awards programs and free publicity in trade journalsEducation programs explaining test procedures



6. Survey Results for Commissioning Service Providers

Interviews were also conducted with a sample of 20 commissioning service providers. Ten of therespondents are representatives of firms found in various directories of commissioning agents or firmsactively promoting their commissioning services in the Pacific Northwest. The other ten were cited bybuilding owners as being the person that most frequently conducts functional performance tests for theircompany. These service providers were asked about the same topics as were the building ownerrepresentatives. Tables 52 through 59 show the results from these interviews. Each of the tables presentresults summarized by the primary types of business conducted by the participating firms. The majorityof the firms interviewed are not primarily in the commissioning business. However, as shown in Table52, there is almost unanimous agreement that the commissioning market is growing. Table 53 shows thatmost of the current work (69%) is in new construction markets. Surprisingly, most of the current work isthe private sector. In total, these respondents participated in 399 commissioning projects last yearassociated with buildings that contained more than 24 million square feet of floor area.

Table 52: Service Providers - Actively Market Commissioning and Market Growth

Actively Market Commissioning Commissioning Market Growing

Yes No Other* Growing Stable Declining Other*

All ProvidersHVAC Designer (N=3) 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%HVAC Contractor (N=4) 67% 33% 0% 75% 0% 0% 0%TAB Contractor (N=3) 67% 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% 0%Controls Contractor (N=1) 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Commissioning (N=7) 100% 0% 0% 0%Other (N=2) 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% Total (N=20) 60% 40% 0% 80% 5% 0% 0%



Table 53: Service Providers - New and Existing Markets, Public and Private Markets and LastYear's Projects

Percent of Commissioning Work in New and Existing Markets

Percent of Commissioning Work in Public and Private Markets

Commissioning Related Projects in the Last Year

New Construc-

tionExisting Buildings Other* Public Private Other*

Number of Projects Floor Area

All ProvidersHVAC Designer (N=3) 93% 7% 0% 43% 57% 0% 14 1,450,000 HVAC Contractor (N=4) 65% 35% 0% 64% 36% 0% 92 18,500,000 TAB Contractor (N=3) 73% 27% 0% 45% 55% 0% 116 175,000 Controls Contractor (N=1) 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 75Commissioning (N=7) 69% 31% 0% 21% 79% 0% 56 3,730,000 Other (N=2) 46% 55% 0% 95% 6% 0% 46 675,000 Total (N=20) 69% 31% 0% 45% 55% 0% 399 24,530,000



The respondents were asked to list the market segments in which they do most of their work. They wereallowed to cite more than one segment. Hospitals and School Districts were the most frequently citedsegments.



Table 54: Service Providers - Work by Market Segment

Market Segments in Which Firm Does Most of Its Commissioning Work

Hos-pitals

Nursing Homes Hotels

Grocery Stores

Retail Stores

Private Uni-

versitiesPublic Uni-

versities

Public School

Districts

High Tech Office

Other Private Office

Public Office

All ProvidersHVAC Designer (N=3) 67% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 67% 33% 33% 0% 67%HVAC Contractor (N=4) 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 50% 50% 50% 25%TAB Contractor (N=3) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 33% 67% 0%Controls Contractor (N=1) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Commissioning (N=7) 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% 14% 57% 57% 14% 29% 29%Other (N=2) 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% Total (N=20) 50% 5% 0% 5% 0% 10% 45% 50% 40% 45% 30%


Tables 55 through 57 show how often various commissioning services are provided as part of newconstruction commissioning projects.

Table 55: Service Providers - Services Provided for New Construction

Pre-Construction Design Review Trending of System Operations

Always OftenSome-times Never Other* Always Often


All ProvidersHVAC Designer (N=3) 67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 67% 0% 0% 33% 0%HVAC Contractor (N=4) 25% 25% 50% 0% 0% 75% 0% 25% 0% 0%TAB Contractor (N=3) 67% 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 0%Controls Contractor (N=1) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%Commissioning (N=7) 29% 57% 14% 0% 0% 71% 0% 29% 0% 0%Other (N=2) 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 50% 0% 50% Total (N=20) 40% 30% 20% 5% 5% 55% 5% 25% 10% 5%

Sample/Primary Business


Table 56: Service Providers - New Construction Services (Continued)

Documentation of Test Results Beyond Simple Pass/Fail Indication

Document Problems Found and How to Correct Them

Always OftenSome-times Never Other* Always Often







Table 57: Service Providers - New Construction Services Continued)

Participate in "Handing-Off" Building to Operations Staff

Always OftenSome-times Never Other*

All ProvidersHVAC Designer (N=3) 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%HVAC Contractor (N=4) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%TAB Contractor (N=3) 33% 33% 33% 0% 0%Controls Contractor (N=1) 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%Commissioning (N=7) 29% 57% 14% 0% 0%Other (N=2) 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% Total (N=20) 50% 35% 10% 0% 5%



Tables 58 and 59 show how often various commissioning services are provided as part of existingbuilding commissioning projects.

Table 58: Service Providers - Existing Building Services

O&M Surveys Testing to Confirm Operating Conditions

Sample/Primary Business Always OftenSome-times Never Other* Always Often




Table 59: Service Providers - Existing Building Services (Continued)

Documentation of Test Results Beyond Simple Pass/Fail Indication

Document Problems Found and How to Correct Them

Sample/Primary Business Always OftenSome-times Never Other* Always Often






7. Strategic Plan for Intervening in the Commissioning Markets

The purpose of this strategic plan is to identify specific market interventions that will achieve the goal ofmaking commissioning "business as usual" over the next 5 to 10 year period. Our surveys of buildingowners and service providers produced considerable evidence that substantial portions of the newconstruction and existing building markets already practice aspects of commissioning. It is possible toconclude that commissioning is "business as usual," for at least a portion of these markets. However, thisstudy also demonstrates that there is ample room for expanding these practices. Expansion could beachieved by bringing more market segments to higher levels of commissioning practice. In addition,expansion could come from improving the depth, scope, and quality of commissioning practice. How caneither type of expansion be achieved? We attempt to answer that question in the balance of this section.

The market study provides significant information about what interventions might be effective. Thiscomes from the opinions of owners' representatives about what would help advance the practice ofcommissioning in their own organizations. These same respondents also provided substantial informationabout perceived benefits of commissioning and barriers to its expanded practice. These opinions werereinforced by commissioning service providers who were asked the same questions. Clearly, we can notknow for sure what actions will be effective. However, the best place we have to start is with the peoplewho are on the front line, either buying commissioning services (owners representatives) or selling thoseservices (commissioning service providers). The market study provides a wealth of information fromboth of these perspectives.

As detailed as the market study was, it still only provides broad directions for the strategic plan. Forexample, we know from the study that the most important barrier to expanded commissioning practice isthe building owner perception that the required testing adds cost to new construction projects. Thisclearly indicates the need for objective case studies that demonstrate the payback from commissioning,i.e., that costs can be balanced by benefits. In fact, we also know from the market study that some ofthese same owners believe case studies, which demonstrate benefits, would be the most effective methodfor expanding commissioning practice. Thus, the study provides solid strategic direction. However, asfor this example, the study does not provide details on what actions to take. What, for example, is thebest way to develop and disseminate case studies. Deciding, in detail, how to pursue these strategicdirections will have to be left to organizations that broadly represent the market of commissioning servicebuyers and sellers, such as the Northwest Commissioning Collaborative and the Alliance.

7.1 Selecting the Best Strategies

The market situation analysis, presented in the preceding sections, identified three strategic directions:

1. Education (including technical assistance for first time users).

2. Case Studies.

3. Tax Incentives.

The survey results also demonstrated that the specific actions needed to advance in any of these directionsdepend very much upon which market (new or existing) and which market segments (e.g., Hospitals,Retail Stores), are the target.

Sometimes what is not to be done is just as important what is to be done. The surveys for both newconstruction and existing buildings clearly identified two actions that should not be taken.



1. Professional Certification. The certification of commissioning service providers has been muchdebated over recent years. The markets do not place a high value on certification.

2. Non-Financial Awards. Some commissioning programs have relied on non-financial awards,e.g., certificates of merit, to expand the practice of commissioning. Again, the markets placelittle value on these awards.

The Alliance has limited resources for intervening in the commissioning markets. It is vital that theseresources be narrowly focused on the best possible strategies and not be diverted to common butineffective actions.

7.2 Educational Programs

7.2.1 New Construction Markets

Participants in this market clearly desire educational programs that will explain testing procedures and thebenefits of commissioning. Two educational programs are needed. The first would focus on members ofthe design community. For all market segments this should include design engineers. For most marketsegments, the exceptions being Commercial Office and Retail Stores, the program should also addressarchitects. The second program would focus on the education of building owners, although this programshould not target the University market and will probably not be effective in Retail Stories and Groceries.

Although not formally addressed by the market study, the authors of this plan believe that theseeducational programs should have the following features:

1. Designer (architects and engineers) education programs should be done through in-houseseminars at the largest firms in the region. It is simply too hard to get busy professionals toattend educational seminars of this sort at remote locations.

2. The role of designers in the commissioning process must be fully clarified before theeducational materials are prepared. Should designers write specifications for commissioningor should they just clearly indicate their support for thorough commissioning of their designsand the subsequent construction effort? What are the goals of the commissioning designreview and how should the designer participate in this review?

3. Owner education programs should be delivered through existing trade associations, with theendorsement of those trade associations.

4. Market segment specific materials should be developed for owner education. Owners needspecifics applicable to their projects.

Following are the major tasks that the Alliance will need to complete in order to implement theseeducational programs.

1. Establish specific learning goals for each target group.

2. Prepare appropriate instructional materials.

3. Recruit and train instructors.

4. Market these educational programs and recruit participants



5. Schedule and conduct the training sessions.

6. Evaluate effectiveness of the programs.

7.2.2 Existing Building Markets

There are three types of educational programs needed for the existing building markets. For a number ofmarket segments, the provision of technical assistance for first time users is an important strategy. This isat or near the top of the agenda for Universities, High Tech Offices, and Hospitals. Educational programsfor building owners will be important for Groceries, Hotels, Hospitals, Commercial Offices and RetailStores. Finally, building operator education needs to occur for Groceries, Hospitals, Nursing Homes,Commercial Offices, and High Tech Offices. A number of market segments believe that case studies willbe an effective strategy for accomplishing these educational programs, including Groceries, NursingHomes, Retail Stores and Universities. All of these segments have building owners that operate largecollections of buildings. Case studies prepared for representative buildings could be replicated manytimes within these organizations.

Although not formally addressed by the market study, the authors of this plan believe that theseeducational programs should have the following features:

1. Technical assistance is an expensive undertaking. It needs to be combined with the programthat develops case studies (see next section of this plan). Case studies for first time users willclearly demonstrate the benefits of commissioning. They will also not be burdened by theneed to overcome poor prior commissioning practice. However, it will be important toremove from the cost/benefit analysis any costs associated with educating new users.

2. Owner and operator education programs should be delivered through existing tradeassociations, with the endorsement of those trade associations.

3. Market segment specific materials should be developed for owner and operator education.Owners and operators need specifics applicable to their projects.

The Alliance will need to complete the same tasks specified for new construction educational programs inorder to implement these existing building educational programs.

7.3 Case Studies

7.3.1 New Construction Markets

The lack of documented benefits was the 3rd most important barrier to commissioning in this market.Well-crafted case studies might be the solution to this barrier although this strategy was ranked 5th

overall. Certain market segments clearly see the value of case studies, particularly Commercial Officesand Retail Stores, where it received 2nd rank. Service providers also ranked this strategy 2nd. Informalcomments from respondents indicate that they would need case studies that are specific to the type ofbuildings built by their organization. Respondents may believe that case studies would be too generic tobe of use and thus discount them as an important strategy. Some additional research should be done todetermine where market segment specific case studies would be of value. We also have some indicationfrom owners who have built large numbers of buildings that case studies would have to be done for one oftheir buildings, in order for the results to be useful.



If these case studies are prepared, they need to address the highest ranked benefits and barriers for eachmarket segment. For most segments, the case studies must quantify the impact of commissioning onoccupant complaints and reduced operations and maintenance expense. For all segments, they mustquantify the added cost of conducting tests. Case studies for Hospitals, Hotels, Nursing Homes,Commercial Offices and High Tech Offices must also address the impact of commissioning onconstruction schedules.

Although not formally addressed by the market study the authors of this plan believe that these newconstruction case studies should have the following features:

1. Clearly document the team building requirements of successful commissioning efforts.Enthusiasm and firm support from building owners, the prime contractor and designers seemsto be required.

2. Case studies must be prepared by objective parties, not by the staff responsible for specifyingor implementing the commissioning activities.

3. Case studies must be prepared by market segment experts, who understand the details of whatis important to each type of building owner.

Following are the major tasks that the Alliance will need to complete in order to implement this newconstruction case study program.

1. Design and field-test case study format. Determine what information should be includedand the best way to present the information.

2. Recruit building owners willing to provide staff time, who have active new constructionprograms, and are willing to provide access to the design/build team and the constructionsite for a typical project. They also should be owners who are anxious to use the casestudy results.

3. Hire case study authors, who are expert in each market segment to be treated.

4. Conduct the commissioning activities, fully documenting benefits and costs.

5. Prepare and disseminate case studies.

6. Evaluate effectiveness of the program.

7.3.2 Existing Building Markets

Case studies were highly ranked by Groceries, Nursing Homes and Retail Stores and in the overallachieved 3rd rank. Two other market segments gave a high rank to technical assistance for first time usersof testing procedures. These two strategies can be effectively combined, even though the respondents tothe survey do not see a strong relationship between these two strategies. Case studies for first time userswill clearly demonstrate the benefits of commissioning. They will also not be burdened by the need toovercome prior poor commissioning practice. Clearly, service providers are keen on the combination ofthese two strategies, as they ranked them 1st and 2nd.

The case studies must address the highest ranked benefits and barriers for each market segment. For allsegments, the case studies must quantify the impact of commissioning on occupant complaints, reduced



operations and maintenance expense, and greater energy efficiency. For all segments, the case studiesmust quantify the added cost of specifying and conducting tests. It also appears that the case studiesshould document the impact of commissioning on equipment lifetime in Groceries, Hospitals, Hotels,Commercial Offices and Universities.

Although not formally addressed by the market study the authors of this plan believe that these existingbuilding case studies should have the following features:

1. Document what portion of the commissioning effort can be carried out by operations staffand the skills and experience these staff need to be successful.

2. Case studies must be prepared by objective parties, not by the staff responsible for specifyingor implementing the commissioning activities.

3. Case studies must be prepared by market segment experts, who understand the details of whatis important to each type of building owner.

The Alliance will need to complete the same tasks specified for the new construction case study programin order to implement an existing building case study program.

7.4 Tax Credits

Tax credits were the 2nd rank strategy for existing building markets and the 4th rank strategy for newconstruction markets. This is a complex topic and it is not clear what actions would be effective. Moreresearch should be conducted with market segment representatives to identify the specific tax credits theyfeel would be effective. This research could also identify and examine existing tax credits that have beenused for similar purposes, such as the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit. Further specification of theaction plan in this area will have to be accomplished by the experts that conduct this additional research.

When asked for other strategies, many respondents mentioned rebates and a substantial number indicatedthat they were most important. Tax credits may be rising to the top because it is the only financialincentive in the standard list of strategies presented to the survey respondents.

F i n a l R e p o r t Building Commissioning Practices in ... · 529 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600...

Documents

Transcript of F i n a l R e p o r t Building Commissioning Practices in ... · 529 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600...