Commissa 2003 IT Infrastructure Quality Control and Cost Savings Through Commissioning Presented by: Bruce Torello Rick Foster, RCDD Rick Foster, RCDD

Commissa 2003 Commissioning the process of ensuring that the systems are designed, installed, functionally tested and capable of being operated and maintained to perform in conformity with the design intent. Commissioning begins with planning and includes design, start-up, acceptance and training and can applied throughout the life of the building. ASHRAE – Guidelines 1996

Commissa 2003 Commissioning building commissioning is the process for achieving, verifying and documenting that the performance of the building and its systems meet the design intent and the owner and occupant needs. Building Commissioning Guide: U.S. General Services Administration U.S. Department of Energy July 1998

Commissa 2003 History of Commissioning Origins in HVAC construction Accepted practice in the construction process Expanded to include other building utilities Third party verification Entire building commissioning

Commissa 2003 Why Commissioning ? Unclear Designs Low Bid contracting –Quality Control No established standards for performance verification Improper needs assessment Conflicts between Codes & Standards

Commissa 2003 Why Commissioning ? Inadequate documentation Need to integrate the new and complex building systems Convergence Convergence Reliability and Redundancy critical to single IP networks

Commissa 2003 Why Commissioning ? The design and integrity of the The design and integrity of the IT infrastructure should be evaluated during entire building process. From initial design, through the construction process and including network validation- not after the walls and ceilings are complete IT infrastructure should be evaluated during entire building process. From initial design, through the construction process and including network validation- not after the walls and ceilings are complete

Commissa 2003 When to Commission Life Safety Complexity of systems Building size and use Project type Business risk - Mission Critical Facilities O & M (Operations & Maintenance) considerations Bid process & economic responsibility Public Sector funding

Commissa 2003 Design Intent Determines the clients goals and objectives are met in the design phase Establishes benchmark and specifications Becomes the baseline for project scope Mandates acceptance criteria at the project inception

Commissa 2003 Economics of Commissioning Cost Saving range from 5-10% by eliminating design related change orders Deficiencies are identified and remedied before completion when it is more economical Funding commissioning as part of the project represents a 2-5% of project cost.

Commissa 2003 Economics of Commissioning Building Type Commissioning Costs AnnualSavingsSimplePayback(Years) ComputerFacilities/Office$24,00089, High Rise Office$12,745$8, MedicalInstitution$24,768$65, Existing Building Systems 1 1 Gregerson,Joan, Cost Effectiveness of Commissioning 44 Existing Buildings, in Proceedings of the National Conference of Building Commissioning

Commissa 2003 Process of Commissioning Program Phase & Project Formulation Design Phase Construction Phase Acceptance Phase & Construction Close Out Post – Acceptance Phase

Commissa 2003 Process of Commissioning Program Phase & Project Formulation Identifying the TEAM A/E Firm (Architect / Engineer) IT representative Commissioning Authority GC or Construction Manager Approvals Funding & Budgets Crucial decisions must be made early Establish Design Intent

Commissa 2003 Process of Commissioning Design Phase Architectural Review Needs assessment/inventory of IT requirements Design Intent documentation submitted IT, Facilities and Architectural review

Commissa 2003 Process of Commissioning Construction Phase Milestone monitoring Pre-functional testing Field inspections & progress reports Change order process & approval authority Modification of the design intent if required

Commissa 2003 Process of Commissioning Acceptance Phase & Construction Close- Out Functional performance testing Site Audit Warranty Audit Final documentation submittals and all test reports

Commissa 2003 Process of Commissioning Post – Acceptance Phase O&M (Operations & Maintenance) documents reviewed MAC (Moves, Adds & Changes) procedures IT requirements for MAC documentation and maintainability

Commissa 2003 IT Infrastructure What It Isnt? The IT Infrastructure is not just cable and connectors !

Commissa 2003 IT Infrastructure - What it is …all the necessary physical layer components that will effect the operational efficiency, network performance and reliability of the information system. …all the necessary physical layer components that will effect the operational efficiency, network performance and reliability of the information system.

Commissa 2003 Open Architecture vs. Proprietary Systems Open Architecture –Interoperability required by TIA 568B.1 –Lower cost –Pick and choose products Proprietary Systems –Matched and balanced for maximum performance –Warranties available –Limited product selection –Requires systems training

Commissa 2003 The intersection of Technology and Facilities IT Infrastructure Commissioning

Commissa 2003 IT Infrastructure Commissioning Application of established commissioning procedures to IT Infrastructure requirements Combination of IT expertise and construction experience Bridges the gap between IT needs and architectural specifications Ensures the reliability of the new converged technologies (IP)

Commissa 2003 Benefits of IT Commissioning Identifies the owners requirements in accordance with the design intent Cost savings by reducing change orders due to errors and omissions Quality Control Process Acts as a check & balance for low bid projects IT Staff time re-directed to core business Facility is operational – the first time

Commissa 2003 IT Commissioning Objectives Network Connectivity Power requirements Code compliance Standards verification Fire & Security requirements A/V integration Building Automation and Control integration

Commissa 2003 IT Commissioning Objectives Proper space & pathway planning Installation methods verification Testing Documentation and As-Builts Network Operability Convergence validation

Commissa 2003 Types of Commissioning Continuous Milestone Monitoring Acceptance Phase Network Operability

Commissa 2003 Case Study University Science Building –Two Buildings connected by a common atrium 120,000 sq. ft Combination Classroom/Lab/Office 1,800 Work Area Outlets – 6,000 cables 27 Telecommunications Rooms SMF/MMF Backbone for Data –972 fiber connections Copper Voice Backbone –8,100 pairs

Commissa 2003 Case Study Cable Plant Design Client Building Specifications Manufacturer's Warranty Certified Installer Commissioning Plan

Commissa 2003 Case Study Commissioning Process uncovered multiple deficiencies in cable plant and infrastructure components. Contractor contractually required to correct problems at no additional cost Estimated savings over $50,000

Installation Deficiencies Cables laying on ceiling tiles Innerduct attached to conduit Improper fiber termination method Cables laying on fixtures

Commissa 2003

Case Study Conclusions Specifications were minimally enforced Marginal workmanship issues were resolved by the warranty and commissioning IT inspection reports were overwhelming Commission Report identified additional deficiencies and subsequent corrective action. Commissioning ROI was Five to One

Commissa 2003 Information & Training Resources ASHRAE – American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers. ( GSA & Department of Energy BICSI – Building Industry Consulting Service International ( CSI – Construction Specifications Institute (

Commissa 2003 Information & Training Resources TIA/EIA – Telecommunications Industry Association ( NIBI – National Institute of Building Sciences ( BCA – Building Commissioning Association ( PECI – Portland Energy Conservation Inc.(

Commissa 2003 Information & Training Resources Additional web sites –Florida Design Initiative –University of Washington –Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers –Federal Energy Management Program