The Trouble with Building Management Systems

 

“The Trouble with Building Management Systems…….”

 

Control and Building Management Systems (BMS) represent the highest technological aspects of the building construction process which, in view of the impending burgeoning of Integrated Systems, are due to become even more so in the foreseeable future. 

 

This influx of integrated systems projects will also create a situation where main and management contractors will be made acutely aware that BMS and Integrated Systems are much more sophisticated and complex entities than brickwork or concrete, and of their increasing importance within the modern building construction process.

 

Three areas of long term, major concern for the Control & BMS industry continue to be design & specification, contractual arrangements, and commissioning.

 

Design & specification, with regard to the degree of its completion prior to invitation of tenders, how much is left to be developed post contract, and what are the responsibilities of the various parties in delivering the end-users real needs.

 

Contractual arrangements, in the context of communications and interactions between the various parties in the contractual chain, and how current practice can and does have a detrimental effect upon building end-user satisfaction.

 

Commissioning, from the industry’s standpoint of the time needed to complete it properly, what is needed to facilitate it, and when it should be implemented to ensure end user satisfaction.

 

It is the industry’s considered view that changes are necessary in all three areas to better enable control and BMS specialist contractors to deliver customer satisfaction and, in so doing, enhance the overall performance of the construction process in pursuit of greater customer satisfaction and repeat business. 

 

 

Design & Specification

In most instances Consultants no longer design and specify BMS as fully as they did ten years ago and many only issue very scant performance specifications.

 

Performance specifications not only leave the detailed nuances of End-user operational requirements to chance but also virtually obviate comparable tendering, resulting in disparate suppliers’ qualification, design and pricing of tenders.

 

Where simple performance specifications are involved the whole tender process becomes a lottery, with BMS suppliers submitting very disparate tenders to satisfy the performance criteria and placing those who may know the End-users ‘real’ needs at a distinct pricing disadvantage.

 

Inadequate specification drives BMS suppliers to submit qualified tenders to indicate known or apparent shortcomings and attendant costs, but in reality these are more often than not rejected to keep sub-contract tenders down to a price.

 

Whilst not denying the legal stance upon design responsibility, in which inherent expertise implies the burden, most BMS suppliers are faced with varying degrees of pre-design activity in order to submit tenders.

 

BMS suppliers are quite happy to take responsibility for those areas of design which their experience and expertise render them best fitted to execute, however whatever degree of input this requires must be implemented in concert with the prospective End-user/client to ensure that the latter’s true needs are incorporated.

 

This begs the questions of whether this level of pre-tender involvement should have been undertaken by the originator of the specification, or whether each BMS supplier invited to tender should be entitled to include payment within his tender for developing the design - and be allowed sufficient tendering period to do so.

BMS companies face the twin problems of the struggle to get paid the legitimate costs of variations and the stigma of having their nameplate on the equipment at the End-users premises which is deemed to be the cause of any ensuing operational problems.

 

Ensure that all specifications included in tender documents are fully detailed in line with End-user needs to allow truly comparable tenders to be submitted by all invitees.

 

Adopt the principle that tender qualifications from BMS supplier who have knowledge of prospective End-users detailed requirements must be taken note of and advised to other tenderers to ensure comparable tendering.

 

Alternatively to the foregoing, allow time and payment to each invited BMS supplier to submit fully designed tender submissions based upon their own equipment to satisfy End-user needs.

 

Instigate a policy of ‘Zero Change’ to specifications once tenders are accepted.

 

Contractual Arrangements

Current contractual arrangements and procedures do not even satisfy the needs of effective delivery of the existing level of technology let alone the available and envisaged developments of this.

 

Very often initial thoughts on BMS needs emerge from discussions between a prospective potential (or repeat) End-user and one or more BMS manufacturers/contractors, from which these latter obtain a good             understanding of how the End-user needs the system to work to match his operating needs and management style.

 

For replacement or minor refurbishment projects this liaison will continue through to the end of the project but, where the BMS is to be part of a new build or major refurbishment project, the next stage     may see the End-user briefing a professional adviser or engaging a management contractor to take the project forward.

 

In these cases the BMS supplier may next see a tender invitation from either a management contractor or a building services sub-contractor requesting a quotation against a specification.

 

As noted above, this can range from a fully detailed specification down to a mere statement of performance requirements, neither of which may totally represent what the BMS supplier knows to be the End-users total needs.

 

In the current competitive marketplace this leads to a disregard of qualifications, however valid, selection of lowest price tenders, post contract design changes, and End-user        dissatisfaction with a system that does not meet his expectation as to how the system needs to operate to support his business operations.

 

From these post contract variations stems the BMS industry’s generic problem of getting paid for works that have had to be done to ensure the system functions properly.

 

Where variations are concerned most contractors do not understand the complexity of the technology and how relatively simple physical changes can have an inordinately enormous effect upon software and hardware engineering and commissioning.

 

The successful BMS supplier will enter into contract and become tied into communications exclusively with that contractor, via whom all queries and responses to and from higher contractual and professional strata will be channelled.

 

Thus direct contact with, and authority to act in accordance with the known needs of, the End-user starts to become lost and ultimate customer satisfaction endangered.

 

Many mechanical services sub-contractors do not sufficiently understand and appreciate the complexities of BMS, and thus are handicapped when overseeing their installation and commissioning.

 

Within the existing contractual chain the BMS supplier is in the invidious situation of being largely dependent upon the proper and timely actions of his immediate customer to be able to execute the BMS works in proper sequence to satisfy this same customer’s immediate requirements.

 

Furthermore this same customer is in a position to change programmes and/or withhold payment as he sees fit.

 

The expected increase of integrated systems, with different manufacturers equipment interacting via a common (electronic) communications network will, certainly in the short term, cause even greater problems of understanding and demarcation of responsibilities.

 

One possible solution would be to establish a ‘forum’ consultation regime within contractual arrangements via which all parties, from End-user to specialist supplier, could meet to freely discuss perceived problems and mutually agree remedies that will be contractually binding upon all parties.

 

Another solution would be to place the supply and installation of control & BMS under the electrical sub-contract, removing the enigma of patently electronic works being implemented under a mechanical sub-contract.

 

Ultimately, the industry considers it preferable to elevate Control and BMS works to sub-contract level, alongside the Mechanical and Electrical, and shorten the lines of communication to the end-user, main contractor and professional team.

 

This would indeed prepare the way for discrete Integrated Systems sub-contracts, and the greater high technology co-ordination needs and responsibilities which these systems will undoubtedly engender.

 

Elevating control and BMS works to sub-contract level would allow for much clearer demarcation of working responsibilities, and enhance co-ordination between different trades at a common rather than subordinate or dependent level

 

Commissioning

Commissioning is probably the most important physical aspect of a project, since without its proper implementation the host building will never perform to anybody’s satisfaction.

 

Ironically since commissioning is also the last activity in any programme of works it is also the least likely to have the fully required time available for its implementation, and time requirements stated in BMS suppliers’ programmes are invariably shortened when incorporated into services sub-contractor’s programmes.

 

As contracts proceed and delays occur the actual time for commissioning becomes condensed to fit in with the time available within the overall contract programme and, inevitably, remains incomplete at hand-over.

 

Only the BMS supplier knows how long it will take to commission his works and, once this has been stated by him, no external cause should be permitted to reduce his programme.

 

In turn, the commissioning programme must identify all dependencies and needs for attendance of other trades.

 

A question that has exercised industry thinking for some considerable time now is when is commissioning best implemented?

 

A prerequisite is the testing and commissioning of the services systems and plant to be controlled, either totally or sectionally, but, as is certainly true for several aspects of controls and BMS, it may not be possible to complete balancing and commissioning of services prior to building occupation and operation

 

Defects liability periods allow for a full year’s operation to identify and obviate any seasonal malfunctions and, implicitly, to verify and fine tune operation and control through the full range of climatic conditions.

 

It is a sad fact that very few buildings are commissioned to the total, year round satisfaction of end-users, maybe it is now time to specify seasonal verification and fine tuning explicitly during the defects    liability period.

 

Specifications and contract conditions need to be amended to introduce requirements for the final balancing and commissioning of services systems, controls, and BMS during the first year of building occupation, and to extend the corresponding requirements for commissioning and hand-over documentation, etc., accordingly.

 

Conclusions

Everything in the construction process must be aimed at ensuring end-user satisfaction with the operation of his building, its services, and its controls in harmonious and cost-effective support of his business operations.

 

To sum up, the building controls industry’s view is that successful operation of Control & Building Management Systems can best be founded upon:

·         Proper and full pre-tender design & specification in accordance with true end-user needs

·         Installation under a discrete Control & BMS direct or sub-contract

·         Final commissioning during the defects liability period under actual seasonal operating conditions

 

This course will remove the “Trouble”, as perceived by the industry, and give the industry the opportunity to demonstrate its true effectiveness on a much more level playing field than exists currently.

END