By the time you realize your project is in trouble during commissioning, it’s too late to recover – you’ll already have delays and cost overruns. The reason for problems during commissioning is because of something that happened (or didn’t happen) during earlier phases of your project. A structured and organized commissioning process is required through all stages of your project so that the correct risk-mitigating activities are taking place to ensure commissioning is successful.

These are the 4 warning signs to watch for that indicate your project will be in trouble during commissioning. 

#1: Procurement Warning Signs

Contract Procurement

• • Your contract does not include details of how your project will be finished during commissioning. It may mention that commissioning is required, but does not provide the specifics of who is responsible for each mechanical, electrical, and automation set of tests, and what level of testing is required.
  • Your contract does not distinguish between vendor startups, pre-commissioning, and commissioning, and does not define the contractual line (Mechanical Completion) of where construction ends and where commissioning starts. What comprises each Mechanical Completion related to physical assets and accompanying documentation is not defined. Depending on the scope of work, some pre-commissioning activities are included as part of the construction scope of work, and this needs to be clearly defined prior to contract award.
  • Your contract does not identify the separate third-party who is responsible for final system commissioning. Or worse, expects that an existing group such as the designer or installer is also responsible for final system acceptance during commissioning.

Equipment Procurement

• • Testing in the factory is not specified to align with the testing that will take place on-site. For example, if the same set of tests that were tested in the factory needs to be fully repeated once installed on-site, then this needs to be clearly specified in the contracts.
  • Equipment procurement contracts do not specify vendor responsibilities for on-site testing of their own supplied equipment, or any interface testing they may be required to participate in.
  • Each equipment supply contract does not clearly define the details of off-site testing that is required in the factory. For example, if control & protection cubicles require integrated factory acceptance testing of both the hardware and the software, and must be fully tested with any deficiencies agreed to before receiving authorization to ship the equipment to site, then these details must be included in procurement contracts before being awarded.

Your contracts define the rules of the game. Without the correct rules, or missing rules, you’re already setting your project up for challenges – especially during commissioning.

The problem is, when procurement packages are being prepared, everyone is focused on getting the project started – nobody is thinking of getting the project finished during commissioning. But how can you start a project without knowing how it will finish – this is irresponsible!

If commissioning is an after-thought to be figured out after contracts are awarded, then all the commissioning details that were missed will be used as leverage against you for extras – contractors love commissioning because it’s often poorly defined in contracts and can be used to get more money.

You’ll hear – “You want that tested in the factory? OK, we can do that. But it’s not in the contract, that will be an extra.” You wanted us to use calibrated test equipment? Yes, we can do that, but the contract didn’t specify that, please send a change order.” 

The disputes and extra costs start to pile up. You may be tempted to avoid some of these extra charges, which is only adding more risk to your project, costing even more when there are delays due to incorrectly tested equipment during on-site commissioning. Very soon, the project is bogged down in so many commercial disputes and technical delays that it is difficult to make any progress. 

Having commissioning input to the procurement process is critical to make sure everything is defined up front in contracts – both how to get the project started and how to finish it during commissioning – so that everything is clear, there are no disputes later in the project, and on-site commissioning can proceed smoothly with equipment that has been properly tested through all phases of the project. 

#2: Design Warning Signs

• There are no gated design reviews during the design process – preliminary design review and final design review – by all project participants, including the end user.
• There is no constructability review or the ability for the installers to provide input to the design to allow design packages to be optimized.
• There is no operability review to allow the commissioning team or operations team to provide feedback to the early design phase of the project.
• Design packages are not being prepared in the same sequence as the commissioning and startup sequence.
• The design team is responsible to determine the systematization of your project.
• The design or construction team is allowed to determine the sequence of Mechanical Completions.

The first time project stakeholders (the actual end-users of the system) likely see the systems is during on-site commissioning. And this is not the time for “preferences” to be implemented as changes. Early involvement of stakeholders during the design phase is required so that everyone is allowed input to the design which will meet their needs at the end of the project during commissioning. Skip this, and there will be mountains of change requests during commissioning that you’ll either have to deny (upsetting the end-users), or pay adding costly changes that delay your project.

The feedback loop from the end of projects during commissioning needs to flow back to the beginning of the project to design. How else are lessons learned going to be incorporated into your projects? The commissioning team can provide valuable feedback to designers that greatly improve how your project will end.

At least one member of the commissioning team (the commissioning manager or commissioning lead/coordinator, not the entire commissioning team) needs to be involved in all phases of the project to provide input and feedback and to have commissioning continuity through all stages of the project. 

Out-of-sequence activities through design and construction that do not align with the commissioning and startup sequence do not optimize your project schedule. There will be several subsystems at the end of your project which are stalled because the wrong sequence of design and construction was undertaken. While this may have optimized earlier phases of the project, critical path commissioning activities become impacted, delaying the project’s in-service date.

The sequence of Mechanical Completions can only be determined by the Commissioning Team. They are the group responsible to commission and start up the systems, which can typically only be done in a specific order. While the construction team may have determined that their construction sequence was optimized by completing the installation of the 230 kV AC breakers first, followed by the AC control building, this is not much help if the AC control building is first in the startup sequence prior to energization of the 230 kV breakers. The commissioning sequence is stalled because of this out-of-sequence construction.

Systematization of the project must be completed by the Commissioning Team, and must be undertaken early in the project. Systematization determines the groups of equipment that the commissioning team needs for each commissioning and startup activity.

#3: Construction Warning Signs

• Poorly defined construction quality management plan, or worse no plan at all. This goes back to the contract – to ensure that the quality requirements of the project are clearly defined upfront and enforced during project execution.
• Poor implementation of the QMS. It’s great if a flawless construction quality plan has been written, but it’s useless if it is not effectively implemented in the field with proper quality control processes by the installer and quality assurance oversight by the owner or owner’s rep. A review of both the submitted paperwork and the installations in the field is required to ensure that what is installed in the field exactly matches what is specified in drawings, and that installations meet all quality requirements of the contract. Anything missed means risk is deferred to commissioning, which impacts critical path commissioning activities and delays the ISD.
• Everybody’s definition of “done” or “ready” means something different.  For example, does “ready” mean that the piping is installed, that it has been flushed and cleaned, or that all QA/QC paperwork is complete and has been signed?
• Mechanical Completions are not clearly defined – assumptions are made for what is required for pre-commissioning and assumed who will do it. Pipe flushing may be required, but is it defined as the responsibility of the installer, the pre-commissioning team, a third-party cleaning agency?
• The transition from construction to commissioning is not clearly defined. For example, what is the process to transfer care/custody/control as systems are completed and ready for testing? Is this s handshake in the field, is there documentation to complete, and how are punchlists closed out and deficiencies identified and rectified? Who is responsible for each of these? What are the protocols for one group to enter a work area controlled by another before or after the transfer of care/custody/control?

The transition from design to construction is pretty straightforward – the design team needs to have each design package available to the construction tea with enough advance notice for them to be able to properly plan for the work. Since construction and commissioning are both on-site activities, the transition becomes much more complex due to the logistics of two groups working in close proximity. This presents many technical and safety challenges that need to be planned for well in advance for each mechanical completion. For example, there are many inter-dependencies between the various subsystems on-site. Subsystems need to be completed and passed from the construction group to the commissioning group in the correct sequence for testing. Boundary isolations need to be maintained so that all adjacent groups remain safe. And this is when all the details start to matter – a small missing setting or one missing conductor can halt commissioning until the deficiency is addressed. This can get overlooked since everyone has been focused on the big items they can touch and feel on-site, and may not even be aware of the impact of the missing or incorrect setting. These small items can cause big delays during commissioning, and this is the reason that each mechanical completion needs to be meticulously planned for well in advance of on-site testing so that everyone is aware of what is required, and that everything is available when needed to recent delays. 

Too often deliverables from the design group to the construction group, and from the construction group to the commissioning group, are tossed over the wall at each other, with each group working in isolation taking care of their own activities, but not realizing how their part of the project affects other parts of the project. This is usually due to weak project management processes. A strong project manager will prevent this from happening. But when groups are allowed to isolate from each other, there can be lots of issues deferred to the next group. Design issues may exist, while the systems can still be installed. But design issues related to functionality are not identified until commissioning. 

With all the potential issues deferred to later in the project, the commissioning phase will determine if your previous project phases have been properly performed. If not, commissioning delays and cost overruns will be realized right at the end of your project when there is no time to recover. 

#4: Commissioning Warning Signs

• A cowboy approach to commissioning, with no structured process and no advance planning. The commissioning team mobilizes to site and tries to figure everything out on-the-fly.
• No specialized skillsets or experienced commissioning team members. Commissioning is complex, and it’s not possible to be an expert on every piece of equipment. Process experts or equipment experts will be required to participate in various stages of commissioning to ensure that the proper aspects are being considered, It is not appropriate to randomly assign junior team members to go figure this stuff out on their own without providing guidance and support they need to be successful. If this is the approach, commissioning will take much longer than necessary and many things will get missed. Instead, a complete commissioning staffing plan needs to be prepared in advance identifying the skillsets required and how senior individuals can provide guidance to the rest of the team.
• No early involvement of the commissioning team in earlier phases of the project. If the commissioning team only becomes involved in the project once on-site testing starts, all they can do is identify problems that will cause delays rather than proactively address items earlier.

Warning Signs 

The success of your project commissioning is determined by the decisions made prior to on-site commissioning. Make the right decisions and you will be setting your project up for the best chance of success. But make the wrong decisions, and your project will experience delays and cost overruns.

So how do you ensure you are on the correct path to success to make the right decisions to save your project money, prevent costly schedule delays, and give your commissioning team the best chance of success?

This is done by following a methodical approach to commissioning using industry-best practices. This methodical commissioning process starts right at the very beginning of your project.

Following a methodical commissioning process really means applying proper risk mitigation to your project to ensure risks are being proactively addressed and not deferred to the commissioning phase. Following the methodical approach to commissioning ensures that you’re using the industry-best methods used by all the other big companies to deliver your projects successfully. If you’re not proactively engaging the commissioning group early in your project, you’re allowing all risks to be identified at the end of your project when there is no time to address risks, and this is the biggest warning sign that the commissioning phase of your project is not being set up for success.

If your projects have any of these warning signs, then there is an opportunity to improve your project commissioning processes. Learn how in our Ful System Commissioning training program.

You can get started for free with our 3-Day Mini-Course on Commissioning and Startup, which shows you the commissioning process to follow, and how you can apply these new commissioning processes to your projects.