Capital projects require a structured commissioning process in order to properly plan and execute on-site commissioning. However, not all projects are executed the same. Some projects implement industry-best commissioning processes to manage the work, while others are trying to figure out commissioning for the first time.

There are four levels of commissioning sophistication that projects are categorized as:

Level 1: Absent commissioning

Level 2: Cowboy commissioning

Level 3: Siloed commissioning

Level 4: Integrated Commissioning

Read below to find out how sophisticated your project is at and how to increase your project commissioning processes to the next level.

Level 1- Absent Commissioning

The first level is absent commissioning. These are projects where commissioning is an afterthought – construction is complete, but there was no consideration for planning commissioning activities or any time in the schedule to execute commissioning.  The budget is well over-spent with no money to complete commissioning.  Commissioning is approached as a nuisance that adds no value to the project, is a necessary evil that needs to get completed last-minute and in-between other activities, and is treated as just another sub-contract to construction.

What are the Characteristics of Absent Commissioning?

In these types of projects, commissioning is viewed somewhat as a nuisance. Commissioning is thought of as necessary evil, something that has to be done at the end of the project, but nobody really understands the value of commissioning or how it can help deliver the project successfully at the end.

Often, we hear that commissioning is treated as another subcontract to construction. just like any other subcontractor. Commissioning is just another subcontract that needs to be completed and is working “for” construction.

What are the Results of Absent Commissioning?

The project team doesn’t understand or isn’t aware of the value that commissioning can provide to projects to help mitigate risks and allow projects to be delivered successfully. There’s a lack of early preparation on projects to ensure that commissioning is successful. Sometimes it may be due to an unengaged owner. Or maybe the owner isn’t looking for a lot of involvement in the project – they’re just looking for a turnkey solution and don’t want to be involved in the project. They just want the keys at the end of the project.

In this type of scenario where commissioning is absent on projects, commissioning is viewed as a cost rather than a process that can save money and add value to projects. Projects that have absent commissioning lead to unsafe work practices. When there is a lot of disorganization, the proper safety protocols aren’t followed, LOTO processes aren’t enforced, lots of near-miss safety incidents – it’s not a good situation to work in for sure.

Without any upfront planning or proactive elements to get ready for commissioning, there are often lots of schedule delays. If commissioning was thought to only take a month, without any proper planning that could easily be two months, three months, or a lot more, certainly extending the project and in-service date.

With those delays comes additional cost – the project budget starts to escalate quickly. Time at the end of the project is quite valuable; each day of delay is costly and adds to the overall capital cost of the project. Because systems aren’t tested thoroughly, the project ends up with low-quality and low reliability, which is detrimental to the life of the plant. If projects are not getting the level of reliability that is needed, there will always be issues that arise for the life of the plant.

Level 2- Cowboy Commissioning

The second level is called cowboy commissioning. These are projects where commissioning activities are at least included in the original project budget, but there is no planning in advance to ensure commissioning goes smoothly. There is no upfront effort to create checklists and procedures, with the intent to mobilize the commissioning team to the site at the beginning of on-site commissioning and figure it out “on-the-fly”.  With no preparation of checklists and procedures in advance, it is the wild-west (hence the name).  With no coordination of on-site activities and no documentation to define testing, commissioning can be a long drawn-out process. Some people say this is what they prefer – “Get out of my way and we’ll figure this out, we don’t need to waste time with documentation”.  Unfortunately, this is a dangerous approach to commissioning and a sure way for projects to be late and over-budget.

What are the Characteristics of Cowboy Commissioning?

This level of sophistication is where everybody is scrambling and trying to make things work, trying to figure out what needs to be tested, what order tests should take place, and what sequence of activities need to be completed, and it can be quite unsafe. Again, it may be because the project team isn’t aware of the aspets of commissioning. The project team is very focused on design and construction, but commissioning is considered a distant process later at the end of the project and can be dealt with later. The project team is focused on dealing with the current issues of the project during design and construction and is not able to spend any time to ensure that commissioning is successful.

We help project teams understand this structured commissioning process and how to proactively look at the project risks to mitigate them so that commissioning can be successful. Please contact us at the link above if you need any help setting your project up for commissioning success.

What are the Results of Cowboy Commissioning?

With this level of disorganization, there’s certainly a higher number of safety incidents because things aren’t properly planned and executed. With cowboy commissioning, there is no proactive mitigation strategies during design or during construction to ensure that commissioning is successful. Potential design issues or installation issues that could have been caught earlier in the project aren’t and instead are deferred to later in the project during commissioning. All these risks become issues that cause delays at the end of the project.

The thought process on cowboy commissioning projects may be that it just takes what it takes – “We’ll figure it out later, if it takes two months, six months, or whatever we’ll just force through it at the end of the project, and we’ll just figure it out and it’ll take what it takes”.

Again, it’s pretty disorganized with lots of near misses, lots of LOTO infractions, and not a safe working environment. The schedule is random and unknown – ee don’t know in advance if commissioning is going to take two months or if is it going to take four months. The project team is not able to forecast what the in-service date of the project is because everything’s random.

Due to the project burn rate, this gets quite expensive as the project progresses and the capital costs continue to increase. The end of the project is very valuable for each day of commissioning, and every day of delay during commissioning can add significantly to the total project cost. And of course, with delays there are cost overruns that escalate during commissioning. The quality suffers as well if nobody is proactively managing design and construction with strong design processes and strong Quality Management Systems.  All these issues get deferred to later in the project and are identified during commissioning, which causes significant delays and cost overruns.

Level 3- Siloed Commissioning

The third level is siloed commissioning. These are projects where the importance of commissioning is recognized, with proper planning and execution of a structured commissioning process in place, but with minimal collaboration between construction and commissioning groups.

The commissioning activities are well planned with documentation defining what takes place during each stage of commissioning, but the construction and commissioning groups work in isolation and “throw things over-the-fence” to the other group. Even worse, all three groups – design, construction, and commissioning – each perform their phase of the project without knowing what the other group is doing. We’ve all been on projects where egos can get in the way and turf-wars are established – groups are looking to establish their authority for their phase of the project – without regard for the greater good of the project. And this always leads to problems at the end of the project during commissioning.

What are the Characteristics of Siloed Commissioning?

Everyone on the project needs to be contributing to the common goal, the in-service date at the end, and working towards a successful project. Some things that can lead to siloed commissioning are the commissioning team not being at the site. It might be a good idea to start with the commissioning team located in the company headquarters working with the design team, collaboratively working through any design issues. But the commissioning team needs to migrate to site as early as possible, whenever construction starts ramping up. The commissioning team needs to work closely with the construction team to build relationships and establish processes that are in everybody’s best interest, and collaboratively work through the planning details with the construction team right on-site.

If the commissioning team isn’t involved early in the project, then that collaboration isn’t allowed to occur. If the commissioning team isn’t involved during design and construction, the project can end up with a siloed environment. If the commissioning team joins the project late and is suggesting changes, that can be perceived negatively. So, the commissioning team needs to be involved earlier to help earlier groups develop plans and processes and to establish relationships so that everyone can work collaboratively.

If risks aren’t identified during construction due to weak quality management, then issues are going to be deferred to commissioning which is going to impact the overall project in-service date. The Commissioning team needs to be working closely with the construction team to ensure that the quality management system is a strong QMS and is complementing the commissioning that will be taking place afterwards. And egos cannot be allowed to get in the way, since this is a barrier to collaboration.

A clear definition of what mechanical completion is, what it constitutes, and who’s doing what from construction and commissioning will facilitate a smooth handover from one group to the other. It’s critically important to define all the details of mechanical completion up front so that everybody is aware of what their roles and responsibilities are, knows what’s required, and when it’s required, so that an integrated schedule between construction and commissioning can be established and foster a smooth handover from one group to the other.

What are the Results of Siloed Commissioning?

During projects, there is lots going on in parallel or in adjacent work areas. Boundary isolations can be challenging, which aretions are extremely important when the commissioning team is energizing one area of the project and working next to the construction group that’s building another area of the project. Maintaining those boundary isolations is critical to keep everyone safe so that the commissioning team isn’t energizing into an adjacent work area that the construction team is working in or vice versa.

The construction team can’t be addressing deficiencies assuming systems are in a de-energized state while commissioning work is taking place. Project groups need to break down siloes and encourage close collaboration between groups so that boundary isolations can be maintained, and everyone remains safe on the project.

With siloed commissioning, often we see that the construction group has determined a construction sequence that doesn’t necessarily align with the startup sequence of the project or how the commissioning team needs to startup or test some of the equipment. Often on big projects, there’s only one specific sequence that the systems that can be started up. There’s no opportunity to startup the chemical dosing system if we don’t first have the auxiliary power system available to provide power to the system. We can’t perform these activities in the opposite sequence (unless there is temporary construction power available). The commissioning team can help the design groups and the construction groups understand the overall startup sequence and help to align design activities and construction activities to line up with how the project will eventually be started up.

There are lots of opportunities to optimize the overall project schedule and ensure that all phases of the project are happening in the correct order to align with commissioning and startup. If activities are planned out-of-sequence, that will lead to delays and more costs. As an example, if the chemical dosing system is available for commissioning two months earlier than the auxiliary power system, then that two months of out of sequence work can impact and cause delays. If two years prior those discussions had taken place, the proper sequence could have been developed to align design and construction activities – the sequence and schedule coule be optimized to save time in the schedule.

If strong quality management systems are not implemented, then design and construction issues are propagated later into commissioning and affect start up of the systems and cause delays. We often hear in the industry or see postsonline that there is the perception that commissioning is working “for” construction – as in commissioning is just another subcontractor and necessary to report to construction just like any other sub-trade. But instead we want to foster a relationship that commissioning is working “with” construction. We need to collaboratively be working together and plan these detailed handovers and detailed startup sequences.  The more that we can encourage and break down silos and have the two groups working next to each other and working collaboratively with each other, this helps our projects immensely and prepare for the end of the project for commissioning and startup.

Level 4- Integrated Commissioning

The fourth level is integrated commissioning. These are projects that take a proactive approach to ensure that before a project is started, it can also be successfully completed during commissioning. These are projects where all groups collaboratively work together starting at the beginning of the project to ensure all upfront activities are done to de-risk the project.  This is only possible with an integrated approach to commissioning, proactively considering commissioning during all phases of the project and as early as the conceptual phase. This requires commissioning to be integrated into:

• All major procurement processes
• All awarded contracts
• And be actively discussed and planned for throughout the design and construction phases.

Integrated commissioning is really about proper risk management of the project. Without integrating commissioning into all project phases, it is human nature to defer tasks that can be done later in the project – making them much more challenging to deal with during commissioning.

What are the Characteristics of  Integrated Commissioning?

With a lack of proactive risk mitigation, all the risks get pushed into the commissioning phase and a lot of risks will become issues and cause delays. Whith integrated commissioning approach, projects are able to deliver a higher quality product that the operations team can work with for 30, 40, or 50 years and have the level of reliability that is required. In a lot of cases, critical infrastructure needs high reliability through redundancy or operating processes. A higher level of reliability ensures that assets are in service when needed them so that we can rely on and operate the plant processes. When there is an integrated commissioning approach, and a structured commissioning process with a proper risk mitigation strategy, commissioning is set up for a much greater chance of success.

This is what needs to be achieved on projects so that project teams can deliver their projects on time and on budget. There is a lot at stake during capital projects -there are millions or billions of dollars at stake, in-service dates are critical, and projects need to be properly managed to get the most value out of assets. There are huge dollars at stake, and projects need to be implementing an integrated approach to commissioning and mitigating risks earlier in the project so that we can protect the project investment and not have delays and cost overruns that are costly for everybody involved. A lot of major capital projects involve government money or taxpayer funding, and it’s never a good situation to be over budget because it’s such a huge drain on the limited resources that exist. Following properly structured commissioning processes to ensure that’s not the case.

What are the Results of Integrated Commissioning?

When projects do have fully integrated commissioning process through all stages of the project, it results in a much safer work environment where LOTO processes are properly implemented, safety protocols are implemented, and everybody’s working in a safe working environment to minimize the number of near-misses. An integrated construction and commissioning schedule is critical so that the construction activities complement the commissioning activities and vice versa.  It’s critical to achieve these levels of collaboration, so schedules are developed in much more detail so that mechanical completion milestones are crystal clear – who needs to do what, and when they need to be done, so that there are no impacts to the project in-service date.

An integrated approach to commissioning is the lowest-risk approach to maintain cost certainty on projects and implementing this approach can save a lot of time and a lot of money on projects. High levels of reliability are required on projects for the life of the assets.

Proactive Commissioning Risk Mitigation during All Projects Phases

For the 4 levels of commissioning sophistication, a proactive commissioning risk mitigation approach during all project phases is required to ensure that risks aren’t just being deferred to be dealt with later. Projects need to implement a proactive approach to mitigating risk to commissioning to know that the project is going to be completed successfully – it’s one thing to start a project, but it’s a very different thing to finish a project, since the last 10% of any activity is always the hardest. We need to know how we’re going to start projects, but we also need to know how we’re going to finish them so that we have a clear idea from all stages of the project of how we’re going to get to the in-service date successfully.

A lot of times we might encounter design errors or installation errors during commissioning. These are unfortunate, but implementing an integrated approach to commissioning can help implement proper processes, review processes, and risk mitigation processes to ensure that there’s less of a chance or hopefully no chance of major design errors cropping up later in the project or major installation errors that are cropping up during commissioning.

I’ll give a small example of an installation error. If there is a rolled pair of signals that causes a backwards signal, a proper quality management system would identify this during megger and point-to-point testing. Something as simple as this can potentially delay commissioning by half a day or a day to find the rolled cable and get it fixed. That one day of commissioning is extremely valuable if the project burn rate is in the order of millions of dollars. That one-day delay has just cost the project a million dollars or more. That one cable becomes a very expensive cable that’s caused one day of delay to the project.

Projects need to achieve the highest level of commissioning sophistication to find these errors earlier so that projects don’t encounter delays later in the project. During FEED, the commissioning team can help with aligning the systematization of the project with how the project will be started up and help the design group understand then design packages need to be available to support construction and therefore support commissioning. All activities during design and construction need to line up with the eventual startup sequence to get to the in-service date.

If HVAC system are required first, then the design team should be working on this design package first to deliver to the construction team, as one of the first systems tthat is planned for startup. The startup sequence drives all the activities through procurement, Integrated Factory Acceptance Testing, commissioning and startup. It is the backbone that sets the priorities for all stages of the project through design and construction to ensure that they line up with commissioning and startup to get to the project ISD.

Procurement/Contract/Construction/Commissioning

During procurement, the commissioning team can add value to help earlier groups understand the impacts of decisions that are being made during major contract procurement. The strategy and structure of how procurements take place impacts commissioning. If procurement takes place 3 or 5 years in advance, groups invovled may not necessarily be focused on commissioning. Contracts can be light on commissioning details with only a few lines in the contract.

By bringing commissioning experience earlier into the project, the details for the scope of commissioning, the details of mechanical completion, and what are the commissioning requirements, can be included earlier in contracts. This is important for later in the project during commissioning. If commissioning requirements aren’t defined in advance, then when construction is taking place and discussions are happening on who is responsible for mechanical pipe flushing, but this wasn’t in the contractor’s scope of work to complete, then that’s an extra to the contract. Changes like this can add up pretty quickly if these details aren’t included in contracts. It’s quite costly with this approach, and claims/extras can add up pretty quickly.

Something critically important from a commissioning risk mitigation perspective is implementing proper Integrated Factory Acceptance Testing. This often gets missed in procurement contracts. But with the complexity of today’s projects, the level of automation, the level of distributed controls, and the level of PLC logic, it’s way too risky to have the hardware and software integration taking place on-site during site acceptance testing or site integration testing for the first time.

To mitigate risk, it’s critically important to institute a proper Integrated Factory Acceptance Test program in the factory before automation cubicles even leave the factory. This does mean that design efforts need to be advanced for cubicle design and the logic design. But this advanced effort mitigates the risk on projects to ensure that upfront activities are done earlier, and these risks aren’t deferred to later in commissioning. By having the commissioning team involved earlier, we can help develop Integrated Factory Acceptance Test requirements and ensure that design and construction activities are in the proper sequence so that we’re not deferring all risks to commissioning and causing huge delays later in the project.

During construction, implementation of a strong quality management system by the contractor is important from a quality control perspective, and from a QA perspective by the group that’s responsible over see quality. This is the opportunity to find any minor defects or installation errors that are going to cause problems later during commissioning. By instituting a proper and thorough quality management system, we can ensure that the equipment in the field is installed as intended per the issued for construction drawings and that all drawing markups are complete to know that the equipment is installed correctly and does not cause issues later during commissioning.

A close collaboration between the construction group and the commissioning group is required to ensure that the right activities are proactively being identified and taken care of in advance. This is hugely beneficial to commissioning and hugely beneficial to delivering your projects on time and on budget, as well as aligning with how the project is systematized for commissioning and startup. If the construction groups are working on portions of the project in the right order that they’ll be commissioned and started up, this allows a huge efficiency to overlap some of the construction activities and some of the commissioning activities to align with the startup and the in-service date of the project. Helping all groups understand how the project is going to be started up is hugely beneficial to ensure that everybody is working toward the same common goal.

The startup sequence needs to be established early in the project to ensure that everybody is following the same sequence of activities that exactly aligns with the project startup sequence. The commissioning team needs to prepare all plans, procedures, and checklists well in advance of on-site commissioning. Once detailed designs are available, cubicle designs are available, IO lists, and PLC logic in place, then we can go through the details and prepare all our plans, procedures, and checklists to ensure that all documentation is in hand. We’re ready to go so that when we get to site, there’s no guesswork whatsoever. We’ve got all our documentation prepared. Once we get to the site, it’s strictly execution. We know exactly what to do, we know exactly when each activity is going to take place, and we can execute to precision based on the documentation prepared in advance. Without this, then this is where projects get into cowboy commissioning. If there’s not a proper level of documentation defining what we’re going to do, then site activities become a scramble to figure it out on the fly. and commissioning will take much longer to complete.

With the complexity of today’s projects, a commissioning management software suite of tools is required. There’s a crushing amount of information that’s available on projects these days, and if we don’t have a system to manage the information, manage the documents, and to ensure that the right information is in the hands of the right people at the right time, then we quickly get overwhelmed. Managing complex projects using paper and spreadsheets isn’t appropriate anymore, things get lost quickly.

During design and construction, the big items are getting managed. As an example, a large oil-filled transformer is a big item. It’s human nature to want to focus on the large portions of the project, but even the tiniest of little details can impact commissioning. If there’s a protection setting that’s not correct on that large transformer, then when it is energized, it will trip off or it won’t function correctly just due to one tiny little setting. All of these details need to be managed, the big details, and the little details. Having everything in a CMS alows us to manage the issues, track the issues, track the risks, and ensure that nothing’s getting missed through all stages of the project, so that even the tiniest little setting that’s not correct is tracked, identified, and corrected before we get to commissioning.

In advance of commissioning, the commissioning team is also working on preparing a realistic and achievable schedule with all groups involved to ensure that we get all stages of the project integrated correctly. We’ll also be looking at some of the contingencies that exist within the commissioning sequence.  Despite everyone’s best efforts for risk mitigation during design, construction, and commissioning, there are still delays that can potentially occur. If a large high-voltage standoff has been factory acceptance tested and passed testing, even though it went through the high-voltage facility and passed high pot testing, the device is energized, issues can still occur. If this device has a latent defect that got through all stages of testing, and after a week or two of operation it fails and needs to be replaced, these types of issues can still exist. We need to be have contingencies in place should these issues exist. If it means having a spare of items that could potentially fail, having an alternate testing sequence where we move to a different portion of the project and move on to commissioning while long lead items are procured, we need to be looking at these contingencies, because they do occur, we can’t stop. We still have to be making progress, and we still have to be working towards the project in-service dates.

Projects are evolving further, getting to even higher levels of advanced commissioning risk management. There are advanced techniques like virtual commissioning. When I heard about this a few years I thought, nobody’s going to sit on zoom and virtually commissioning something from halfway across the country – that seems ridiculous. Virtual commissioning refers to projects that are getting sophisticated enough where the hardware is modeled in software to a high enough fidelity that we can use those software models to test some of our control logic for systems without actually needing the hardware. This is different from modeling the project. Modeling has occurred on projects for decades. As soon as computers were invented, people leveraged the ability to model a project and forecast some of the aspects of design. But virtual commissioning is taking that to the next level and getting a high enough fidelity digital twin – a model of the project that we can use to test our PLC logic code within that digital model and use that to test and verify the PLC logic without even needing a second set of cubicles or cubicles in the factory to test. This is getting to higher levels of sophistication on projects, and this is where the industry is going – to be able to leverage the technology that exists and use this technology to mitigate risks on projects. By using virtual commissioning, this allows the hardware cubicles to get to site earlier, while virtually we’re able to commission and proving out the design elements of the PLC logic before we perform integration at site. These are advanced aspects that are going to be pursued over the next few years to leverage the technology that exists.

Conclusion

We all want to learn from each other and see how we can improve our commissioning processes. And this is the challenge.

But how do we do this?

What is the incentive to want to achieve commissioning excellence?

Let’s start with why it is economically beneficial to implement world-class commissioning on projects.

We can’t do it alone, we need everyone’s effort from all stages of the project to implement an integrated approach to commissioning. And the more people that understand how to properly plan and execute commissioning, the more successful our projects will be. Commissioning is only one phase of the project, and the design and construction groups that precede commissioning definitely set the stage for how commissioning will go. When all phases of the project understand how the decisions they make influence the outcome of the project during commissioning, the more successful our projects will be.

Commissioning is really about proper risk management on projects during all stages. When risks are proactively mitigated earlier in the project, commissioning will go much smoother so the project can be delivered on-time and on-budget.

There is a lot we can learn from the aerospace industry. If this same approach to risk management is applied to projects here on earth, we can be sure that our projects will be successful. And it doesn’t come at great expense – with a bit of foresight knowing what comes later during commissioning, risks can be mitigated in many ways much earlier in the project.

This is what we do at Commissioning and Startup – we identify commissioning risks early in the project and work with project teams to establish early risk mitigation strategies so that they can advance their projects to the highest level of commissioning sophistication. This is the best way to protect project investments and ensure projects can be delivered on-time and on-budget. There is way too much at stake with today’s multi-million or multi-billion dollar projects to just “wing-it”. With project burn rates in the millions of dollars per day, projects can’t afford to stumble during commissioning. Proper commissioning risk mitigation must be established early in your project to protect your schedule and prevent costly delays.

At Commissioning and Startup, we work with companies and their project teams to help them through their commissioning journey, so that they can de-risk their commissioning by implementing a structured commissioning process early in the project.

For anyone that wants to see what a de-risked commissioning process looks like, sign up for our 3-Day Mini-Course. The course is free and shows you what is required to achieve the highest level of commissioning sophistication. Anyone working on major capital projects should take this mini-course to be aware of what a de-risked commissioning process looks like so that they can deliver projects on-time and on-budget.

If you know someone who needs to understand what a de-risked commissioning process looks like, tell them to go to www.commissioningandstartup.com and sign up for free. We have had over 20,000 people sign up for this mini-course to help them understand the value that commissioning brings to projects.

By sharing this mini-course, we can spread the word about the value that commissioning provides and help everyone understand how to properly plan and execute commissioning so that they can de-risk their projects and deliver them successfully.

Question and Answer

Yeah, I´ve been in a project with the absence of commissioning, a turnkey plant, and even the startup was done by the contractor nearly without the involvement of the operations team. As I was in the operations team we were inexperienced and suffered all types of failures like pipelines clogged, instrumentation, and equipment failure. It took over a year to have the plant operate smoothly.

We can see this being the case because there was no proactive element of mechanical pipe flushing. Someone on the project maybe would have decided that we can save some time on the project, “You know, we don’t need to flush those pipes. We’ll figure that out later if there’s a clog, we’ll just deal with it.” But we can see from Frank’s explanation here that there was over a year of delays trying to sort out all those issues because pipes were clogged, then things have to be taken apart and flushed properly and put back together. Maybe that take a couple of days that halt commissioning while those issues are sorted out. So, while it may be short-sighted to see or the thought process to skip some of these upfront activities it never works out, in the end, there are always more delays later in the project. If it did take a year to sort that out, think of that lost opportunity cost maybe that in-service date was critical if this was, say, a food processing plant on that first day of in-service it was expected that the plant would be operational, and generating revenue for the company.

Well, that opportunity is lost so adding those lost opportunity costs, add in the delay costs of the project team being around longer, the additional capital outlay the interest and escalation costs of the project, and this can be hugely expensive just because someone thought it would save some time by not flushing the pipes in advance. You also make a good point Frank on involving the operations team, that is critically important to encourage a smooth handover from construction to commission and from commissioning to operations is having the owner’s operating team involved as early as we can. Having that operational insight is hugely beneficial to ensure that these systems can be operated and maintained correctly and also to give the operations team a level of comfort so that at the end of the project they’re not surprised or drop the keys and say, “Hey, figure this out. Good luck, guys!” We want to encourage that soft handover and commissioning is a time for operations to see where they can participate in commissioning and be involved in the troubleshooting, work shoulders or shoulder with a lot of the equipment experts that are on-site during the project, see the issues, ask questions, get a level of comfort, and familiarity with the systems to ensure that at the end of the project they’re ready to operate and maintain the new facilities.

Absent- been there where a city passes off type II DUCT for wood-burning pizza oven absent fire-rated enclosure, and welded duct. The fan was not rated for smoke or grease. It had to be removed or replaced.

There’s another good example if that company was looking to get those facilities in service and start generating revenue from their new installations well, they couldn’t do that because their equipment wasn’t properly tested, designed, and now they’re encountering more delays, so they’re shut down for a longer period of time as those issues are addressed. During commissioning, had some of those proactive activities taken place that would have been identified much earlier probably when there was still time to address some of those issues, replace equipment, and get them up to where they needed to be so that it’s ready for commissioning and no delays to the service date.

Cowboy Commissioning- I recently ran away from a project without systemization, no logic sequence prepared, and no procedures, all just one month before mechanical completion.

This can often be the case if we can see projects aren’t being planned properly, and that they’re going to be unsafe then, it’s not in our best interest or it’s unsafe to even be able to participate in this. I see this on some projects where people just say they can’t participate in this because it’s too crazy, it’s too unorganized, and as dangerous as you’re forced to leave the project and seek other opportunities and that’s frustrating because if there are good people working on projects with good commissioning experience that want to help and want things to succeed. But it’s just not possible because maybe some of the upfront activities aren’t taking place properly.

There’s not much you can do; unfortunately, some good people may be forced to leave projects and seek other opportunities. By having the commissioning team involved earlier, we can help projects understand some of these decisions that are being made and how they can impact later aspects of commissioning so that we can hopefully avoid these situations. But if the commissioning team is brought in too late and that opportunity was missed, there’s sometimes little that can be done. If the commissioning team is brought in late, all we can do at that point is point out issues that need to be addressed, but we’ve lost that proactive ability to help the project succeed.

I have been in numerous projects where commissioning is absent. Due to a lack of knowledge, the absent merge with cowboy, contractors that do not cooperate.

There sometimes are competing interests in projects. If that opportunity to proactively have that commissioning knowledge involved in the procurement phases, and in contracts, if those things are missed in contracts, then, that can set the project up for competing priorities. If the contractor’s priority is established in contracts that they need to meet a certain date but maybe the level of quality wasn’t defined, or mechanical completion wasn’t clearly defined then, the contract motivates them to want to complete on that specific date even if some of the proper activities aren’t specified and aren’t done whereas from the owner’s side.

Of course, the owner wants to inherit a fully functional system that can be reliably operated and maintained for many years to come to those competing priorities can exist right, and that’s why we need to have the commissioning team involved earlier in the project. During that procurement phase, we can help align some of those priorities and ensure that the right items and the right activities are identified in contracts and that everybody is motivated in the same regard for the best benefit of the project. It’s critically important the contract structure, the details of what’s included in contracts, and the level of mechanical completion definition are critically important to ensure that everybody’s intentions and motivations are aligned on projects and everybody’s working together to that common outcome for a successful project in-service date.

Was commissioning a lost part of construction projects, is it not the project manager’s job to ensure proper function?

You’re absolutely right. From a project manager’s perspective, the design manager, the construction manager, and the commissioning manager would all report to the project manager. On a lot of projects that are large in nature, there’s an overwhelming amount of work to be done, and sometimes that end-of-project focus can be lost or missed or not even able to be worked on because the project manager and the design manager are very much focused on the design phase of the project, or the project manager and the construction manager are very much focused on the construction portion of the project. But you’re right, it’s really the project manager’s ability to foresee all stages of the project over many years if it’s a three or five-year project, and understand how some of those decisions that are being made between the project manager and design are going to impact commissioning four or five years later.

Project managers, having that level of commissioning experience is critically important and if it doesn’t exist then, the project managers at least foresight to bring construction or commissioning managers and portions of the commissioning team involved earlier in the project to help the project manager, help the design manager understand some of those earlier phases of the project, and understand how some of those earlier decisions are going to impact commissioning later. It does take a very strong project manager to ensure that all those aspects of the project or design are aligned or at least to have a strong project manager that recognizes the importance of commissioning. But recognizes that they don’t necessarily have all the answers and ensure that the commissioning team is brought in earlier in the project to bring that project knowledge that foresight and help everybody to understand all phases of the project.

Since I started in commissioning, I have already been involved in Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 projects, and the ones that were finished were without a doubt Level 4 projects.

Absolutely, same experience for me. Even working on mega projects, multi-billion-dollar projects, you can see aspects of the projects that were fully integrated. Level four of integrated commissioning was the portion of the projects that went smoothly and were delivered on time and on budget. The portions of the project that by maybe other contractors or other systems in the project that didn’t follow that maybe ended up with some siloed commissioning or even cowboy commissioning. Those were the projects that struggled, those were the pieces of the project that were years late, and millions of dollars over budget. So, I agree with you. Without a doubt, the only projects I’ve ever seen be successful are those level four projects that are fully integrated through all stages of the project. Any level one, two, or three projects that I’ve been part of or maybe brought in later in the project to help clean up or sort out or get commissioning into some sort of better state. All those projects have been late and over budget. The only way to be successful on today’s projects is to achieve that level four integrated level of commissioning through all stages of the project. I definitely agree with your comment, Basilio.

What risks have you seen commissioning lithium plants?

I’ve never actually been involved in commissioning a lithium plant, but I imagine it would be similar to commissioning any type of manufacturing plants and really commissioning any industrial plant process the risks are very similar. They’d be very specific technical risks but the overall effect of implementing a proper integrated risk management process through all stages of the project is you’re going to reduce those technical risks having an impact later in the project. If they’re addressed during design, if they’re addressed during commissioning installation issues, then regardless of the specific project type or the specific technical types of risks, you’re going to reduce those and allow commissioning to be successful later in the project. While I don’t have any specific lithium plant examples, the process applies to any industrial plant process whether it be oil and gas manufacturing facilities, food processing facilities, power distribution, power generation oil, wastewater treatment, and any type of plant process where you would maybe assume that there’s an operating team that’s going to be staffing the facilities and operating the facilities after.

This level of risk proactive risk mitigation is required and can significantly help projects succeed. When commissioning risk management is integrated through all stages of the project where I would say I get lots of questions related to building commissioning, and while building commissioning is critically important and is one aspect of the project, it’s maybe one smaller aspect where commissioning of the building would be regarded as getting the building envelope and some of the life safety systems in place for fire detection, fire suppression, lighting systems anything that would be required to achieve the occupancy permit. But where commissioning risk management really shines is kind of at that next level of all of the equipment in the building, all the equipment outside of the building, the specific electrical mechanical, and automation equipment intended to implement the actual plant process within the building. That’s where things can get quite more complex and riskier and that’s where an integrated approach to commissioning risk management is critical to ensure that all those equipment-specific electrical, mechanical, and automation issues are addressed earlier in the project to ensure commissioning is successful.

How much the readiness of relevant documents such MOSs PCDs can affect the commissiong processes?

A lot. If you’re referring to the specific commissioning documentation that’s required that’s critically important for the execution of commissioning, but even as we get into some of the operational documents say safe work procedures or safe operating procedures any coordinated control of operations with a new plant facility with existing plant facilities those really need to be developed during the commissioning phase as well and commissioning can definitely support that. A lot of our switching procedures that we’re using during commissioning can be the basis and used for operating procedures or maintenance isolation protocols that are needed for operations later in the project. If we’re referring to some of the PCN process control narrative or functional requirement specifications those definitely impact commissioning. Those need to be referred to prepare much earlier in the project as part of the design because the PCN and FRS really define the level of commissioning that’s going to be required, how we’re going to commission some of these systems, and how they need to operate the PCN.

The process control narrative really defines how the automation system needs to manage and control the plant process on site. So, the PCN is our direct reference when we’re putting together our commissioning procedures, how we’re going to test these systems, the scenarios that need to be tested, all the normal operating scenarios, all the fault operating scenarios, and how each of these is going to be tested during commissioning. We’re using that as our baseline to prepare our commissioning procedures, and how we’re going to operate these. A lot of our testing isn’t taking place with actual real process fluids so, we need to determine a way how are we going to test this. If we don’t have that specific input available because process fluids aren’t available, then how are we going to simulate that system, or how are we going to engage that field device to ensure that we’re getting that stimulus to the system to allow the process to execute?

Why is very difficult to sell the commissioning plan to the contractor? This makes the process of developing a commissioning integration plan very difficult.

I agree. If this isn’t upfront defined in the procurement contracts, then that may not be in the contractor’s best interest to want to participate. Often, that’s the case because commissioning wasn’t at the forefront of the discussion during procurement. There may be limited commissioning knowledge or maybe even none or maybe that’s not even the contractor’s scope of supply. But without that clear definition upfront of what needs to be done, and who needs to do it, then the contractor may not be interested in participating in that because it’s not in their best interest. The contract defines something slightly different. That’s their goal. Their motivation is to achieve their installation complete. If the quality requirements weren’t explicitly identified or explicitly met, then again it’s hard to enforce that on the contractor, and they’re going to work to the contract. That’s why we need to have a lot of these upfront discussions during the procurement phase to ensure that all activities are aligned.

We can have these discussions with contractors later so that the contractors are motivated and willing to participate in commissioning activities to ensure the best outcome of the project. Without that upfront alignment, before contracts are even signed, then exactly like you’re describing, that’s the situation that we get in that. The contractor doesn’t want to engage in those discussions because it’s not their role, it’s not their responsibility, and it’s not in their best interest to finish their scope of work and get paid. They want to complete their scope of work. They want to get off the job. They want to get paid and move on to their next job, that’s how they make their money right. We need to have those discussions up front during contract development, during procurement even having contractors submit their commissioning team, their plan, their involvement to assess their level of sophistication, and their ability to support the commissioning program later up front in the project so that we can avoid these situations.

I am a project control guy having 10+ experience(Design/Construction) in the Oil & Gas industry.  I want to pursue in CSU area, what are your suggestions?

From a project control perspective, that’s an important group that we rely on as we’re preparing our commissioning plans earlier in the project. We’re relying heavily on the project controls group to be that bridge between design construction and commissioning and develop that fully integrated project controls perspective particularly from a schedule perspective. From an area to pursue in commissioning, it’s definitely beneficial for everybody to work on projects to understand the structured commissioning process and how commissioning is integrated into all stages of the project, integrated into the design, and integrated into construction to ensure that commissioning is successful at the end of the project.

We’ve got some training courses if you’re interested, I definitely encourage you to check those out and go to commissioningandstartup.com. You can see that the training that we’re providing would be a great place to start understanding how commissioning integrates into all of your project controls perspective, from a scheduled perspective, from a planning perspective, from a contingency perspective, and from a risk mitigation perspective. The commissioning team can definitely help and provide information to the project controls groups to ensure that all groups are integrated together, aligned, and working towards the same common goal so definitely check that out.

​I was involved in siloed kind of commissioning project. The construction team was solely on top of QA/QC. Barely 6 years after commissioning, it turns out that the vessel material was not very suitable for its prevailing conditions. These vessels have to be replaced one at a time.

Yes, this could maybe sound like it could be a design issue or maybe it was an installation issue for sure. Again, by getting the commissioning team involved earlier we can help to look at some of those items during design and see if there are reliability or suitability issues. During QA/QC, look into those processes and ensure that the right checks and balances are in place to hopefully can catch some of these items. This one does sound like a very unfortunate issue here. If some of the vessel material is failing kind of post-project that maybe seems or it would seem like something maybe wasn’t specified quite correctly to withstand the harsh environment that you’re operating in. Having some of those upfront design reviews or in this case, maybe operational involvement during design to see some of these items or maybe share that level of experience on similarly operating vessels to ensure that these items are going to last once they’re placed into service. We don’t run into these issues where they have to be replaced during normal operating conditions. 

Why pre-commissioning and commissioning are the same teams for nowadays projects before it was different teams? Do u think it’s for to keep the budget low?

It depends maybe on the complexity of the projects. I’ve worked on projects where the pre-commissioning team and the commissioning team are the same groups of individuals, but it depends on maybe what’s being commissioned. Certainly, for different levels of pre-commissioning different groups would be involved. You wouldn’t have your telecommunications group working on doing some of the comms checks between your cubicles. You wouldn’t have that group also doing the mechanical flushing of piping. There are definitely specialized skill sets that need to come into the project at certain times of the project to allow or give their expertise to that particular phase of the project. We can see groups that aren’t 100 dedicated to commissioning, but they are the groups that come in for two or three weeks of testing and do their specialized testing, and then move on to a different project. But the core commissioning team would likely still be the same team because they’re the ones that are overseeing the whole process and ensuring that the right people are involved at the right time and that the right specialized skill sets are available.

For some of the specialized equipment commissioning, we’re relying heavily on vendors being involved. The vendor manufacturer of a particular piece of equipment is going to be the most knowledgeable to perform their site acceptance testing. Their vendor startup checks, we’re not necessarily trying to figure out as the commissioning team how to start up that particular piece of equipment. We’re bringing the vendor on site, and they’re going to be responsible for getting their piece of equipment started up and ready for further commissioning by other groups as that particular item is commissioned and integrated with other portions of the project. I’m we maybe can’t say that it’s one group or the other, if it’s a separate pre-commissioning team or commissioning team, if that should be split or if it should be together.

I think it depends on the type of project and what level of specialized skills are required given the specialized aspects of the project. We need to look at that and just the important part of that I guess is to make sure that the right people are involved at the right time. And again, I know I’ve said this a bunch of times in this presentation but that’s another aspect of why it’s critically important to have the commissioning team involved earlier in the project to identify who needs to be involved, when they need to be involved, and what scope of work they’re going to be complete so that we have this crystal clear picture prior to on-site commissioning of how all these activities are going to take place, and when they’re going to take place and lining up all these specialized individuals involved. So, some definite proactive thought process into how this is all going to work is critical to make sure that the right people are involved.

 What would u advise for an Electrical and Instrumentation QC inspector to switch to a commissioning position? From where to start?

Having a QC background is hugely beneficial to the commissioning team. Anybody that’s been involved in the installation aspects and understands all the code requirements, the detailed how a lot of the contract requirements translate into installations in the field, and what to look for is hugely beneficial. I’ve worked with some fantastic people on my commissioning teams that have had this level of installation experience, and it’s hugely beneficial and a rare skill to find. So, if you’re looking to transition from QC to commissioning, I definitely encourage that because that would be a huge benefit to commissioning teams to have that level of installation experience.

One thing that might help you maybe is kind of what we’ve talked about here in the overall commissioning process that integrated structured commissioning process, and the steps involved to go through here our training gives an excellent overview of what this de-risk commissioning process looks like. Check out our training, that’s probably a good place to start go to www.commissioningandstartup.com. At the top of our page, you’ll see a training section there are a few options for training you can check out and that’s what those programs do, go into the detailed process of what this de-risk commissioning process looks like. That would be a good place to start to help you understand the details of what this looks like, and how you can translate your QC inspector knowledge into this de-risk commissioning process through the last stage of the project. Definitely check that out, once you’ve checked it out, if you have any questions shoot me an email I’d be happy to help you out.

The biggest problem for commissioning is where different verticals and stakeholders are involved, you don’t think the cross-integration and coordination of drawings for different are very critical. What do you think about that? Supply chain management is also very critical and contract management and logistics for heavy machinery is a very big problem from international locations is very critical.

I agree with all of that completely. We need to be leveraging a lot of the software tools that can exist when you’re talking about integration and coordination of drawings for different disciplines being very critical. I agree that you can sometimes see even within a particular stage of the project during the design phase that there were maybe some silos that exist between or within those groups. As well the electrical designers maybe weren’t talking to the mechanical designers as often or as closely as they should have been once we get to the site and start doing some of the installations. We find out that the cable tray is supposed to be installed in the same location as the mechanical piping, obviously, that doesn’t work. But by leveraging some of the software tools that exist, we can identify some of these clashes in advance.

There are sophisticated 3D modeling design programs that exist that need to be used so that everybody’s working on the same design and not assuming that the same spaces are available with the 3D modeling software that exist on projects that have used those. It’s pretty clear to see in advance before getting to the site for installation where the clashes are and looking at that constructability element to make sure that everybody’s working together and that things can be built in the field, and things that can be operated successfully in the field supply chain management especially these days during the pandemic. Post-pandemic has been a huge problem and I don’t know when the world finally settles out and gets back to some level of stability. It’s a challenge. We’re seeing delays in long lead items, and delays from overseas international shipping issues with what was the Suez Canal a year or two ago where blockages were delaying things.

It’s a huge challenge for sure and procurement and delivery of equipment is a huge area of the project to manage during construction for getting equipment to the site. That’s definitely a very specific discipline that we rely on from the design, and the construction teams to manage. These procurements manage these supplies and ensure that equipment is getting to the site as originally identified in procurement contracts is a risk to be mitigated. I would say from a commissioning perspective we’ll get involved in some of the technical requirements in defining what needs to be tested in advance on equipment, how some of the factory acceptance testings need to be done, how some of this stuff needs to be delivered to site, and how it needs to be started up from a vendor startup perspective.

The commissioning team typically wouldn’t get involved in managing a lot of those supply risks. The individuals that are responsible for that procurement if that’s the contractor that’s issuing that procurement contract for that particular item then, we’re relying on and expecting the contractor to be managing those risks so that they can achieve their installation timelines. If they’re expecting equipment on-site at a certain date then, we’re relying on them to manage those procurement risks so that they can get it on-site when they need it to be able to complete their installation activities. The commissioning team is certainly monitoring for sure because we want to be aware if there are any delays, if there are going to be any delays to installation or install delays to commissioning, and we’ll assist in any way that we can. But we’re relying on the procurement experts to be able to manage those risks and get equipment to sites when needed. So, definitely a challenge and definitely a good question.

I am a Plant Operation Engineer, I noticed most roles are better suited for mechanical, electrical & civil backgrounds. Can a process engineer grow in this field? What’s your opinion?

Absolutely! I’m working with some fantastic process engineers right now on the project that I’m working on, and they’re some of the smartest people that I’ve worked on projects with. They’re great as a member of the commissioning team. We rely on process engineers heavily because they’re the ones with the expertise that’s specific to the particular plant process that’s being worked on-site. We can’t be experts in everything. We need to rely on the experts that are involved in the project, so we bring in that process engineer expertise and equipment expert expertise as needed on the commissioning team to support the overall commissioning plan. The commissioning process helps us identify some of the risks and some of the safety issues to ensure that we are implementing a proactive risk-mitigated commissioning process through all stages of the project.

There are rules for every expert on commissioning projects mechanical, electrical, and civil. I wouldn’t say so much civil, there is a lot of focus on mechanical systems, electrical systems, and automation systems. The civil is really a pre-activity more so during construction. If we’re building a dam, there’s a large component of civil work to take place from a construction standpoint for earth moving, for concrete pouring from dam building even on smaller projects from foundation ground piles all of those aspects below-grade activities. There are lots of roles for commissioning once we get out of the ground, then a lot of the focus is more so focused on mechanical, electrical, and automation. Of course, the building envelope and maybe some of the exterior finishes would involve civil but when we get into the more detailed complex aspects of what the project is actually intended to function, the plant process, the manufacturing facility, the wastewater treatment, or whatever then we’re relying on those mechanical, electrical, automation experts as well as process engineer experts to help us guide the technical details of our projects to ensure that everything’s functioning correctly as it should.

With your plant operation experience, having that operational knowledge is a huge benefit to commissioning as well which can sometimes get missed. If the project is starting very early during design maybe working in offices and not necessarily on site that operational aspect that cites the logistics aspect can somewhat get overlooked or missed on projects. We want to bring that operational knowledge forward in the project to help people understand how these systems are actually going to be used in the field, and what are the operational implications of doing it, this way or that way. Particularly, from an automation perspective, the HMI system is the operator’s user interface to the entire plant process so, getting that operational knowledge earlier in the process is hugely beneficial. If you’re looking to get into commissioning from a plant operation engineer perspective, I definitely encourage you to do so because that knowledge is in great demand on projects. You could add a whole lot of great knowledge to projects, to commissioning, and help projects be successful for sure.

At what point do we need vendor rep on site, pre-commissioning or commissioning?

It could depend typically on the vendor who would be on-site during pre-commissioning. The pre-commissioning stage is when we’re first doing some vendor startups. Once construction is complete, all the equipment is installed, cables are pulled, mechanical pipes are installed, and all the appropriate QC/QA activities are completed we’d be able to sign off on mechanical completion at that point. The equipment would then be ready for a startup so, we’d very much likely have the vendor on-site during that first initial startup so that they can start up their equipment, sign it off and make sure everything is working correctly with the vendor’s participation. Once they start up the equipment and confirm that everything is correct, the commissioning teams witness or involvement in that can sign off. Well, that’s usually the milestone to allow payment to that vendor. If they’ve met all their contract requirements, the equipment’s delivered to the site functions correctly, and all their specification technical requirements are met, we signed that, and the vendor gets paid. That would typically be some of the early pre-commissioning activities where that would occur.

That’s not to say that the vendor isn’t involved later as well. Once we’re doing some integration testing, maybe additional logic changes need to be made to the vendor’s piece of equipment or on the PLC side to get things communicating correctly. Maybe the vendor needs to be involved during the actual plant startup. When we’re starting to introduce some of the plant fluids for the first time, we want the vendor on-site to monitor that process and ensure everything is going well specific to their piece of equipment as well. So, they may be required to come back to the site during the actual startup activities to ensure that their equipment is still meeting specifications. It also may depend on what’s specified in the vendor’s contract, how many trips do they need to be to the site, or if they need to come and address any deficiencies that are particularly noted. But I would say just from a general standpoint, they would need to be available on-site for that initial pre-commissioning vendor startup activity it may just depend after that.

The signal list documents and Synoptics should be very detailed with a category-wise list of signals for control & protection and power signals.

Absolutely! We’re relying on our design team to prepare all the detailed specifications from an IO list standpoint, process control narrative standpoint, and a logic perspective all of this needs to be defined in explicit detail. For wiring cubicles, the IO lists, and the logic in how the PLC logic will interact with the various IO out of cubicles, this needs to be very explicitly detailed and defined and is the basis of what we’ll use to prepare our commissioning checklist, our commissioning plans, and procedures in these details. Once we have all the detailed manufacturing specifications for the cubicles, we can use that to prepare along with the PCN and our commissioning procedures for how these systems are going to be tested.

If there are any errors, anything that’s wrong, anything that’s designed wrong, or anything that’s installed wrong in that detailed list of signals, then that’s going to impact our commissioning because we’re going to test it based on how it was designed. If there are problems there, then that need to go back to design to address and define how is the system supposed to function, and how is it supposed to be installed, we then may have to go adjust some of our commissioning plans and procedures. But by getting involved earlier and reviewing some of those items upfront, we can maybe identify those on paper before we actually run into them in the field and have to troubleshoot and identify what’s the error in the field which can of course become much more costly to address.

What is the impact of equipment readiness on the commissiong process and operating, especially when sudden malfunctions appear, such as leakage of seals for rotating equipment or high temperatures for lubrication systems, as the supplier’s representative is not present during operation and how can be rectified for small projects?

If we’ve gone through a structured commissioning process through everything that we’ve talked about in this presentation, through Factory Acceptance Testing, through proper pre-commissioning activities, and commissioning activities, then we hopefully would have gone through our equipment level readiness of testing prior to getting to some of the bigger issues. Think of pre-commissioning as testing at the equipment level, we’re testing out just the pump at the vendor startup level during pre-commissioning activities. If there are any issues with that pump, and it’s not meeting a technical requirement we’re hopefully able to identify it during pre-commissioning, during that vendor startup so that it doesn’t get to later issues in testing. If that wasn’t the case though, if a structured commissioning process wasn’t followed, we’re deferring those risks to later in the project. Those risks are only going to be identified as we’re trying to start up the system. For example, if we’re experiencing leaks or high temperatures of road-hitting equipment, if those proper prior steps weren’t taking taken earlier in the project, then we’ve lost that opportunity to proactively address some of the issues earlier and they’re going to cause us issues.

As you’ve identified here in your question, that’s the reason that we want to be following a proactive de-risk commissioning process so that we can find those issues earlier. If they’ve gotten through or maybe there was an installation defect that wasn’t known, if pipes past their leakage test but then spring a leak later, then that’s going to cause us impacts during commissioning later. Often, we’re going through the different stages of commissioning related to cold commissioning, hot commissioning, dry commissioning, wet commissioning, and even in that wet commissioning using clean process fluids so if there’s a leak that exists, we hope that we would have found it during clean water testing.

We’re maybe using flushing water or non-potable water for that level of testing to identify those leaks that exist. We certainly don’t want to be running with actual process fluids in our systems and discovering that there’s a leak. If we’ve got raw sewage in pipes or hazardous chemicals, dangerous chemicals, or oil and systems that are causing environmental disasters, we don’t want to be discovering leaks at that point because that’s a much bigger issue to address and clean up. If we have to remove all those hazardous chemicals, we have to be able to handle chemicals and clean up the issues of potentially major environmental disaster spills. We don’t want to be encountering those issues at that point, and that’s why we’re going through a structured commissioning process to test a lot of these systems to confirm that they are properly in place and ready for the introduction of process chemicals before we actually get to that stage to minimize the impact of potential delays and issues.

Where we can find international standards for commissioning?

Wouldn’t this be fantastic if this existed? I agree with you completely. While every project is unique, and there’s no blanket statement that says this is how it shall be done. An international standard for commissioning standards would be hugely beneficial at least so that everybody’s using the same terminology, the same language, the same general definition of what this structured commissioning process looks like, and everybody’s working towards kind of the same thought process right now. It’s kind of all over the place. It depends on how your contract’s written. Contract might define the terminology to use in this manner, and then you go to the next project the contract defines it differently. It is quite disorganized, and I do see a huge benefit to implementing international standards for commissioning. This currently doesn’t exist. There are some standards that exist for building commissioning, and they’re fine if that’s the area of commissioning that you’re looking for regarding the simpler building commissioning aspects. But if you’re going through industrial plant process commissioning like we’ve been talking about in this webinar, then international standards don’t exist.

I will provide a glimmer of hope as this is something that we’re working on. I am working on professional society, and this is one of the initiatives that we intend to be working on at some point in the future is developing that international standard of procedures something that projects can use as a resource to rely on and at least get reference to. This is generally the structure of how projects are going to go through commissioning but also to get that set of standards like you’re indicating to include in contracts upfront so that we can avoid some of these contract gaps. If we’ve got that agreed to set of standards, and this is the general principles and process of how to implement a de-risk commissioning process, then we can include those standards upfront in our contracts. Say, this is how Mr/Mrs Contractor Mr/Mrs owner consultant whoever, this is how this project is going to proceed with regards to commissioning and that’s all known upfront that avoids some of the issues that we talked about earlier.

Some of the questions are how do we get some of the project participants to participate or be on board with these commissioning activities? Well, having an international set of standards for commissioning would do exactly that that’s something we’re working on. We are focusing on our event in a few weeks in Houston on November 10^th post events that’ll be an activity on our list to do is to continue the development of these international standards. Definitely, pay close attention, keep in touch and when those are available, we’ll definitely let the commissioning community know here how they can get access to those, how to include them in their contracts, and help develop and complete some of our projects on-time and on-budget. So, stay tuned!

Type testing at the site is very problematic due unavailability of testing kits from the OEMs and third-party suppliers like omicron, what is your opinion?

Some of these test devices Omicron dual wool do have quite long lead times and can be quite expensive. Anytime that we’ve needed some of this specialized testing equipment, it has involved some advanced planning, and again another reason to get the commissioning team involved earlier is to identify some of these specialized advanced test equipment that’s required and make sure that there are processes in place to order them in advance. Some of these test equipment can be quite expensive, often they can take six months or more maybe there are even more delays with the pandemic these days and that six months or more lead time needs to be planned for to ensure that we have the test equipment at the site, and that we’ll need for some of our testing. And that some of these expensive items are included in the project budget to ensure that there are funds to be able to purchase them.

Some pre-planning is required to ensure that we have access to the specialized test equipment that we need, and that we can identify what it is. We can ensure that it’s in the procurement plans, and we can ensure that it’s on-site when needed so that testing isn’t delayed. There are maybe some options to bring in a third party. The actual manufacturer vendor of the protection relays or whatever is required if we need to get Schweitzer on-site or whomever they can perform a lot of those activities. But they’re super busy as well and they’re not always available to support the project when needed because they’re supporting multiple other projects as well. We definitely need some planning in advance if this is in-house procurement to do some of our protection testing, or if we’re going to be invaded by engaging third-party groups to perform some of this testing. That planning needs to take place in advance to ensure that we get access and have the specialized test sets and test skills to be able to execute some of our testing on-site.

I am really impressed by everyone’s engagement and participation in this commissioning webinar. That shows that there’s a huge interest in commissioning, and I’m happy to share my commissioning knowledge with everybody so that we can all deliver our commissioning projects on-time and on-budget. If you want to get some more information on what this de-risk commissioning process looks like and how you can implement this on your project definitely go check out www.commissioningandstartup.com that’s a 3-Day Mini-Course where you can see what a de-risk commissioning process looks like. It’s a very good start. It’ll give you a great introduction to what the structured commissioning process looks like and how we can minimize proactively a lot of the risks on our commissioning projects to set commissioning up for success. Go check out Free 3-Day Mini-Course and get signed up.

Lastly, there were some questions on where to start, and where to go next for training. If you want to transition into commissioning, we do offer some more in-depth knowledge training on what this commissioning process looks like, go to commissioningandstartup.com. At the top manual, you’ll see an item called Training. Check that out and that lists our training programs that are available. If you have any questions, there’s a contact page on our website. Go click on contacts, send us any questions that you have, and we’d be happy to help you out or have a discussion with you on how we can help you and your projects implement this de-risk commissioning process to proactively manage your commissioning risks on projects. Check that out, send us an email we’d be happy to get on a video call, have a chat with you, and see how we can help you out on our projects and help you implement everything that we’ve talked about in this presentation. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Thanks again, everyone! I appreciate your participation, great questions great, comments, and great engagement.

Please watch the replay of the live webinar.