There is a common definition of commissioning that is generally used on capital projects 

Commissioning is the last phase of a project that follows construction to prepare the new facilities for operation. 

This last phase includes on-site testing during pre-commissioning, commissioning, performance verification, trial operations, and all parts of testing within these stages – Site Acceptance Testing (SAT), Site Integration Testing (SIT), vendor startup, heat runs, etc.  While this definition is true for on-site testing, the full lifecycle of commissioning includes much more – not just the on-site commissioning activities, but all off-site commissioning activities taking place earlier in the project. 

A full commissioning lifecycle starts very early in projects, as early as the conceptual stage. You see, there are a lot of activities that precede on-site commissioning that are included in a structured commissioning process to successfully complete projects. Commissioning is integrated into all stages of capital projects.

These are the critical aspects of a structured commissioning process that take place prior to on-site commissioning: 

Procurement

You may not think that procurement is defined as part of the commissioning process, but it actually is. The project (including commissioning) needs to be properly defined in contracts to be set up for success – it is very difficult to “out-commission” a bad contract. Particularly, contracts need to include all commissioning requirements upfront, so there are no disputes later on about who is responsible for each aspect of testing. As well, the transition from construction to commissioning needs to be clearly defined in contracts so there is no ambiguity or overlap in responsibilities or requirements. 

This requires a lot of advanced planning to make sure that contracts are properly structured for on-site commissioning activities that may be taking place several years later. And this can be challenging to get the right inputs into contract development to ensure that nothing is missed years in advance. It’s critical to have the commissioning team’s involvement in the project this early to ensure commissioning requirements are properly captured.

Commissioning requirements need to be specified in detail – the types of tests that are required, the sequence of testing and when each stage of testing is to be completed, where testing is to be performed (factory vs on-site), and who is responsible for each stage of testing. Commissioning requirements need to be broken down by discipline (mechanical, electrical, and automation) to define the details of each and who is responsible for each stage of testing.

More importantly, the details of each mechanical completion need to be defined for each subsystem. This requires that a certain degree of systematization needs to be defined so that the details of each subsystem are known. For example, for a mechanical system, it must be defined who is responsible for pipe flushing, leak testing, and pressure testing. This is typically defined as an activity to be done by the contractor installing the piping since these are activities to be completed as steps within the assembly sequence of activities. However, if these details are not defined in the contracts, the contractor will install piping per the IFC drawings, with one of two outcomes – they will say it is not their responsibility to perform flushing (which it isn’t since it was not defined in the contract) and this will be extra to the contract to perform these activities, or the piping will be fully installed, only to be taken apart in specific areas to perform flushing that was not done as a step earlier in the install sequence.

Either way, this will cost more money than originally agreed to due to missed commissioning requirements in the original contract. This is only one small example of many things that can get missed in contracts if the commissioning team is not involved early in procurement contract development. Having the commissioning team involved earlier in projects is good risk mitigation to save the project time and money. By working proactively with the commissioning team, projects are set up for the best chance of success.

Design

Activities during the design phase of projects have a significant impact on the outcome of commissioning, and the commissioning team must be involved to review designs and ensure that the right decisions are being made to set the commissioning phase up for success.

There are always trade-offs to be made during design when it comes to cost and schedule. While trade-offs may seem straightforward at the time that designs are being completed, each trade-off may have more significant impacts later in the project during commissioning. It would not make sense to save $1000 during design if it means that it will cost an additional $10,000 or $100,000 later during commissioning to implement the design. These types of decisions need to be reviewed to ensure that they truly provide the best value to the project.

Design trade-offs often require review from a risk standpoint. A certain design may be easier to complete and cheaper to install, but present significantly more risk during commissioning that could potentially delay the project or worse, have equipment fail that requires a re-design. The commissioning team needs to be involved during design to help evaluate these project decisions to ensure that unnecessary decisions and risks are not taken on due to bad decisions made earlier in the project.

As an example, the design team may choose to specify a certain type of air-insulated circuit switcher because it is cheaper from the supplier. However, the circuit switcher is known to have alignment issues and is difficult to operate and maintain. While the circuit switcher is initially cheaper and would appear to be the correct item to specify in the design, it is bound to cost more due to more difficult alignment requirements during commissioning (causing additional time to commission), is more difficult to operate (possible failures during commissioning due to misoperation or failure), and even more, costs to maintain after the project once the systems are placed into service and require more frequent maintenance. These can be costly mistakes made upfront in the project if the full commissioning lifecycle is not considered. Having the commissioning team involved early can help more junior designers or those not familiar with the maintenance, operation, and maintenance aspects of equipment to understand the impacts of their decisions later in projects.

Integrated Factory Acceptance Testing 

Testing that takes place in the factory before equipment ships to site is part of a structured commissioning process since this testing identifies errors earlier and is critical to the success of on-site commissioning. If factory testing is poorly defined in contracts or poorly executed, any contract non-compliances are left to be discovered during on-site testing where the errors are much more expensive to address.

It does not benefit projects to skip proper testing in the factory and rush getting equipment to site for installation if ultimately the equipment does not function correctly during commissioning. This causes more delays during on-site commissioning to diagnose issues, replace equipment that is not meeting spec, and determine workarounds to try to proceed with commissioning with missing items. Proper hardware testing needs to take place on all equipment in the factory to ensure that equipment that arrives at site is suitable for the application.

Not only hardware, but the software needs to be verified in the factory for equipment that requires programming. There is often an urgency to get hardware cubicles shipped to site so they can be installed, but this is way too risky with today’s complex projects to allow software and hardware integration to take place only for the first time during on-site testing. Proper risk mitigation needs to be in place to test both the hardware and the software in the factory prior to shipping equipment to site. Taking the time earlier in the project always saves time and money to address issues earlier in the factory rather than defer issues to site where they are much more costly to address.

For this reason, equipment procurement contracts need to clearly define the factory’s testing requirements for integrated testing in the factory. It is far too late in the project to integrate hardware and software for the first time on-site, and this needs to be specified as an activity to take place in the factory with requirements for testing clearly defined prior to shipping equipment to site. Without this, hardware manufacturers will complete their assembly and want to immediately ship cubicles to site. This is not the time to have discussions about the missed scope in the contract and that IFAT still needs to take place – this discussion will not go well and will be costly for the project to resolve, either by amending manufacturer’s contracts to include this scope of work or dealing with the multitude of issues on-site as integration takes place too late in the project during critical path activities.

Integrated Schedule

An integrated schedule is always required during all stages of the project. But as construction starts, an integrated schedule becomes even more important and has a greater impact on the success of commissioning.

Design, construction, and commissioning activities need to all be included in one integrated project schedule – each group cannot have its independent schedule. The startup sequence of the project to meet the project ISD is the backbone of the project schedule and informs all preceding groups when they need to complete activities to meet the project ISD. The startup sequence defines the order that systems must be commissioned. Based on this, the commissioning team defines when they need each system mechanical completion so that testing can start. This informs the construction team what needs to be completed and when it needs to be completed by. This is the fundamental reason why the integrated schedule becomes more impactful at the start of construction since the construction team needs to know the sequence of activities they need to complete to align with the commissioning and startup of the project. When projects are structured in this manner, time can be significantly optimized.

Using this framework, the construction team can inform the design team when they require design deliverables that define what needs to be built and the details of each design package.

Without the commissioning team’s involvement in each of these phases, projects can sometimes get it backward, where the design groups define the sequence of deliverables, and construction defines the order that systems will be completed. When projects are planned in this manner, activities can get out of sequence and not align with the start-up sequence. The startup sequence is typically not flexible. For example, you can’t start up the chemical dosing system with the auxiliary power systems still under construction. If chemical dosing systems are completed first with power available a couple of months later, the activities are out of sequence and do not line up with the startup sequence, causing delays or potential workarounds to try to get temporary power to allow at least some level of testing to start.

Sequencing projects in the correct order through all phases of the project – design, construction, commissioning, and startup, allows the commissioning team to test systems earlier, therefore reducing project risk and preventing issues from being deferred to later in the project.

Construction Quality Management

It goes without saying that equipment needs to be properly installed in the field per contract requirements. And to ensure this is the case, a strong quality management system needs to be established. Work needs to be inspected to confirm contract compliance and any defects are rectified. A properly structured quality management system includes both quality control by the contractor and a third party responsible for quality assurance, to oversee the contractor’s quality control program to ensure that the correct activities are taking place to ensure installations meet contract requirements.

The commissioning team needs to be involved in the QA/QC process as well, not as a direct participant, but to oversee that the right activities are taking place and be assured that they will be receiving quality equipment. Don’t assume that this will just happen, because it will be too late on the first day of commissioning to discover that you’re receiving a pile of garbage that is riddled with issues and does not meet any contract requirements – all the commissioning team can do at this point is identify errors to be fixed by construction.

The commissioning team does get hands-on with the equipment towards the end of construction as mechanical completions are being reviewed. As each MC is nearing completion, the commissioning team will perform a joint walk down of the systems to be handed over, to identify outstanding deficiencies and missing installations, and gain confidence prior to a handover that the systems are complete and ready for testing. This includes both the physical assets in the field and the paperwork associated with systems. Both are reviewed by QC groups, QA groups, and commissioning groups, to ensure that everything is in place and systems are snag-free.

Finding installation errors earlier in the project reduces risk and costly delays. And a strong construction quality management system is required in order to do this so that errors are not deferred to commissioning. Any issues identified and addressed during construction will save time during critical path commissioning activities. A strong QMS is fundamental to successful commissioning and a successful project and is therefore part of the structured commissioning process of industrial projects. 

On-Site Commissioning

These aspects are critical to a structured commissioning process, and make up the complete commissioning definition.

As you can see, there is more to commissioning than just the last phase of the project – commissioning is integrated into all phases of the project. With this definition of commissioning, it is critical that the commissioning team be involved early in the project to participate in all stages and ensure the right decisions are being made to set on-site commissioning up for success. Using this commissioning definition to implement a structured commissioning process sets your project up for the best chance of success so that it can be completed on-time and on-budget.