The Commissioning Specialist
Although the CxS is placed after the Installer , in practice his input is required from the onset of the project , at the OPR stage . His role is to ‘ glue ’ the whole construction process as elaborated hereunder .
In developed countries , the CxS is known as the Commissioning Authority ( CxA ) in the US , the Commissioning Agent ( CxA ) in Europe and the Independent CA ( ICA ) in Australia . Regrettably , the role of a CxS is still not readily understood in Malaysia and they may only be engaged for gaining credit scores under the various Green Rating Systems ( e . g . CxS for GBI and CxA for MyCrest or LEED ).
Construction Practice Leading to the Emergence of Commissioning Specialist
The following narrative of the Malaysian construction scene is generally reminiscent of similar developments globally .
In the 1970s and 1980s , the Main Contractor ( MC ) would include in their tender pricing for M & E ( a . k . a Building Services ) Attendance Cost of around 3 % of the total construction cost ( tender price ). The MC ’ s team would thereafter comprise an M & E Manager and a team of M & E staff to co-ordinate Builder Works with the various M & E Trade Contractors . By the 1990s , this Attendance Cost had dwindled to 1 % and eventually to 0 %. Without any cost allowance , these competitive MCs would then ‘ compel ’ the largest Nominated Sub Contractor ( NSC ), who would inevitably be the Air Conditioning & Mechanical Ventilation ( ACMV ) trade contractor , to perform the building services site co-ordination at no cost , or the MC would not accept him as NSC . The inevitable resultant poor co-ordination needs no further elaboration .
Also during the 1970s to the 1990s , the Owner would pay for a full complement of Resident Site Supervisory Staff – RA , RE ( C & S ), RE ( M & E ) and their respective clerk of works ( CoW ). Such costs can amount to 6 % of the total Construction Cost . Sadly , by the turn of the century , the RE ( M & E ) had become a dying or even dead breed , together with experienced CoWs .
Also , during the said era , M & E trade contractors were known to provide a comprehensive staff team ranging from site engineers , supervisors , in-house Testing and Balancing ( TAB ) and Testing & Commissioning ( T & C ) teams , to in-house service maintenance teams during the Defects Liability Period . Today almost all M & E trade contractors have become merely Management Contractors equipped with minimal site supervisors and completely outsourced ( inevitably to the cheapest ) TAB , T & C and service maintenance responsibilities . Added to this devolution , we see many consultants accepting ‘ cut-throat ’ professional fees and degenerating into cut-npaste designers .
The End Result Today …. And Reality Hurts
The industry may be perceived to have ‘ helped ’ the Owners to save costs but the reality is that the Owners have instead been short-changed in the long run !
Perhaps , a parallel comparison to the need and value of CxS would be the services provided by a Project Manager and his Team – where the Owner either pays directly to assemble his in-house team or pays by appointing a third-party specialist .
Unfortunately , whenever CxS services are suggested to the Owner , the following retorts are common :
1 . Why should the Owner pay extra for CxS services ? Shouldn ’ t this scope be already part of the M & E consultants ’ duty together with the individual trade contractors ?
2 . Why must a CxS be supported by a commissioning firm ? Aren ’ t all physical commissioning works already specified in the respective trade contractor ’ s contract ? Hence , the CxS should merely oversee and verify that the said commissioning works are contractually carried out .
3 . Can my in-house facilities management team leader be the CxS for my new building ?
4 . For LEED , anyone with sufficient experience can be designated the CxA , so why can ’ t the same requirement apply for CxS locally ?
31