ASHRAE Journal - April 2014 - 50

Technical FeaTure

of a section of ductwork (Form 1, Page 45) and a VAV box
(Form 2, Page 46) meet contract requirements. As previously noted, the CxA will review these forms after the
contractor completes them. But the CxA also should personally observe either the installation or the contractor's
testing process. The CxA may even administer a test of
his/her own to verify proper installation.
Note that FIV test forms are developed by the CxA (not
the contractor) to use in performing the pre-functional
verifications that must be completed before equipment
and systems are up and running.
If any item on these forms is not properly installed
and/or checked off, the chance of that component not
operating properly increases. If a contractor discovers
items that don't conform to contract specifications, it's
the contractor's responsibility to enter those items into
the project issue log (the details of which will be discussed in the next article in this series).
The space limitations of this article do not permit us
to feature sample testing forms for other trades, but the
CxA will need to develop a set of FIV forms for each type
of equipment and every system.

Next Step: Operational Performance Tests
After installations are complete and all of the issues
revealed during the FIVs have been resolved, the OPTs
can begin. This set of pre-functional tests confirms that
all components and systems can be started up and are
run properly.
As with FIV tests, the forms need to list all of the items
for which the CxA must verify proper operation. As
with the FIVs, if any item on the form is not properly
completed, the likelihood of that component operating
improperly increases.
Form 3 (Page 48) is a sample OPT form used during
technical commissioning to verify that a VAV box is operating properly (a separate form should be completed for
each VAV box).

Dealing With Resistance
As can be expected, some people don't want to "buy
into" the technical commissioning process. For example,
a contractor may seem to display a solid understanding
of the proper installation and start-up methods during
their pre-installation meeting. They may say, "Let us
know if you find something wrong so we can fix it." On
the surface this seems like a reasonable attitude, but it
50

ASHRAE JouRnAl

ashrae.org

Apri l 2014

can lead to a lack of quality control on the contractor's
part: a situation in which the contractor races through
the installation and leaves the CxA to identify all of the
errors and oversights.
And while it's always best when everyone actively supports the technical commissioning process, it may be
necessary to add language to the contract that compensates the CxA in the event that redundant or extraneous
testing is required due to a contractor's lax attitude or
poor performance.
It's also important to mandate retesting in the event
that a high rate of errors is encountered. Certainly no
human enterprise is flawless, and "honest" mistakes
happen. But if it becomes apparent that a contractor has
falsified forms or approved items without testing, such
a situation should trigger an automatic retest of all components and systems related to that contractor. The cost
of additional retesting should be borne by the contactor
at fault-not the CxA or the owner.
When all pre-functional testing issues have been
resolved, you're ready to conduct the project's "final
exam": Functional performance testing, which is the
topic of the next article in this series.

Nothing Succeeds Like Success
Pre-functional tests are not complicated, but they are
time-consuming, which is the main reason they are
often ignored. However, savvy architects and contractors
have seen the light, and they understand that a proper
technical commissioning process greatly reduces the
number of call-backs.
I recall one project during which we literally pulled the
mechanical contractor through the PFT process, threatening back-charges if the tests were not done properly.
Although he completed the tests as we required, he
never stopped protesting and complaining about the
total waste of time and the complete foolishness of the
technical commissioning process.
A year later that project's architect called us and said,
"We're not sure what you did on this project, but we're
amazed-we've had only one call-back during the past
year. And that was just to fix some weather-stripping on
a door!"
Upon hearing that comment, the mechanical contactor
begrudgingly agreed, saying, "Well, I guess your technical commissioning process did work, because we got no
call-backs at all."

ASHRAE Journal - April 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of ASHRAE Journal - April 2014