By: Nicole Imeson
Ongoing commissioning (OCx) mirrors a marathon runner’s training regimen. Just as a runner needs regular conditioning, monitoring, and adjustments to stay at peak performance, a building requires OCx to maintain efficiency over its lifecycle. Without constant attention—whether to fix small injuries, adjust pace, or refine technique—a marathon runner risks burnout or long-term damage. Similarly, buildings without OCx develop hidden inefficiencies that lead to costly breakdowns, reducing performance and lifespan. Regular tuning keeps both the runner and the building in peak condition for the long haul.
OCx relies on two key components: the software and the commissioning provider (CxP). The software integrates with the Building Automation System (BAS) and uses tools like Energy Management Information Systems (EMIS), Fault Detection and Diagnostics (FDD), and Automated System Optimization (ASO). The software assists the CxP in prioritizing faults, identifying critical issues for immediate repair, and scheduling others for regular maintenance.
An OCx project starts with onboarding, where the software integrates with the BAS. The CxP reviews software results and walks through the building to identify issues for correction. This initial onboarding process is often done alongside new (NCCx) and existing (EBCx) commissioning projects. After correcting initial issues, the software monitors for faults on an ongoing basis.
Depending on the project, the CxP may address faults as they appear, perform fixed-cycle reviews of data collected by the software, or use a combination of both methods. Flagging specific software parameters to alert the Cx team provides a cost-effective way to maintain building efficiency on smaller-budget projects. In complex buildings with larger budgets or high energy usage intensity (EUI), fixed-cycle reviews let the CxP assess operations through the software. Additional walkthroughs may occur throughout the lifecycle of an OCx project to help find additional energy-saving measures or fix inefficiencies before they exceed acceptable limits.
Despite OCx's potential, some implementations fall short of expectations. Justin D’Arcy, senior project engineer at Grumman Butkus Associates, identifies key challenges that often derail projects, emphasizing the need for “a clear long-term plan with sufficient budget and workforce.”
Cost of OCx
As the push for net zero or significant carbon reductions intensifies, simply keeping the building operational and thermally comfortable no longer suffices. Owners now seek every possible energy conservation measure (ECM) to cut operating costs. The introduction of carbon taxes and fines for high EUIs adds financial incentives to increase efficiency. Rising energy costs allow CxPs to offset ECM implementation costs and improve the owner's return on investment (ROI).
Many OCx initiatives, especially in new construction, get treated as one-time projects. Owners fund these through capital expenditure (CapEx) budgets, assuming the work ends once the building opens or the existing system gets upgraded. When this funding runs out, they often leave no operational budget for maintaining OCx services. Without OCx budgets, buildings lose the ability to continue data analysis, make repairs, and optimize performance. This oversight leads to system degradation over time and higher energy costs.
Workforce
In OCx projects, success depends on using the data effectively, not on the amount collected. While the software is critical, the success of the OCx process relies on the CxP’s ability to turn data into practical, actionable solutions. While seemingly helpful, excess data can overwhelm efforts to process, interpret, and prioritize solutions.
D’Arcy notes, "if the operations staff are scaled back, they're having trouble keeping up and fighting fires all day.” This lack of operations time makes it difficult for on-site maintenance teams to ensure optimal sequences are running, making the building an ideal candidate for OCx. With an adequate budget, CxPs and contractors can handle the initial onboarding with minimal disruption to the operations team. As they detect, analyze, and repair faults, operations teams benefit from a reduced workload by shifting from reactive to proactive maintenance.
Failing to budget for or include the Cx team needed to manage the OCx process undermines it by limiting the ability to quickly evaluate and address legitimate faults. Understaffed or undertrained teams struggle to prioritize OCx tasks, leaving critical issues unresolved and preventing the building from running at peak efficiency. Without a sufficient workforce, even automated processes fail to deliver their full potential, as no one has time to act on the data. The workload can overwhelm operators, leading back to the reactive approach, allowing problems to escalate, increasing costs, and reducing the effectiveness of the commissioning process.
Clear Process
OCx efforts often fail due to unclear processes, inefficiency, and missed opportunities for improvement. Inconsistencies cause delays, overlook issues, and disrupt communication between the CxP and the owner's team. This misalignment of goals and priorities creates accountability gaps, leaving key faults unresolved.
For new (NCCx) and existing (EBCx) commissioning projects, teams define a clear scope of work with a set beginning and end. However, OCx is ongoing, which makes defining scope, budgeting, and planning difficult for some owners, especially when they remain unsure about long-term savings after initial implementation.
Without a clear process for collecting and handling data, an OCx project easily becomes overwhelmed by the volume of detected faults. The software pinpoints faults, but without action, the building never reaches the promised energy savings. Rather than getting lost in the data, D’Arcy explains that it’s beneficial to “take an engineering-first approach, focusing on what the software needs to support, rather than starting with software capabilities. This method keeps us focused and guided by our in-house engineering expertise, ensuring practical solutions from the start.”
A solid roadmap keeps OCx projects on track. Defining the process and expectations early helps owners to adequately estimate time, effort, and funding for repairs. Even when CxPs prioritize issues, the workload can exceed estimates, and staff or contractor shortages can hinder follow-through on OCx recommendations. Cx teams must create contingency plans to manage new faults as they arise.
The failure of OCx often stems from misunderstandings about its role and the resources required for success. While OCx offers potential for energy savings and improved system performance, it demands continuous attention, action, and funding. Many building owners believe software alone will deliver savings, but without regular repairs and adjustments, those benefits remain unrealized. OCx requires a coordinated effort between software platforms and CxPs to analyze data, prioritize faults, and implement solutions effectively.
For OCx to succeed, building owners must plan for ongoing support, budget for repairs, and work closely with CxPs. A clear, sustainable process—focused on meaningful data and actionable solutions—ensures that OCx fulfills its promise of optimizing building efficiency and reducing costs over time.