CCSU Activity Flowchart

and Hot Spots

Special Publication 333-1

© 2017 Construction Industry Institute™

The University of Texas at Austin

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members
are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be
made, without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase
copies. Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

Contents

CCSU Activity Flowchart.........................................................1

Hot Spot Characterizations.....................................................3
1. Resources and Facilities for Pre-Commissioning............3
2. Execute Preservation......................................................6
3. System-based Execution.................................................9
4. Cleaning and Drying......................................................13
5. Punch List......................................................................16
6. Schedule Recovery.......................................................19
7. As-built Drawings..........................................................22
8. Inspection Walkthrough.................................................25
9. Procure Materials..........................................................28
10. Utilities...........................................................................31
11. Kickoff Alignment...........................................................34
12. Construction Turnover Packages..................................37
13. Start Maintenance......................................................... 41
14. O&M Involvement..........................................................44
15. Familiarize Operations...................................................47
16. Loop and I/O Checks ....................................................51
17. System Walk-downs......................................................54
18. HAZOP Closure............................................................57
19. Operation Test Procedures...........................................60
20. Team Building................................................................63

from CII Special Publication 333-1, Managing Transitions between

Construction Completion, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning,
and Startup
 Special Publication 333-1, Managing Transitions between Construction
CCSU Activity Flowchart Completion, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup

1. Construction Phase 2. Pre-Commissioning Phase

Early Mid Late Early Mid Late

1 HS #11 E 5 HS #14 E 9 EML 27 HS #6 ML 48 E 52 EML

Refine Startup
Conduct Construction- Identify and integrate Plan for and manage Conduct Close out identified
integrated project
A. Planning/Schedule/Management/

CSU alignment meeting key O&M personnel and CSU schedule Pre-Commissioning
schedule with adjustments punch list items Legend
on the execution plan supporting organizations from risks and delays recovery alignment meeting
Activity Hot Spot Phase
2 HS #20 E 6 EML 10 EML 49 E number number Timing
Conduct
Assess and Coordinate CSU plans Comm’g-specific HSSE
Conduct Construction-
communicate CSU with Operations on training for LOTO, JSA, Activity Name
CSU team building
effects from changes
Staffing

brownfield projects simult. ops., work requests

3 E 7 EML 11 EML 50 E
Complete system Review and Coordinate system A colored background signifies that
Conduct area-specific
test matrix and supplement CSU automation readiness re: this is a Hot Spot.
health, safety, security,
agreement staff competencies req’ts, scope, sequence, Activity numbers do not indicate
and environ. training schedule, and software chronological execution order.
Phase Timing:
4 EML 8 EML 51 EML
E = Early, M = Mid, L = Late
Ensure CSU Critical Identify and track
Identify and manage
Success Factors open change
CSU-related risks
during Construction management list items

12 EML 15 (60, 85) HS #2 E 28 M 53 (14) HS #1 E 56 E 59 EM 67 M 70 M

Witness, track, and Perform preservation Witness, track, and Mobilize resources for Manage Verify functionality of all Conduct Verify manual opening,
Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning and gas and fire detection, vessel and tank
B. Materials/Equipment/

document factory through fabrication and document site acceptance closing, sealing, and
and integration tests including necessary Startup spares protection, and inspections
acceptance tests construction SMEs and third parties extinguishment systems operation of valves
Components

13 HS #9 E 29 ML 54 E 57 E 60 (15, 85) HS #2 EML 68 M

Complete and document Verify the operation of Check all rotating Perform Execute component funct’l
Procure CSU materials, individual equipment tests equipment (including tests for switchgear,
including spare parts all protection devices preservation during
(e.g., cold alignment, correct rotation) breakers, transformers,
megger testing) and safety interlocks Pre-Commissioning motor control centers

14 (53) HS #1 E 30 HS #15 ML 55 E 58 E 61 EML 69 M

Familiarize Operations Verify all Complete lubrication Verify instrumentation
Mobilize CSU instrument Perform energized functionality, including
personnel with eqpt. and lubrication
resources and facilities calibration equipment tests diagnostics and
during FAT or on-site check sheets equipment alerts

16 E 31 HS #3 M 34 ML 42 L 45 HS #8 L 62 E 71 ML 73 L
Identify Operations’ Transition to CSU Align on product and For brownfield projects, Complete collab. inspection Apply and verify Conduct system Verify automation
Pre-Commissioning
C. Subsystems/Systems/
Interconnecting Systems

system-based execution execute the plan for walkthru of tags/systems by check sheets for
responsible contact system performance walk-downs with client software functions,
(from area- or physical tie-ins to Commissioning mgr, constr.
for each system discipline-based)
requirements existing plant systems contractor, and Operations
Pre-Commissioning prior to Commissioning human-machine interface

17 EML 32 HS #10 M 35 (74) ML 43 L 46 L 63 HS #16 EM 72 ML 74 (35) L

Monitor Confirm availability of Complete pneumatic Apply and verify check Conduct loop checks “First fill” (e.g., utility Complete pressure
Transition lock-out/tag-out
construction activities utilities needed for or hydro testing of sheets for construction fluids); loading of catalyst,
from Construction to and input/output (I/O) containment/flange integrity
that affect CSU Pre-Commissioning and desiccants, polishers
piping (weld integrity) quality control Pre-Commissioning point-to-point checks (leak) test (post-hydro test)
Commissioning

18 EML 33 HS #4 ML 44 L
Perform cleaning,
Conduct point-to-point
Hook up modules passivation, and drying
of piping and ducts (incl. cable continuity checks
steam blowing, pigging)

19 HS #12 EM 22 EML 25 EML 36 ML 39 ML 47 HS #5 L 64 E 75 L

Define system Execute the Confirm regulator/ Manage Identify and communicate Complete pre-functional Verify completion of req’d
Monitor systems
Audits and Certifications

asset data constr. punch list items

D. Data/Documentation/

construction turnover third-party verification of construction quality checklists and issue data, documentation,
completion progress critical for Pre-Comm’g, issue turnover for
packages management plan safety-critical systems control check sheets power-on requests
Comm’g, and Startup Comm’g certificates

20 EML 23 EML 26 EML 37 HS #19 ML 40 ML 65 EML

Electronically file Update Construction Review project-specific Finalize approval of Verify receipt of req’d data Identify and track
commissioning documents based on safety plans with focus Commissioning operation and documentation for Pre-Commissioning
documents for record on CSU transitions construction completion
Design changes test procedures certificates punch list items

21 EML 24 EML 38 ML 41 ML 66 EML

Execute related req’ts, Resolve Conduct systems Transfer of custody
procedures, and assoc’d non-conformance Update as-built
completion readiness and predefined
documentation for system reports (NCRs) drawing
review turnover package
certific’ns and verifications

Return to Contents 1
 Special Publication 333-1, Managing Transitions between Construction
CCSU Activity Flowchart Completion, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup

3. Commissioning Phase 4. Startup Phase

5. Close-out Phase
Early Mid Late Early Mid Late

76 E 79 EML 91 M 97 L 107 E 117

Conduct Move team to
Perform site Perform pre-Startup Conduct Startup Conduct Close-out
A. Planning/Schedule/Management/
Commissioning work-shift
safety audits safety review alignment meeting alignment meeting
alignment meeting management role

77 E 80 EML 92 ML 98 L 108 EML 118 HS #18

Develop Conduct Review, revise, Monitor CSU
Approve initial Verify closure of
Maintenance operator/maintenance and approve Startup key performance
Startup procedures HAZOP action items
information and plan training procedures as needed
Staffing

indicators

78 E 119
Develop O&M Verify spares, training,
procedure and O&M procedures, and
training materials planned maintenance
routines

81 E 84 EML 93 M 109 HS #13 EML

Mobilize Mobilize Run-in of rotating
Commissioning Startup equipment including Initiate Maintenance
B. Materials/Equipment/

coupled testing of procedures

resources resources
rotation equipment
Legend
Components

82 E 85 (15, 60) HS #2 EML Activity Hot Spot Phase

Perform Perform preservation number number Timing
function tests through
Commissioning Activity Name

83 EM
Run diagnostic checks
on required valves and A colored background signifies that
instruments this is a Hot Spot.
Activity numbers do not indicate
chronological execution order.
Phase Timing:
86 E 94 HS #17 ML 99 L 110 E 114 M 115 L E = Early, M = Mid, L = Late
Test and commission Produce first test Turn on
Conduct system Purge non-process Verify analyzer/
C. Subsystems/Systems/

modeling/optimizers
Interconnecting Systems

emergency shutdown product for property/

systems, including walk-downs for fluids process analytics
characteristics testing if applicable
safety interlocks turnovers

87 EML 100 L 111 E

Introduce
Place non-process Introduce
Commissioning
utilities into operation process materials
materials and fluids

88 EML 101 L 112 EML

Execute integrated Conduct performance
operational dynamic test Introduce process testing, including
procedures and begin to chemicals tuning, ramp-up and
execute Comm’g plan reliability testing

89 EML 95 ML 102 L 105 L 113 E 116 L 120 123

Complete Gather and Conduct assurance Verify achievement of Complete Document and
Produce, witness, and Conduct operational facility acceptance and
audits (per insurance performance guarantees
Audits and Certifications
D. Data/Documentation/

track Commissioning Commissioning organize asset readiness review align on any remaining communicate CSU
and/or regulatory and regulatory
punch list items punch list management data requirements) requirements punch list items lessons learned

90 EML 96 ML 103 L 106 L 121 HS #7 124

Gather and complete Issue statement of Assure correctness and Issue final
Update as-built Conduct internal fitness for service, with completeness of as-built,
drawing system turnover pre-Startup audit close-out report
all assurance sign-offs; commissioned drawings,
documentation hand over to Operations documentation

104 L 122
Conduct integrity Finalize
verification documentation,
(per insurance and/or including revisions
regulatory requirements)

2 Return to Contents
 Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

Resources and Facilities for Pre-Commissioning

Mobilize resources and facilities for Pre-Commissioning, including necessary SMEs and
third-party participants

Flowchart Activity # 14, 53

Timing
Construction: Early (Activity #14)
Pre-Commissioning: Early (Activity #53)

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Most projects today do not conduct on-site instrumentation/control valve bench tests, set-ups, and
functional checks with wrenches and screwdrivers. The same work is now done with software
(AMS) diagnostics in Pre-Commissioning or Commissioning by an SME. This important work
cannot be skipped over. Failure to mobilize these resources in a timely fashion (whether due to
cost-cutting, schedule-cutting, or for any other reason) will cost far more in schedule and budget
during Startup.
• Technology today for new plants includes smart equipment with self-diagnostic tests and checks
available to SMEs for quick verification during Pre-Commissioning or Commissioning. At least 98%
of projects now buy and install this new capability; however, few take full advantage of it.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Timing the mobilization of CSU resources and personnel correctly is difficult, and often occurs too
late.
• Vendors and SMEs are not involved enough because of cost-cutting and the extra coordination
required.
• It is difficult to persuade project managers of the necessity of staffing a few Commissioning
personnel no later than full execution funding.
• Startup personnel do not have a complete understanding of the process design.
• There are not enough experienced personnel on site at the time of Pre-Commissioning,
Commissioning, and Startup.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 3

 Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

Causal Factors
• Vendors and SMEs are not sufficiently involved in commissioning because of cost-cutting.
• Commissioning is not well understood by most in industry. This lack of understanding often causes
unreasonable time constraints and cost pressures to be imposed on commissioning.
• Since commissioning always occurs at the end of a project, it inherits the leftover budget, schedule,
and execution problems from all previous work.
• Commissioning is not treated as a stand-alone discipline, and thus gets subordinated to
construction.
• Startup personnel are often brought in from other facilities because of staffing constraints.
• Extreme winter working conditions and remote job sites can make it difficult to mobilize resources
(human and other).

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of timely Vendor/SME support ends up costing more than was saved by not hiring them.
Doing verification testing right the first time with an SME/Vendor present is cheaper than doing it
wrong and being delayed. An SME may be needed to help solve the problem in the end anyway.
• Commissioning without proper staff/resource support will result in a frustrated, overworked
commissioning team, who are forced to respond to emergencies rather than preventing them.
Even if construction finished on time or ahead of schedule, that time will be lost during extended
commissioning. These working conditions will lead to more mistakes.
• Lack of necessary resources will lead to delays in startup.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Allocate appropriate budget for successful commissioning, especially for the timely inclusion of
SMEs and vendors.
• Educate company executives and estimators on the importance of commissioning, as well as the
schedule and budget requirements for successful commissioning.
• Create a fully integrated construction-commissioning schedule with system-based milestones.
• Development of a vendor/SME plan including a schedule and regular updates.
• If the construction schedule slides, do not reduce the scheduled time for Commissioning. This will
only result in further delay because of rushed Commissioning.
• Identify and involve the Commissioning team in the Design phase, giving them adequate time to
review the scope of Commissioning, and plan for staffing accordingly.
• Involve Startup personnel in the pre-Startup safety review.
• Commissioning and Startup personnel should not report to the construction contractor, but rather
to the project manager.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technology [CII
2015]: Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

4 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: CSU Personnel Coordination (Staffing); CSU SMEs/Engineering Support

Informed: HSE Management; Project Management; Construction Management; Plant

Operations Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination; Security (e.g.,
site, personnel, cyber); Systems Completions Database and Support; CSU Cost
Estimation and Controls; CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #1
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

1. CSU Value 1.1 CSU manager is on the project organizational chart at the start of front end
Recognition engineering.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been derived from
3. Adequate
knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources,
Funding for CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

5.1 A CSU manager was assigned at the start of front end engineering and remained
with the project through to initial operations.
5. CSU Leadership
Continuity
5.2 The qualifications and the planned tenure of the CSU manager were well-defined
by early front end engineering.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 5

 Hot Spot #2 # Contributors: 26

Execute Preservation
Perform preservation through all phases and execute the equipment preservation plan

Flowchart Activity # 15, 60, 85

Timing
Construction: Early (Activity #15)
Pre-Commissioning: Early (Activity #60)
Commissioning: Early (Activity #85)

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• On a coal-burning, solid-fuel boiler power plant project in Louisiana, the construction contractor
stored all the motor-operated valves outside, since they were going to be installed outside anyway.
The valve motors are designed to keep water out when installed, but not when sitting on their side
in a foot of water. Almost every valve actuator had to be repaired or replaced.
• On one project in cold-weather conditions, control valve motor heaters were plugged in to keep
out moisture and keep them from freezing during preservation in a warehouse. When the valves
were staged for installation on site, they sat outside for several days without the heaters plugged in,
which resulted in corrosion inside the motors.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• There is a general lack of urgency and responsibility for preservation work.
• Equipment and materials are left without preservation and degrade as result of weather,
environmental effects, construction activities, and debris.
• For many projects, no effective preservation plan was ever created.
• The exact condition and location of equipment or materials is often disregarded or unknown.
• Damage to equipment during transportation is not realized until installation or commissioning.

Causal Factors
• No preservation/preventive maintenance leader has been assigned.
• It is unclear who is responsible for executing the preservation plan.
• Preservation is difficult to do right because of inadequate resources to properly track and maintain
equipment/materials.
• Preservation occurs too late or is overlooked completely because it is not an immediate priority.
• There is a lack of alignment on the importance of preservation at the management level.
• Preservation does not receive enough attention during contracting and project planning.
• Construction contractors are relied upon to perform preservation with little oversight.

6 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #2 # Contributors: 26

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If preservation occurs too late or not at all, serious technical complications during Commissioning
and Startup will inevitably result.
• Some complications symptomatic of poor preservation include corrosion, dirt/grime, seal leaks,
shafts frozen in place, and dirty, clogged, or stuck instruments/control valves.
• Threats to durability of equipment (e.g., batteries) and warranty coverage may also result from lack
of preservation.
• Because some equipment is custom/special order, equipment damaged by lack of preservation
can seriously delay CSU schedule.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure that contract documents specify preservation requirements, so that preservation can be
contractually set up for success.
• Develop a project-specific preservation plan as part of project planning.
• Assign a preservation leader/coordinator with a dedicated mixed-trade crew before construction
begins.
• Consider having Operations personnel perform preservation; this will allow them to familiarize
themselves with the equipment before installation.
• Store equipment properly both on- and off-site. Maintain preservation standards meticulously
through startup.
• Plan for staffing-up early to have enough plant operations personnel on site to help perform
preservation tasks.
• Set up an electronic/data framework for tracking equipment/material location, for recording
preservation requirements and actions, and for tracking preservation schedule milestones.
• Educate managers on the importance of preservation, as well as the schedule and budget
requirements for successful preservation.
• Work with vendors to identify any equipment for which proper preservation has not been performed.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Preservation; Operations

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: Business Unit Management; Maintenance; OEM/Supplier; Quality Assurance;

Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection, Test Materials, Positive Material
Identification)

Informed: Project Management; Operations Readiness Management; Plant Operations

Management; CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control; Systems
Completions Database and Support

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 7

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #2
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

1. CSU Value 1.1 CSU manager is on the project organizational chart at the start of front end
Recognition engineering.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been derived from
3. Adequate
knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources,
Funding for CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

8 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #3 # Contributors: 29

System-based Execution
Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or discipline-based)

Flowchart Activity # 31

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On an ethylene plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, project construction failed to completely transition
from area- to system-based execution at the agreed-upon time. Delivery dates for specific
systems were not decided upon until 60% construction complete, and thus were not included in
the construction contract up-front. While there was buy-in from the construction management
executive for systems-based completion, the field construction personnel continued to work by
area and would not switch to system construction. Because they were incentivized purely by
bulk productivity, foremen and superintendents were subject to a conflict of interest. The delay in
commissioning caused by systems not being handed over in the proper order made the project
schedule slip from two months ahead of schedule to right on time.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Projects wait too long to transition to CSU system-based execution.
• Project transition to system-based completion can occur too early.
• Construction personnel are unwilling to make the transition to deliver systems in the sequence as
required for commissioning.
• Knowing when and how to transition from area to system is difficult.
• Defining the order and schedule for system turnover in the contract can be difficult since system
boundaries and the required order for commissioning systems may not yet be known.
• Incentive systems for bulk productivity in construction make the transition to systems-based
completion difficult and can create a conflict of interest for field construction management.
• Early construction planning does not take into account sequencing for startup needs, but is often
only focused on bulk construction planning.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 9

 Hot Spot #3 # Contributors: 29

Causal Factors
• There is a major lack of alignment between Construction management and Commissioning
management. The importance of this transition to project success is often not understood by
Construction managers.
• Prior to the point of transition, the Commissioning manager must be the one to decide which
systems have work priority. This sudden transition of decision-making power can cause problems.
The Construction manager still has ultimate authority (turnover has not yet occurred),. and he or
she may be unwilling to listen to the Commissioning manager.
• Projects are not resource-loaded for commissioning early on, and the required order for
commissioning is not known until long after the start of construction.
• No C-CSU transition plan was ever created.
• The C-CSU transition plan was poorly done, with ill-defined points of transition.
• Too many exceptions to the transition plan are granted in order to progress the work; which leads to
issues and mistakes later.
• Instead of focusing on driving the transition, leadership is focused either on bulk construction or
systems commissioning: not on bridging the transition gap.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Ignoring the transition to system-based execution usually affects quite a few systems. It drives the
need for partial system turnovers, which itself is fraught with errors.
• Transitioning too early means that more construction personnel will be on-site when systems begin
to be energized. Having more construction personnel present around live systems creates more
safety risk.
• When this transition does not occur, Construction ends up working on some systems that do not
need to be completed until much later. They also ignore some systems that urgently need to begin
in Pre-Commissioning. These irregularities cause budget overruns and schedule delays.
• Missing this transition causes great frustration for Commissioning personnel and can destroy the
commissioning plan. The friction, confusion, and stress created by not delivering systems in order
or when required can have a big impact on relations between organizations.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Develop a transition plan as part of project planning. Consider the critical path for systems needed
for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup. Also consider physical space requirements
and be sure that information from the design team is readily available at the time of transition.
• Have a resource-loaded commissioning-driven schedule. Define system boundaries and the
order of system completion/turnover early during project planning and include it in the request for
proposals (RFPs) and the contract with the construction contractor.
• Align Construction management and Commissioning management early (shortly after the contract
has been signed) on the importance of the transition to system-based execution. Align on what
triggers the transition to system-based execution. Get buy-in from field construction supervision
(superintendents/foremen) on systems-based completion.

10 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #3 # Contributors: 29

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies (continued)

• Establish a systems-focused organization to drive the transition and to focus the organization on
larger priorities
• Have Construction and Commissioning management meet again at 60% construction complete.
Have Construction management show staffing plans and how they are going to support the
transition and pre-commissioning effort. Begin reporting or showing percent complete on a system
basis. Agree to transition to system-based completion no later than 70% construction complete.
• Ensure that the Construction and Commissioning managers have a good working relationship.
• Do not penalize in-field construction personnel (craft) for the lower productivity associated with
transitioning to systems-based completion. Rather, incentivize delivery of completed systems on
time.
• Ensure timely system turnover by including contract mechanisms to motivate on-time delivery (e.g.,
payment retention, liquidated damages/incentives).
• Establish a plan to operationalize transition management:
–– Utilize tiger/HIT teams – dedicated construction teams that report to the Commissioning team.
–– Utilize work packs aligned to systemization to ensure the priority systems are being
progressed
–– Use permit-to-work (PTW) to allow only priority work, and use first-oil/first-gas strategies to
keep certain work fronts closed.
–– Create “utilization” report metrics, (e.g., priority work complete/total work) to track progress
• Manage and mitigate live-plant risks.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technologies [CII
2015]:
–– BIM/3D Design Models
–– Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Engineering Management

Informed: System Commissioning Teams

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 11

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #3
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s CSU sequence
(including all system, subsystems and related dependencies), with formal
8. Recognition of recognition of all critical sequences and was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of detailed design
and took into consideration timely completion of life-safety and process safety
systems, control systems, utility systems, and process systems, among others.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

10.1 Finalization of CSU sequence, depicting all systems, subsystems, and

10. System-focus in associated dependencies.
Detailed Design
10.2 Commissioning test procedures were completed by the end of detailed design.

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated schedule by the

30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
Systems-based 15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management, led by CSU
team.

12 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #4 # Contributors: 28

Cleaning and Drying

Perform cleaning, passivation, and drying of piping and ducts (including steam blowing and
pigging)

Flowchart Activity # 33

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• During turnarounds on a specialty oil refinery in Sweden, drying of instrument air systems after
pressure tests was problematic. Lowering the moisture in the systems to appropriate levels proved
difficult, especially in cold conditions, and could take up to a week. When drying was not done
properly, moisture in the line jammed control valve positioners, resulting in an inability to control the
plant process upon startup.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Instrument air lines are not dried properly.
• Flow lines are not cleaned during construction, or are not cleaned well enough.
• Cleaning and drying are not completed as scheduled.
• Misapplication of preservation materials, causing rework of cleaning activities.
• Lack of documentation of cleaning/passivation often results in those activities being repeated.

Causal Factors
• There is a lack of Systems thinking during FEED, which makes it impossible to clean flow lines
as scheduled. The required utilities may not yet be online, or systems may not yet be ready for
pressurization.
• Specifications for cleaning, drying, passivation, and so on are not clearly defined in a timely
manner.
• EPC contractors often do not have the expertise to perform cleaning and other such tasks, and are
sometimes unwilling to hire specialty contractors.
• The construction environment is not well-suited to the meticulous nature of proper flow line
cleaning, drying, and so on.
• Construction contractor personnel often do not have a good understanding of the effects when
system cleaning is not done properly.
• Time constraints (especially on plant turnarounds) are tight and result in heavy pressure from upper
management to get the plant operational.
• Construction schedule is often delayed, pushing cleaning activities until the very end, prior to
system turnover; the resultant schedule pressure diverts focus from cleaning.
• There can be a fundamental incompatibility between CSU schedule pressure and the experience
level of available CSU staff; especially at remote project locations.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 13

 Hot Spot #4 # Contributors: 28

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If the flow lines have not been cleaned beforehand, when final trim and other equipment is put in
place, it will likely be damaged by debris flowing through the lines.
• Pressure from management to get the plant producing leads to “cutting corners” during
Commissioning and Startup execution. Often drying and cleaning are activities that get
constrained.
• Cleaning too early, before construction is sufficiently complete, can result in having to re-do the
cleaning prior to turnover to the Commissioning group.
• Insufficient cleaning can result in damage to rotary equipment, and system shutdowns and delays.
• Damaged equipment and clogged lines cause system shutdown, schedule delays, and cost
overruns.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Define cleaning, drying, and other specifications clearly for EPC contractors. Make the
specifications/instruction easy to find, read, and use. One example being a piping-class flushing
matrix.
• Hire a specialty contractor to perform flow line cleaning, passivation, preservation and drying.
Allow the specialty contractor to suggest the correct method to meet the specification for approval
by the client.
• If there are problems during cleaning/drying, admit that problems have occurred, and consider
repeating those activities properly.
• Stress systems-thinking during FEED, all the way through startup. Ensure that the necessary
utilities will be online and available for use in cleaning, drying, and so on.
• Create detailed engineered plans supportive of cleaning and drying to eliminate ambiguity and
short cuts; for example, calculate the flushing flow rate needed instead of using just a velocity
requirement.
• Use side-stream filtration for normal equipment. Note this will need the control and safety systems
to be functional.
• Define the collection and disposal of chemical effluents in accordance with environmental
authorities and regulations.
• Isolate instrumentation during cleaning, passivation, and drying. This will prevent damage to the
instrumentation.
• Use QA/QC personnel to witness cleaning and drying activities performed by the construction
contractor.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technology [CII
2015]: Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Piping

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: HSE Management; CSU SMEs/Engineering Support; Quality Assurance; Construction

Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection, Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Commissioning and Startup Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination

14 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #4
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

7. CSU System
Engineering during 7.1 Formal CSU design review has occurred by the end of front end engineering.
FEED

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s CSU sequence
(including all system, subsystems and related dependencies), with formal
8. Recognition of recognition of all critical sequences and was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of detailed design
and took into consideration timely completion of life-safety and process safety
systems, control systems, utility systems, and process systems, among others.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
11. Definition of commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
CSU Check-sheets, system prior to construction.
Procedures, and 11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 15

 Hot Spot #5 # Contributors: 21

Punch List
Identify and communicate Construction punch list items critical for Pre-Commissioning,
Commissioning, and Startup

Flowchart Activity # 47

Timing
Construction: Late

Project Context/Example Scenario

• A compressor was set to start up on October 1. The site was ready to conduct a punch list walk-
down on September 20. The list created was several pages long and ranged from paint issues to
safety issues. Operations was pushing to purge the units, but refused to do so until ALL punch
list items were complete. The Construction team was trying to prioritize them, so the contractor
could focus on the most critical items first, believing that many items could be completed once
the system had been purged. The contract had a liquidated damages clause, so the contractor
was pushing for all punch list items to be listed as non-critical. Tension was created on-site before
Commissioning even began.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• It is often difficult to get Commissioning, Operations, Safety, and Construction teams to agree
which punch list items are required for various CSU phases.
• Non-critical items are often added to punch lists because Operations participants feel that, if these
items are not addressed by Startup, they will never be addressed.
• The process of identifying and resolving required pre-Startup punch list items can be iterative and
take a long time.
• Since construction contractors are responsible for completing all work, they may not be motivated
to prioritize pre-Startup (versus post-Startup) items. If liquidated damages are involved, contractors
may attempt to push pre-Startup items off the critical list, and this sometimes causes safety issues.
• Construction may view the punch list as a form of QC and miss a lot of items that could have been
taken care of before the punch list was created.

Causal Factors
• Projects are often behind schedule by the time the punch list is created and there is a rush to begin
Commissioning/Startup.
• The construction contractor may not have the expertise or proper support to install some complex
systems (e.g., instrumentation, electrical, and/or controls).
• Commissioning and Operations teams have different priorities and perspectives, which can cause
them to have different ideas about which items are critical.
• Some critical punch list items may be missed at first, and then found later. Items may also get
kicked back to the contractor, because the work was not up to specification. This back-and-forth
can draw out the process and take a long time.

16 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #5 # Contributors: 21

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of alignment between Commissioning and Operations teams will likely cause delays because
the pre-Startup punch list will include items that are not actually critical. Projects can get held up
when individuals withhold signatures until their items are added to the punch list.
• Conflicts over punch list items cause project delays and hurt working relations between
Construction, Commissioning, and Operations personnel.
• Issues such as code violations, poor installation, and inadequate programming on controls will
be added to punch lists for systems, making resolution inordinately long. The delay from sending
issues back to Construction and then re-inspecting will cause frustration on all sides and can
substantially affect the project schedule.
• Unresolved critical issues that never made it to the punch list will be discovered during
Commissioning, when they result in schedule delay and higher cost than if they had been resolved
during Construction.
• Issues that were never resolved (especially controls issues) – some of which were never identified
– will cause the plant/facility to under-perform. Early shutdowns may be needed and the plant may
never reach full output capacity.
• Delays in startup can be caused by missing or miscommunicating punch list items.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Clearly define the scope of the project up-front, in order to avoid loading punch lists with work
items that are outside the project scope.
• Implement a punch-list procedure that is signed-off by all parties.
• Consider that Operations personnel may work with the as-built plant for many years, with little or
no opportunity for making changes. Involve Operations personnel in the design to help identify
these items long before punch lists are created.
• Assign QA/QC personnel, who do not report to the construction contractor, to identify issues to be
resolved before the punch list is created.
• Perform a thorough joint walk-through where all punch list items are identified. Then, in a separate
meeting with Commissioning and Operations, identify by common consent which ones are actually
critical.
• Align Commissioning and Operations teams on the punch list framework and on which systems
are critical for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup before construction begins. Hold
joint problem-solving meetings to resolve disagreements on critical items among Construction,
Commissioning, and Operations teams. When deciding on critical versus non-critical punch-list
items, conduct compromise sessions with involved stakeholders, to come to an agreement on
which items must be completed before Startup.
• Utilize a change management system.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technology [CII
2015]: Completion Management System.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 17

 Hot Spot #5 # Contributors: 21

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Plant Operations Management; Punch-list/

Turnover Coordination

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Engineering Management

Informed: Project Management; System Commissioning Teams

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #5
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
11. Definition of commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
CSU Check-sheets, system prior to construction.
Procedures, and 11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were conducted starting
Construction-CSU around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

18 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #6 # Contributors: 20

Schedule Recovery
Plan for and manage CSU schedule recovery

Flowchart Activity # 27

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On a multi-billion dollar offshore project scheduled to take multiple years, the project team paid
personnel a generous living allowance up-front, as a way of communicating the priorities. The
investment paid off when the project needed expertise from those people during Commissioning.
These personnel were willing to jump on a plane and share their expertise later, when there was an
urgent situation – even though some had moved on to different projects by that time.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• By the time the project reaches Commissioning, it is often behind schedule, and CSU has to
“scramble” to recover schedule.
• There is often no plan in place for CSU schedule recovery.

Causal Factors
• Possible causes of a need for schedule recovery include weather impacts, low labor productivity,
inexperienced craftsmen, badly managed work fronts, disagreements on quality standards, and not
including enough float in construction schedules.
• In a hot market or in a remote location, it can be difficult to get enough experienced craftsmen.
Staff turnover can be an issue as local jobs compete for the best craftspeople.
• Systems are delivered to the Commissioning team out of order, not following the priority schedule.
Construction teams will sometimes front-end load work in order to provide better cash flow, or for
other reasons.
• Construction contractors may not have planned for schedule recovery; for example, by including
float in their schedule estimates. Usually they give completion dates according to their staffing
plans. It is difficult to have confidence in those dates.
• When construction runs behind schedule, turnover packages are delivered to the Commissioning
team late and in an incorrect order.
• The reasons why packages are late do not always get tracked or understood, so CSU recovery
tactics cannot be planned accordingly.
• Equipment failure during Commissioning can impact commissioning sequence and may require
schedule adjustment

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 19

 Hot Spot #6 # Contributors: 20

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• When Construction delivers systems out of order, Commissioning is required to commission what
they receive, which impacts schedule and commission priority. This adds cost and causes CSU to
take longer.
• There is a limit to how much schedule can be recovered during CSU. Recovering even moderate
amounts of schedule will require preparation and forethought.
• If the CSU phases are treated as a schedule buffer or contingency, the project will end up costing
more and taking longer.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Conduct a schedule risk assessment that identifies where the schedule risk is greatest.
• Assist the construction team in delivering systems in the prescribed order to the commissioning
team, even if some are late.
• Use a critical path approach to construction work, according to the CSU test matrix schedule.
• Actively track construction issues and plan for appropriate CSU recovery tactics.
• Use and review schedule performance metrics for work and contracts.
• Adjust manpower/shift timing to increase the rate of completion.
• Contractually ensure that adequate float is included in the schedule and that it covers project risks.
• Align on quality standards, code interpretation, and specifications up front.
• Make sure Construction understands system scoping and priority.
• Conduct early and thorough QA/QC of installed systems, with consideration of the functional
specification.
• Provide for named individuals in key positions in project contracts.
• Utilize a change management system.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Construction Management

Informed: Business Unit Management; Project Leadership Team; System Commissioning

Teams; Legal/Insurance/Finance; CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule
Control

20 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #6
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s CSU sequence
(including all system, subsystems and related dependencies), with formal
8. Recognition of recognition of all critical sequences and was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of detailed design
and took into consideration timely completion of life-safety and process safety
systems, control systems, utility systems, and process systems, among others.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and turnover
Construction/CSU
milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated schedule by the

30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
Systems-based 15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management, led by CSU
team.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 21

 Hot Spot #7 # Contributors: 20

As-built Drawings
Assure correctness and completeness of as-built, commissioned drawings and
documentation

Flowchart Activity # 121

Timing
Project Close-out

Project Context/Example Scenario

• A compressor station needed to be modified to add capacity. The drawings showed there
was a spare valve and flange at the end of the header, and this would allow the addition to be
made without shutting down the station. A base plan and budget were created based on this
understanding. However, upon going on-site, it was found that the spare valve did not exist. Adding
it to the station would demand a station shutdown, requiring 15 wells to be shut in with significant
loss of production. The shutdown would cost an additional $300,000 in project costs. If proper
drawings had existed, proper funds could have been budgeted.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• As-built drawings do not reflect the state of the project at close-out.
• Accurate as-built drawings are not available for future operations, troubleshooting, maintenance,
and brownfield projects.
• QA/QC field changes do not get documented in the as-built drawings.
• There is a lack of field verification of whether facilities match as-built drawings.
• Older equipment drawings are often found to be deficient.
• Upon project close-out, “redline” updates may still not be available for some time.

Causal Factors
• There are gaps in the formal process for managing as-built drawings during Execution phases. This
results in version control issues and, ultimately, in incomplete as-built drawings.
• There is often a lack of designated drawing ownership and responsibility for updating as-built
drawings and data.
• Projects personnel are more focused on the physical asset; there is a lack of appreciation for
accurate data.
• As the end of the project nears, personnel from each team start to leave as they begin
demobilization.
• The impetus for completing as-built drawings is low, since their impact will come after most
Construction and Commissioning personnel have left the project.
• There often is an incorrect assumption that drawings are accurate.
• The atmosphere at project close-out – all parties are trying to hurry up and finish so they can move
to the next project – is not conducive to the meticulous nature of updating as-built drawings.
• The volume of drawings issued for capital construction is huge, and updating them can take a lot of
time.
• Participants do not fully appreciate accurate data (versus the physical asset).

22 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #7 # Contributors: 20

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Incomplete or incorrect as-built drawings cause more subsequent maintenance, shutdowns, and
trouble on future brownfield projects.
• Potential impacts of subpar as-built drawings include loss of project schedule, cost impacts from
doing corrective work after project close-out, and potential safety issues.
• Conversely, brownfield project design fees can be reduced considerably with accurate as-built
drawings and documentation.
• The next project benefits from accurate as-built drawings of the previous project. If these plans
are incomplete or incorrect, the next project loses that benefit. Problems from incorrect as-built
drawings are manifested during Commissioning and Startup (for example, during fully integrated
tests) – just when they are least welcome.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Require accurate as-built drawings as part of the final turn-over package.
• Train Operations personnel on maintaining the as-built drawings that are provided to them by the
Commissioning team.
• Contractually require a final check of the physical asset against as-built drawings. Expend the
resources to ensure compliance.
• Contractually require progress as-built drawings and documentation through the Construction
phase and link this to approval of monthly requests for payment. The owner must have quality
control personnel available to verify the accuracy of the as-built drawings and documentation.
• Perform a meticulous walk-down to check the physical asset against as-built drawings before the
final turnover of care, custody, and control.
• Keep paperwork processes as simple as possible.
• Ensure the participation of qualified QA/QC personnel.
• Have documentation control.
• Do training on record-keeping. Some documentation personnel come from Construction and do
not have a culture of good record-keeping.
• Make one or two people accountable for the whole system. When everyone is in charge, no one is.
• Ensure prioritization and resources for accurate drawing updates at close-out. Assign responsibility
and accountability for this to individuals and follow up on their delivery.
• Include Maintenance and Operations personnel in project and design processes to reinforce the
need for accurate drawings, since they will be the end-users of the as-built drawings.
• Utilize a change management system.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technologies [CII
2015]:
–– Smart P&IDs
–– BIM/3D Design Models
–– Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 23

 Hot Spot #7 # Contributors: 20

RACI Designations

Responsible: Engineering Management; System Commissioning Teams

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Operations; As-builts, records, data, models, permits, regulatory data, and other items
for handover

Informed: Plant Operations Management; Punch-list/Turnover Coordination

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #7
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available and document control
procedures were effective, from construction through final facility turnover.

14. Accurate As- 14.2 An asset information plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by the end
built Information of detailed design.

14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by the end of
detailed design, and was referenced within the project execution plan.

24 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #8 # Contributors: 18

Inspection Walkthrough
Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags and systems by the commissioning
manager, the construction contractor, and Operations

Flowchart Activity # 45

Timing
Construction: Late

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Prior to the collaborative inspection, a construction contractor noted 14 punch list items on a
clean utility system walkthrough of a sterile pharmaceutical filling facility. During the collaborative
walkthrough with the Commissioning team, 140 items were noted as deficient. This extreme
discrepancy between Construction’s and Commissioning’s definitions of mechanical completion
resulted in a four-week delay of schedule.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Lack of alignment between parties on what constitutes a complete system.
• Lack of alignment between parties on what is included in inspection walkthroughs, as well as how
detailed they are.
• Punch list items can be missed when the inspection walkthroughs are held too early.
• Sometimes when walkthroughs occur, it is clear that systems are not ready. Construction may use
these to let another party create a work list for them.
• Walkthroughs can involve too many people, and become overly-complicated procedurally.

Causal Factors
• Inspection walkthroughs of tags and systems at mechanical completion are often not well defined
contractually. The scope of these inspections is often unclear to construction contractors.
• Mechanical completion is often not well defined contractually. The specifics of what constitutes a
complete system are often understood differently by different parties.
• Some construction contractors tend to push mechanical completion inspection walkthroughs too
early. The walkthroughs occur prior to all mechanical completion, which generates punch-listing
of a significant amount of incomplete work. Too many obvious punch list items then distract from
lesser items, which get missed.
• If QA/QC personnel report to Construction management, they will have a conflict of interest in
qualifying systems that are still deficient.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 25

 Hot Spot #8 # Contributors: 18

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Differences in opinion over the scope of mechanical completion or the level of inspection will slow
down work. This can foster bad relations between Construction and Commissioning, which will
further slow the project.
• If Construction is not ready for the scheduled walkthrough, the number of items discovered will be
large, and the walkthrough will need to be rescheduled. This iteration will delay commissioning.
• If walkthroughs are held long before mechanical completion, obvious items will cause other, more
important items to be missed. This creates inefficiency and rework.
• If proper preparations for walkthroughs have not been completed, these may have to occur after
commissioning has already begun.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Clearly define mechanical completion and the level of inspection for each system in contract
documents.
• Conduct alignment meetings between the parties who will be present at inspection walkthroughs
on the definition of what is agreed to in project contracts.
• Clearly define system limits during detailed design so there is no ambiguity about in which system
a particular component is included.
• Identify a responsible party to assist in the pre-mechanical completion walkthrough that
understands the commissioning prerequisites (e.g., commissioning manager, construction quality
assurance)
• Ensure that QA/QC of construction work is done by personnel who do not have a conflict of
interest.
• Set up a methodology to walk down systems, but only with the disciplines that are needed for each
system.
• Ensure labeling and tagging requirements are correct and included in the project specifications
package.
• Make sure to have proper documentation and signatures on the walk-down forms (everything
should be recorded so that decisions are not lost).
• Try to keep walkthroughs simple, with key people from the necessary disciplines. Too many people
will complicate the process.
• Utilize a change management system.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technology [CII
2015]: Completion Management System.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Plant Operations Management ; System Commissioning

Teams

Informed: Project Management ; Operations Readiness Management; Punch-list/Turnover

Coordination; Quality Assurance; Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection,
Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

26 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #8
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with the
Acceptance Criteria
execution contractor.
and Deliverables

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were conducted starting
Construction-CSU around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 27

 Hot Spot #9 # Contributors: 17

Procure Materials
Procure CSU materials, including spare parts

Flowchart Activity # 13

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• In most projects, spares needed for function tests, pre-commissioning, commissioning, integration,
startup, and ramp up must be ordered at nearly the same time as original equipment orders to
avoid delays due to necessary spares being unavailable. In addition, the owners of the various
spare inventories are usually separate entities within a larger project execution team that usually
include Operations & Maintenance. Identifying the owner or caretaker of each spares order early
in the project, ordering sufficient spares, tracking their delivery, managing the coordination of
surplus, and transferring custody at the end of the project are necessary steps for successfully
completing any major project. Underestimating the time needed for delivery, the people needed to
manage and deliver, and the effort required for coordination are common shortfalls that can result
in significant delays to project timelines and major deficiencies during post-execution audits.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Materials necessary for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup are not available as scheduled.
• It is not known what spare parts have been ordered and/or they are not available when they are needed.

Causal Factors
• Materials are ordered too late and do not arrive on site until after they are needed.
• Some materials, including spare parts, are not recognized as having long lead-time.
• Spare parts and temporary spools are overlooked or under-estimated during procurement planning.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of needed spare parts during commissioning will delay schedule while spares are
ordered and delivered. The project schedule is held up because materials necessary for pre-
commissioning, commissioning, or startup are not available.
• Commissioning personnel have to wait on materials, but are still getting paid for their time, resulting
in a loss of productivity and increased project cost.
• The commissioning team has to wait for temporary parts to be fabricated or ordered. Using
permanent parts in place of temporary ones during commissioning can damage equipment. This
can cause CSU delays or even future shutdowns.
• Long-lead specialty equipment can seriously delay a project if it fails during commissioning and no
spare is available.

28 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #9 # Contributors: 17

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure proper and timely procurement of commissioning materials and spares, especially those
needed for pre-commissioning.
• Appoint one or more Commissioning personnel to work with procurement management early in
construction.
• Ensure that there is a procedure for having timely fabrication of temporary spools for CSU.
• Purchase spare parts separately from the equipment in an itemized order, so that it is clear
what spare parts will be available. Bill spare parts to commissioning and original equipment to
construction.
• Conduct a detailed analysis of how long parts will last, and how likely it is that they will need to
be replaced during Commissioning. Use this as a risk analysis of spares and make purchases
accordingly.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Contracting and Procurement Management

Accountable: Commissioning and Startup Management

Consulted: CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control; CSU Cost Estimation and
Controls; Procurement Expediting; Materials Receipt and Verification; Warehouse and
Storage Management

Informed: Preservation

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 29

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #9
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been derived from
3. Adequate
knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources,
Funding for CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and turnover
Construction/CSU
milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

30 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #10 # Contributors: 17

Utilities
Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-Commissioning and Commissioning

Flowchart Activity # 32

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Steam blows through plant piping are frequently performed during CSU. Steam systems require
fuel gas, water, and power. Once CSU of gas, water, power, and steam is achieved, Operations,
Maintenance, and HSE must be engaged from that point on. Project HSE risk increases
substantially due to simultaneous operation and construction activities.
• Clean utilities on pharmaceutical projects are some of the first systems that need to be delivered
for commissioning. Delay of delivery of these systems will mean that commissioning cannot
proceed. On one pharmaceutical plant project clean utilities systems were delivered six months
behind schedule on a project with an original scheduled duration of four years.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Utility systems needed for pre-commissioning and commissioning are not yet available.
• Utility providers can have extensive time requirements to accommodate requests.
• Instrument/utility air systems are essential for commissioning, yet sometimes are not complete by
the scheduled start of commissioning.

Causal Factors
• Vendor documentation/O&M manuals do not readily provide information on equipment/system
utility needs.
• Construction schedules are made to make construction more efficient, but not necessarily to
deliver systems in the necessary order.
• The CSU execution plan and integrated Construction-CSU schedule may not consider utility needs
for Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning.
• The contractor may not construct in the correct order to be able to deliver the utilities systems first.
• There is a lack of handoff of utilities to Operations after CSU, lack of handoff to plant HSE, and lack
of recognition of simultaneous Operations and Construction activities.
• The pre-commissioning scope of work is not well defined, or is not defined at all. The needs for
utilities during pre-commissioning may be unknown by the construction team.
• There is a lack of systems-thinking from FEED onward on projects.
• Utility companies work on their own schedules and priorities. They can be difficult to coordinate
with, require notice long in advance, and their dependability varies from place to place.
• Utility companies typically have their own standard installation specifications and details which they
require to connect to their services. Certain materials and equipment might be special-order. Any
deviation in these specifications could cause delays.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 31

 Hot Spot #10 # Contributors: 17

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Startup is delayed because pre-commissioning/commissioning was delayed due to utilities being
unavailable.
• Commissioning personnel end up with a shorter window to work in, and must resource-overload to
meet their schedule. CSU efforts can be intense, resulting in more mistakes.
• Poor coordination of HSE or lock-out/tag-out (LOTO) can result in injury or loss of life when
systems are energized.
• Out-of-date or absent emergency preparedness plan.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Align on the pre-commissioning scope of work early in the project and include it in contract
documents.
• Develop a commissioning and startup matrix that includes the utilities and temporary systems
needed for CSU.
• Transition to systems-based completion at the appropriate time, and focus first on systems that are
required for safety/utilities/control.
• Construction scheduling should consider the critical path for commissioning activities, including
having the right utility supports in-place.
• Require vendors/OEMs to provide detailed information on the utility needs of their equipment/
materials.
• Require direct and periodic contact/communication with respective utility providers to confirm
utilities service interface requirements, inspection schedule, and connection schedule.
• Include milestones for completion of utility systems and coordination with utility companies in the
detailed CSU execution plan.
• Require HSE/LOTO to sign-off on systems before they are energized.
• Make contingency plans (and budgets) for when a utility might not be available on time. For
example, if utility air is not available, rent compressors.
• Plan and manage the Project HSE-to-Operations HSE handoff for utilities.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Operations Readiness Management; Commissioning and Startup

Management; Plant Operations Management

Informed: Regulatory Compliance; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination; LOTO/Permit-to-work

32 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #10
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

7. CSU System
Engineering during 7.1 Formal CSU design review has occurred by the end of front end engineering.
FEED

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s CSU sequence
(including all system, subsystems and related dependencies), with formal
8. Recognition of recognition of all critical sequences and was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of detailed design
and took into consideration timely completion of life-safety and process safety
systems, control systems, utility systems, and process systems, among others.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

10.1 Finalization of CSU sequence, depicting all systems, subsystems, and

10. System-focus in associated dependencies.
Detailed Design
10.2 Commissioning test procedures were completed by the end of detailed design.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and turnover
Construction/CSU
milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated schedule by the

30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
Systems-based 15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management, led by CSU
team.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were conducted starting
Construction-CSU around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 33

 Hot Spot #11 # Contributors: 16

Kickoff Alignment
Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the execution plan

Flowchart Activity # 1

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On a recent project in China, the Construction manager’s interpretation of mechanical completion
(MC) and the CSU manager’s expectations for turnover were vastly different. Construction and
CSU held several alignment meetings to clearly define what Construction needed to do and
provide prior to CSU, but issues continued to occur. In short, Construction was using CSU as a
way to develop their final punch list, resulting in cost and schedule over-runs. Issues encountered
included the following:
–– Systems were not complete – the MC walk-down identified many items where the system was
not finished (e.g., wiring not terminated at the respective components, insulation not installed,
valves not operating or broken, fire damper cabling not connected).
–– Documentation was not complete – turn-over binders were missing content or had incomplete
information, and forms were completed incorrectly.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• No Construction-CSU alignment meeting is ever held.
• The Construction-CSU alignment meeting is held too late.
• All key stakeholders do not always attend the Construction-CSU alignment meeting.
• All stakeholders do not always buy in or adhere to the overall project goals.
• Despite attending the meeting, Construction and CSU still had misunderstandings about the scope
of work.
• Proper meeting minutes are not always kept, and sign-offs are not always done.

Causal Factors
• Changes in personnel after the original meeting.
• Common industry terms are understood differently by different parties.
• Individuals’ lack of experience with performing construction and construction quality assurance.
• Individuals do not understand CSU requirements.
• Conflicts of interest arise, because the construction company is also the construction quality
assurance company.
• Pressure is placed on project schedule.
• CSU execution practices vary widely across the industry.

34 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #11 # Contributors: 16

Causal Factors (continued)

• Project management personnel lack knowledge of the complexities and time requirements of
commissioning.
• Construction management is sometimes unaware of the requirements for commissioning.
• Holding alignment meetings does not guarantee alignment among the parties.
• Alignment meetings may only be held in reaction to problems occurring on a project, whereas the
most benefit will be achieved by aligning in order to prevent problems.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Delays, cost impacts, and conflicts result from poor alignment.
• Items agreed upon during an alignment meeting may be changed later.
• Without an alignment meeting, the Commissioning team will not know what is expected of it, other
than what is written in the project specifications.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure that alignment is obligated contractually.
• Ensure that all relevant stakeholders attend the CSU alignment meeting.
• Bring construction managers onto the project early, even as early as the Design phase. This
gives them a chance to familiarize with, and contribute to, planning for commissioning activities,
especially for brownfield projects.
• Sign-off and archiving of the Construction-CSU alignment meeting by all stakeholders, with any
new/replacement stakeholders also required to sign-off.
• Periodic review of alignment goals, with modifications as necessary, and sign-offs by all
stakeholders.
• Ensure that project organization silos do not prevent communication between, and alignment of,
project personnel at all levels.
• Ensure and communicate the owner’s commitment to successful commissioning – including
committing the necessary resources and funding.
• Utilize a risk assessment system.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Operations Readiness Management; Commissioning and Startup

Management; Plant Operations Management

Informed: Regulatory Compliance; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination; LOTO/Permit-to-work

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 35

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #11
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

2. Critical Interfaces 2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual shut-downs by 30-percent
on Brownfield detailed design complete; and these have been integrated into the construction-
Projects CSU integrated schedule.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been derived from
3. Adequate
knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources,
Funding for CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with the
Acceptance Criteria
execution contractor.
and Deliverables

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s CSU sequence
(including all system, subsystems and related dependencies), with formal
8. Recognition of recognition of all critical sequences and was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of detailed design
and took into consideration timely completion of life-safety and process safety
systems, control systems, utility systems, and process systems, among others.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and turnover
Construction/CSU
milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

36 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #12 # Contributors: 13

Construction Turnover Packages

Define system construction turnover packages

Flowchart Activity # 19

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Process piping in an animal health manufacturing facility requires weld inspection, slope
verification, and vent/drain verification in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Best Practice. The weld inspection is required to be conducted during the welding
process in conjunction with the contractor’s weld examination process. One project neglected
to employ a weld inspector. This was not known until Construction quality assurance identified
the gap several weeks after welding had been completed by reviewing the turnover package.
The instructions to have a weld inspection were included in the project specifications, and the
work was to be performed by the owner after notification by the contractor. The project manager,
commissioning manager, and contractor all missed the requirement. Contributing factors were
that these three parties were new to pharmaceutical manufacturing, and they shared the following
shortcomings:
–– They did not understand the requirement for both a weld examination and weld inspection.
–– They did not pay close attention to the documentation requirements for process piping as
outlined in both the specification and turnover package requirements.
As a result, additional cost was incurred and system turnover was delayed by two weeks so the
system could be properly inspected and documented.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• There often is a lack of alignment on what to include in turnover packages.
• System packages are often ill-defined and piecemeal. Some important elements can be missed at
the interfaces between systems.
• Some parts of the plant do not belong to one particular system, and thus are often missed when
system turnover packages are created.
• Communication of late process changes is often slow and disorganized.
• Projects often do not pay attention to turnover packages until it is time to construct the first
packages.
• Turnover package requirements are sometimes too complex.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 37

 Hot Spot #12 # Contributors: 13

Causal Factors
• Requirements for construction turnover packages are often not well defined in contract documents.
• Construction relies on engineering for the most current revision of documents delivered to the field.
Without good communication of design change documents, submission of turnover packages will
be negatively impacted.
• Incomplete system definition can cause problems when trying to create turnover packages.
• There is often a lack of client review/approval of systems. Plant personnel are very busy and do not
have time to review and approve all of the system definitions.
• Turnover packages are often not viewed as urgent, so they are put off. Further, there is a general
dislike of paperwork. The meticulous attention required to construct a turnover package is
something that most would rather avoid.
• In a contract bidding situation, the construction contractor usually has no say as to the terms of the
contract, including those regarding turnover packages. Owner organizations can impose onerous
and complicated requirements without any input from the construction contractor.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Disagreement about or ignorance of requirements for turnover packages will lead to frustration on
all sides, as turnover packages have to be redone. System turnover can be held up solely due to
turnover packages.
• Without the most current design change documentation, the construction contractor will have to
scramble to find and address changes that have been made in-field related to turnover packages.
This will have negative cost and schedule impacts.
• Projects can have significant delays from mechanical completion walkthroughs until turnover due
solely to turnover package paperwork.
• By including overly complicated turnover package requirements in a contract, an owner
organization may inadvertently delay the project without adding value.
• Complicated turnover packages might cause the execution team to take shortcuts and cause an
unsafe condition or risk the quality of the work.

38 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #12 # Contributors: 13

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Define requirements for turnover packages more specifically, including schedule milestones and
definition of terms.
• Define turnover requirements in the construction contract.
• Ensure the establishment of standard communication for process change documentation from
Engineering to the Construction Contractor.
• Coordinate system turnover package definition tasks with client and other project stakeholders to
ensure their involvement and approval.
• Assign one or more turnover package managers.
• Owners should make an effort to reduce the complexity of turnover package requirements.
• Ensure that a good turnover package software/tool is in place.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technologies [CII
2015]:
–– Smart P&IDs
–– Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation
–– Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Engineering Management; Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup

Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Operations; Quality Assurance; Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection,
Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Regulatory Compliance; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 39

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #12
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with the
Acceptance Criteria
execution contractor.
and Deliverables

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available and document control
procedures were effective, from construction through final facility turnover.

14. Accurate As- 14.2 An asset information plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by the end
built Information of detailed design.

14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by the end of
detailed design, and was referenced within the project execution plan.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were conducted starting
Construction-CSU around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

40 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #13 # Contributors: 15

Start Maintenance
Initiate maintenance procedures

Flowchart Activity # 109

Timing
Startup: Early

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Certain permanent equipment (e.g., blowers, fans, or HVAC units) might need to be installed and
operating during the Construction phase, but prior to CSU. This equipment tends to be subject to
severe dust exposure due to construction activity, which can clog filters. It is important to initiate a
maintenance procedure as soon as the equipment is put into operation.
• On a $579-million nuclear waste processing facility in Idaho, maintenance personnel were pulled
in from the overall site organization (i.e., from other facilities at the same site). These maintenance
personnel did not feel ownership over the project, since they would not be at the site permanently.
On a complex simulant run, the system instrumentation calibration was not logged. This caused a
three-week delay to get the instrumentation calibrated and logged correctly, and cost $5 million of
extra work-hours to figure it out.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Maintenance procedures are initiated too late or neglected.
• The commissioning team is not notified of ongoing maintenance on brownfield projects.

Causal Factors
• Some systems, such as utilities systems, begin operation long before others, and Maintenance
staff are not yet on site to initiate maintenance procedures.
• The gradual handover of systems to the Operations team makes it more difficult to staff initial
maintenance of the facility.
• There is often a lack of alignment between Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and Commissioning
on brownfield projects.
• The Design and Operations groups are so siloed that designers have little interaction with field
personnel or first-hand experience with O&M.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Failing to initiate the maintenance protocols will result in accelerated deterioration of equipment/
systems and eventually premature shutdowns.
• Expenditure on reactionary maintenance during initial operations will be higher.
• Given maintenance problems, the facility may not reach its output capacity for an extended period
of time.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 41

 Hot Spot #13 # Contributors: 15

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Align maintenance staff as a part of the Operations team early on.
• Do not allow turnover of a system from Commissioning to Operations until maintenance personnel
for that system are on site.
• Integrate O&M personnel as part of the joint-review of the plant design. This should ensure at least
some measure of design for operability/design for maintainability.
• Maintenance personnel (that support the project) should have helped create the asset maintenance
strategy back in late FEED/Basic Design or early in Detailed Design. This early involvement will
help ensure their buy-in to the process and effort.
• Use maintenance personnel who are dedicated to the project. This should help ensure that they
feel ownership over the project and plant.
• Use vendors with high-quality maintenance procedures and resources. Bring vendor
representatives to the site to train plant maintenance personnel on how to perform maintenance on
their equipment.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technologies [CII
2015]:
–– Simulation-based Virtual Commissioning
–– Operator Training.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Maintenance

Accountable: Plant Operations Management

Consulted:

Informed: Commissioning and Startup Management; System Commissioning Teams

42 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #13
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

2. Critical Interfaces 2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual shut-downs by 30-percent
on Brownfield detailed design complete; and these have been integrated into the construction-
Projects CSU integrated schedule.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 43

 Hot Spot #14 # Contributors: 15

O&M Involvement
Identify and integrate key Operations & Maintenance personnel and supporting organizations

Flowchart Activity # 5

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• A typical project, during the transition from Construction to Commissioning, assembles several
work forces that generally have not worked together as a team before (i.e., Operations &
Maintenance, Construction, and Commissioning work forces). The need for a common vision of the
effort, a unified command and recognized leader, and appropriate framework for allocation of tasks
is required to minimize cost, time, and frustration among contributors. In order to be successful, the
leader must be able to engage necessary SMEs, equipment providers, and – equally important –
those who will ultimately be responsible for the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of the finished
plant. The organization of the effort must be thorough, but also flexible enough to respond to
difficulties (including those that arise through incomplete construction). Integrating the unique tasks
required to move from Construction through Commissioning, and finally to Startup and Operations,
must begin at the earliest possible part of the project, since the allocation of responsibilities
depends on the resources utilized and the uniqueness of the facilities being assembled.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• The necessary human resources are unavailable or unknown. It is difficult to get good operations
personnel on the job early, because they are busy with the operations of the plant or other jobs.
• Roles and responsibilities are often unclear.
• Proper coordination of SME support for CSU rarely occurs.
• O&M support is poorly funded.

Causal Factors
• Key O&M human resources are too busy with their day-to-day work to support CSU.
• Operations personnel may not be interested in participating in the project at this point; changes to
the plant only become important to them the day they begin to operate it.
• Key O&M human resources are retiring.
• In some sectors, and on most greenfield projects, experienced and capable operators are relatively
few, so it can be difficult to get them on a project as early as this stage.
• Difficulty in hiring additional staff – unionized organizations (e.g., government) have rigid hiring and
firing policies, which makes it difficult to scale up a project team for a brief period of time.
• Conflicting priorities between Projects and O&M groups. For example, plant operations wants
to maximize annual operations and sales, while the project team wants to get the project
commissioned and turned over, requiring much downtime.

44 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #14 # Contributors: 15

Causal Factors (continued)

• Disagreement on the benefit for O&M personnel to be integrated into the project (i.e., it may be
hard to get O&M management buy-in).
• Operations, Maintenance, SMEs, and other non-project stakeholders are not aligned with the
vision for the project, and lack motivation to assist proactively.
• The value of including SMEs during CSU is not properly understood.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Without proper support from Operations, Maintenance, SMEs, and other stakeholders outside the
project team, the CSU team will need to scramble to resolve issues rather than preventing them.
• Lack of required O&M resources can make the eventual turn-over to Operations difficult, as the
O&M groups will not be as familiar with the new equipment. This will lead to startup cost and
schedule impacts to the project venture.
• Any number of technical issues with the final plant might have been caught by experienced O&M
personnel, had they been involved with the project earlier.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Create drivers for stakeholders outside the project team to align with the vision for the project and
help deliver.
• The CSU team should spend the necessary time aligning within the group as well as with the
project team.
• Coordinate early with SMEs and take advantage of their expertise to ensure CSU success.
• Establish resource requirements and commitments early during the FEED phase.
• Execute a CSU charter that identifies resource expectations and involvement. Have it signed by
both the project manager and plant operations management.
• Ensure that O&M management deliverables and targets are compatible with the project goals.
• Maintain a project succession plan for all key personnel, including plans for a shadow/alternate for
each key operations position.
• Conduct risk analysis meetings with O&M personnel participation. Make assignments for risk
mitigation of specific items so that there is not confusion about who is responsible for what
between disciplines/organizations.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Operations Readiness Management

Accountable: Plant Operations Management

Consulted: Commissioning and Startup Management; Punch-list/Turnover Coordination;

Operations; Maintenance

Informed: Construction Management; System Commissioning Teams; Operations &

Maintenance Training

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 45

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #14
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

2. Critical Interfaces 2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual shut-downs by 30-percent
on Brownfield detailed design complete; and these have been integrated into the construction-
Projects CSU integrated schedule.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been derived from
3. Adequate
knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources,
Funding for CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

46 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #15 # Contributors: 14

Familiarize Operations
Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during factory acceptance tests or on-site

Flowchart Activity # 30

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Several variable air volume (VAV) terminals are being installed in a new laboratory building. The
operations personnel, commissioning owner’s representative, and the quality control inspector
regularly walk the job site and notice that the contractor is staging new VAV terminals boxes on
site to be installed in the ceiling space at a later date. They casually look at the model number
of the VAV terminals’ name plate in the box but do not cross-reference it with the approved
submittal. After all 156 VAV terminals have been installed in the project, the controls contractor
finds out during the pre-functional check-out that the controllers in the installed VAV terminals do
not correspond with the approved submittals. All the controllers had to be removed from the VAV
terminals above the ceiling and new ones installed. Had the commissioning owner’s representative
or the operations personnel or the quality control inspector cross-referenced the equipment name
plate with the approved submittal while the VAV terminals were staged on the floor, they would
have discovered the discrepancy in the model numbers and prevented additional cost and time to
the project.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Operations personnel do not participate in the project early enough.
• Factory acceptance tests (FAT) are not completed properly. There is an assumption when
equipment arrives to site that it is the correct item and in good working order.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 47

 Hot Spot #15 # Contributors: 14

Causal Factors
• Operations personnel are not available or have not yet been selected for the project.
–– Operators are in short supply.
–– Greenfield project has not yet been able to hire operators.
–– Operators are reluctant to participate so early in the project.
–– Operators are busy operating the existing facility (brownfield) or other facilities (greenfield),
and management may be reluctant to staff up before they feel it is absolutely necessary.
–– The cost of having operators on the job “before there is anything to operate” is perceived as
wasted money from the business case perspective.
• New processes or equipment types require an investment in the “learning curve.” Inexperienced
operators hired for a greenfield project may not be able to learn during FAT what they really need
to know about the equipment.
• The project site and location of FAT may be far apart with poor transportation to or from remote
locations, making attendance at FATs difficult, inconvenient, and expensive.
• Operations personnel are inconsistently involved.
• Other work is perceived to be more urgent than familiarizing Operations personnel with equipment
before it is installed and online.
• Because the supply chain for equipment is not transparent, Commissioning and Construction
personnel may not know when equipment will arrive or where it is on-site once it does arrive. This
makes the familiarization and training of Operations personnel on site more difficult.
• Budget constraints can minimize travel ,and thus reduce the number of FAT observations.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Operations personnel will eventually run the plant. If they are not familiar with the equipment it will
take longer to ramp up to full production capacity.
• Equipment failures may occur after Commissioning personnel have left the project, because
Operations personnel were not familiar enough with equipment to operate it properly.
• Questions posed and issues raised by operators during equipment familiarization can prevent
problems and delays during Commissioning.
• Involvement of operators who did not participate in the PSM process leads to repetition and
re-hashing of the PSM process. Any late changes need to be processed via the same PSM
committee for “management of change.” The value of this input will be lost if operators are not
included.

48 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #15 # Contributors: 14

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure that contracts with OEMs/suppliers include provisions for FAT/SAT participation.
• Bring key Operations personnel on the project early enough for them to participate in equipment
familiarization during FAT or on-site (or both).
• Implement equipment tracking solutions so that the location and status of equipment is always
known. This will make equipment familiarization much more efficient and effective.
• If equipment familiarization did not occur during the Construction phase, do it during Pre-
Commissioning or even during Commissioning. While this timing is less convenient, it will still
educate operators and help prevent problems during initial operations.
• Ensure that budgets, contracts, and staffing allow for Commissioning and Operations personnel to
be involved in the project early enough to have time to become familiar with equipment.
• Preservation and many Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning tests and checks are activities that
Operations personnel should be committed to and participate in, because they will be most
effected by how well the equipment operates.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technologies [CII
2015]:
–– Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation
–– Simulation-based Virtual Commissioning
–– Operator Training

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup Management; Operations &

Maintenance Training

Accountable: Plant Operations Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Contracting and Procurement Management; OEM/Supplier

Informed: Operations Readiness Management

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 49

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #15
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been derived from
3. Adequate
knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources,
Funding for CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

50 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #16 # Contributors: 15

Loop and I/O Checks

Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-point checks

Flowchart Activity # 63

Timing
Pre-Commissioning: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On a pharmaceutical project, the contract provided only vague direction to the construction
contractor on the controls system. The project engineer in charge did not understand the nuances
of the deliverables for a controls system, and consequently loop checks, input/output checks, and
other tests and checks were not performed on the controls system. When the Commissioning
phase began, it became clear that many of these checks had not been completed and that the
startup of the controls system would not be successful as-delivered. Owner instrumentation and
controls experts had to be brought onto the project late to fix the controls system problems. This
was an expensive and slow process.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Some systems are missed during loop and input/output (I/O) checks.
• The procedure used to conduct loop and I/O checks may not meet the standard desired by CSU.
• There may be a lack of prioritization for these activities by project team members.
• There may be a lack of agreement on the execution of loop check procedure.
• Insufficient resources and inadequate schedule allocation are common for this type of work.
• I/O checks are often not done properly.

Causal Factors
• Because loop and I/O checks are one of the first pre-commissioning activities, they are often not
performed carefully.
• Project management personnel often lack technical understanding of controls systems.
• There is often a lack of alignment between construction and CSU teams on the requirements/
procedure for loop and I/O checks.
• There is often a lack of training to identify loop check failures in complex systems.
• Loop folders are often not complete (missing or outdated documents) or are completed late.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 51

 Hot Spot #16 # Contributors: 15

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If systems are missed during loop and I/O checks, unresolved problems will not be discovered until
later in CSU. These can take a lot of time to find and fix, and cause startup delay.
• If Construction and CSU are not aligned on the standards for loop and I/O checks, some checks
will have to be repeated or reworked, taking more work-hours and causing delay. Or, undiscovered
problems may show up later when they are more difficult to find and resolve.
• While mechanical or architectural mistakes draw attention to themselves, controls systems
mistakes often go unnoticed through startup and operations. Controls systems are sometimes even
used to conceal equipment underperformance. If the proper tests and checks are not conducted
during commissioning, the entire plant may run at far from optimal levels, for years.
• Startup testing of systems by use of the main control system (DCS) is a significant enhancement
to eventual operation of the facility. Schedule improvements for testing activities are difficult to
achieve until this scope of work has been completed.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Contractual terms need to support the time and resources necessary for these checks.
• Procedures for controls system tests and checks must be identified, completed, and documented
early in the Detailed Design phase.
• Align construction and CSU on the standards and procedure for loop and I/O checks of systems. If
possible, reference these standards and procedures in contract documents.
• Follow a CSU plan to define requirements for all Commissioning efforts and quality assurance
checks.
• Assign CSU personnel to perform or witness loop and I/O checks, rather than Construction
personnel.
• Provide knowledgeable technical human resources to perform quality assurance tasks, specific to
controls systems.
• Prepare the loop folders early.
• Test third-party interfaces as part of the DCS FAT testing.
• Perform QC on installations to ensure the work was performed according to the loop and I/O check
procedures.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technology [CII
2015]: Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

RACI Designations
Responsible: Electrical; Automation/DCS; Instrumentation and Controls; System Commissioning
Teams
Accountable: Commissioning and Startup Management
Consulted:
Informed: CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control; Systems Completions
Database and Support; OEM/Supplier

52 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #16
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and turnover
Construction/CSU
milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 53

 Hot Spot #17 # Contributors: 15

System Walk-downs
Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers

Flowchart Activity # 94

Timing
Commissioning: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• In a typical project, during the transition from Construction to Commissioning, several work
forces are being assembled that have generally not worked together as a team (Operations &
Maintenance, Construction, and Commissioning work forces). The need for a common vision of the
effort, a unified command and recognized leader, and appropriate framework for allocation of tasks
is required to minimize cost, time, and frustration among contributors. One of the key outcomes
of the CSU effort is walking down the completed and commissioned systems for turnover to begin
Startup and Operations. Early agreement on what is involved in the walk-down effort, the people
that must be part of the effort, and assignment of resources to address identified punch list items
are critical to avoiding project delays caused by re-doing the walk-downs numerous times in an
uncoordinated fashion, which generally indicates lack of teamwork and/or a unified vision toward
completion and safe, successful startup.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• The complete scope of walk-downs is often not communicated or understood by the parties
involved.
• It is difficult to schedule walk-downs near the end of the project due to schedule pressures, limited
resources, and conflicting priorities.
• On small projects, no one individual may be responsible for coordinating walk-downs.
• System walk-downs that are done too late reveal problems, leading to changes late in the project.
• System walk-downs may take longer than expected.

Causal Factors
• Construction and CSU do not align on what is included in system walk-downs.
• The correct personnel for the walk-downs may not be available, as they already have moved on to
other projects.
• The scope of walk-downs and associated contractual requirements are insufficiently defined.
• Stakeholders have different expectations about what makes a system ready for startup.
• Operations personnel are not available during Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning to identify
problems.
• The duration of walk-downs and the manpower required are not accurately assessed during CSU
planning.

54 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #17 # Contributors: 15

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Frustration results from disagreements over what is included in system walk-downs and relations
between the construction and commissioning teams subsequently deteriorate.
• System walk-downs done too late or without correct scope definition delay the project schedule.
• Problems discovered during walk-downs precipitate late changes and delay CSU.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Align on the scope of system walk-downs early, and include a specific definition in contract
documents.
• Ensure the timely participation and sign-off of Operations personnel during the Design phase in
order to avoid late changes.
• Ensure that each system has an individual identified as responsible for coordinating that system’s
walk-down for turnover.
• Accurately assess the time and manpower required for system walk-downs during CSU planning.
• Remove and replace individual contributors that are not dedicated to coordinated, unified walk-
downs and team unity among all the contributors.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technology [CII
2015]: Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Punch-list/Turnover Coordination

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: CSU SMEs/Engineering Support; Plant Operations Management

Informed: System Commissioning Teams; Permitting; CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and
Schedule Control; Systems Completions Database and Support

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 55

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #17
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with the
Acceptance Criteria
execution contractor.
and Deliverables

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated schedule by the

30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
Systems-based 15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management, led by CSU
team.

56 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #18 # Contributors: 13

HAZOP Closure
Verify closure of HAZOP action items

Flowchart Activity # 118

Timing
Project Close-out

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Bad impacts result when a project progresses to mechanical, electrical, instrumentation (MEI)
completion and readiness for Construction to hand off to CSU without full closure of all HAZOP
action items. Closure of some HAZOP action items can result in design change, which delays
construction completion and increases cost. Or, closure of a HAZOP action item is compromised
and approved without an appropriate design change, thereby increasing the risk profile of project.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• HAZOP action items have not been closed and/or other related risks still exist at initial operation.
• The HAZOP review is not always completed prior to commissioning.
• HAZOP items listed post-startup linger and do not get closed out.
• Operations personnel add items to the HAZOP review that are not safety-related.
• A lack of resources at the end of the project for closing out lower-priority items means that some
less important items just do not get finished at all.

Causal Factors
• Changes made to the facility design post-HAZOP may not get risk-assessed.
• Closing HAZOP items is time consuming, detailed, an undesirable task, and requires a high level of
technical expertise.
• An 80/20 mentality is applied in a zero-tolerance context
• Cost-cutting pressures, if the project is over-budget.
• There may not have been an assigned responsible party for identifying HAZOP items or for
determining the risk profile.
• HAZOP action items often result from late design changes, and thus impact construction
sequencing and productivity. For these reasons action items may not be closed or completed.
• The only chance for Operations personnel to ask for changes may be during the HAZOP review, so
they erroneously add HAZOP action items under operability justifications.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Failure to close/complete HAZOP action items can result in safety risk exposure, injuries, and
fatalities.
• Putting off the closure of HAZOP actions items results in more delay and change when they are
finally completed.
• Open HAZOP action items reflect badly on the project during corporate or other audits.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 57

 Hot Spot #18 # Contributors: 13

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• All changes and as-built redlines post-HAZOP must be documented and properly risk-assessed.
• Assign the parties responsible for closing HAZOP action items during the HAZOP review.
• An effective, rigorous management of change (MOC) program must be in effect at the start of initial
operation.
• Require the closure of HAZOP action items before startup/operations on safe mode.
• Closure of HAZOP action items should be tracked in the detailed project schedule.
• HAZOP completion and close-out documentation should be a requirement for the pre-startup safety
review (PSSR).
• Develop detailed commissioning sequence packages and perform a HAZOP review for each
sequence.
• Ensure effective implementation of MOC and alternate operating procedure programs.
• Give Operations personnel adequate opportunities to make design changes outside the HAZOP
review, so they do not feel the need to add operability issues as HAZOP action items.
• Create a detailed definition/formulation for which items qualify as HAZOP items.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Engineering Management; Risk Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Plant Operations Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS

Coordination; Quality Assurance; Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection,
Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Business Unit Management; Commissioning and Startup Management

58 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #18
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available and document control
procedures were effective, from construction through final facility turnover.

14. Accurate As- 14.2 An asset information plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by the end
built Information of detailed design.

14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by the end of
detailed design, and was referenced within the project execution plan.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 59

 Hot Spot #19 # Contributors: 11

Operation Test Procedures

Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test procedures

Flowchart Activity # 37

Timing
Commissioning: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Getting operation test procedures finalized early enough is a struggle on many projects. Projects
are not staffed early enough with experienced Operations/Commissioning personnel, and the
result is re-work of test procedures during project execution. In many cases, design changes and
additions occur too late in execution to support testing (requiring addition of temporary equipment
or rework). For example, on a relatively small project ($15 million) where this occurred, operational
test procedures were not written until 50% complete construction. Late-added scope of a
temporary recycle line from pump discharge back to tank was required to support full function tests
of pumps, filters, and controls.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Different stakeholders make decisions that may not be correct because the operation test
procedures have not yet been created.
• The test procedures are produced too late, which leads to a lesser quality product with insufficient
time to properly review/provide comments.
• The operation test procedures are technically unsound or contradictory.
• Ineffective operation test procedures could lead to increased downtime during initial startup (if the
right system functions are not checked, trips may occur during operation).

Causal Factors
• The operation test procedures are not defined early enough in the project.
• There is a lack of continuity (or availability) of documentation, making it difficult to create good
operation test procedures.
• Personnel that have experience with operational testing are not typically staffed on the project
early enough to include meaningful input.
• Insufficient CSU experience, which can lead to inadequate commissioning procedures.
• Over-reliance on subcontractor procedures. Insufficient prime contractor procedures for pulling/
coordinating all of the subcontractor procedures together.
• Delay in receiving subcontractor test procedures, especially for customized equipment which
requires customized operational test procedures.
• Turn-over of key Operations/Commissioning personnel.

60 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #19 # Contributors: 11

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Correcting stakeholder differences of opinion created by a lack of operation test procedure can
impact both cost and schedule.
• Contradictory or deficient operation test procedures resulting from a lack of continuity of
documentation will cause confusion and gaps in operation testing, potentially leading to unplanned
downtime post-startup.
• Insufficient test procedures can lead to:
–– A less safe commissioning process.
–– Delays to the project schedule.
–– Improperly tested equipment.
–– Damage to components.
–– Needing additional funds later to fix the test procedures and/or re-do the test.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure consistency and continuity of documentation: vendor information à function specifications
à test plan à commissioning plan à acceptance results.
• Align on and define operation test procedures early.
• Staff one or two key personnel, with experience in operational testing, early enough to provide
meaningful input to test development.
• Provide experienced Commissioning personnel during the Design phase to ensure that means for
commissioning are built into design (i.e., tie-in points for temporary equipment, recycle piping for
prime movers or station recycle means, tie-ins for flushing equipment, and temporary power).
• Insert wording in the prime and subcontractor contracts for providing test procedures in a timely
fashion with some schedule float.
• Vet the commissioning team to ensure sufficient commissioning experience, and that the
construction contractor is using capable personnel on the project.
• Ensure that systems (especially safety systems) are functional before the operational tests are
conducted.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU Technologies [CII
2015]:
–– Simulation-based Virtual Commissioning
–– Operator Training.

RACI Designations

Responsible: System Commissioning Teams

Accountable: Commissioning and Startup Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Plant Operations Management; OEM/Supplier

Informed: Project Management

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 61

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #19
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets has been

defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (e.g., construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of
system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test procedures has
Tools
been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions (construction,
commissioning, operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
system prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

62 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

Hot Spot #20 # Contributors: 10

Team Building
Conduct Construction-CSU team building

Flowchart Activity # 2

Timing
Commissioning: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• The larger the project, the more distant teams become both geographically and/or functionally.
Likewise, larger projects have greater durations and are more likely to have personnel continuity
disruptions. Physical distance, individual goals, and personnel changes are barriers to effective
communication. Without frequent and effective communication between teams, systems
completion may not occur in the optimum order or worse become dysfunctional by improperly
prioritizing critical path scheduling and systems completion sequence. Frequent or routine
alignment workshops and team-building sessions can break down and/or eliminate cross-team
communication barriers.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• There is often a general lack of communication and teamwork between construction and CSU
teams on capital projects.
• There is a lack of trust between Construction and CSU teams.

Causal Factors
• There is often a lack of shared responsibility for project success between Construction, CSU,
Engineering Design, Operations, and other parties, and so they do not naturally act as a team.
• The owner may try to prevent communication of multiple parties with the Construction Contractor,
preferring instead to have only one point of contact. The owner may even totally prevent
engineering/design from communicating with Construction. While this prevents the construction
contractor from getting mixed messages, it also drastically limits open communication of problems
and prevents teamwork.
• Lack of true alignment between teams on project execution, even though nominal alignment
meetings have been held.
• Different goals between Construction, CSU, and Operations lead to different priorities.
• Operations-CSU team building is just as important as Construction-CSU team building.
• Individuals may get along well enough, but cannot succeed working together if the organizational
structure and/or contractual terms of the project do not set them up for success.
• Non-productive and unhealthy competition between teams from separate departments or
companies.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 63

 Hot Spot #20 # Contributors: 10

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If the construction team and commissioning team do not work together for project success, they
will end up undermining each other and slowing the project down. Project costs will increase and
schedules will stretch out accordingly.
• Lack of communication can cause safety issues and lead to poor project performance.
• Lack of team building leads to lack of communication, which results in unpleasant surprises with
cost and delays.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Conduct Construction-CSU team building, multiple times as required to support project complexity,
duration, and personnel changes.
• Ensure that the construction manager and commissioning manager have a good working
relationship. They should mutually respect one another.
• Ensure that all parties on the project feel shared responsibility for the ultimate success of the
project.
• Develop an open culture where project team members of any level are able to identify problems
and bring them to the attention of the group without fear of being looked down upon.
• Team building activities are more effective early in the project, however can still be conducted later
in the project and should be continued periodically through to the end of the project.
• Personnel selection is very important. Cooperative, congenial, open attitudes are important along
with experience and technical competence. One person in a key role who does not communicate
well with others will hurt the team and the project.
• Project contracts and organizational structures should promote open communication of the
project teams, especially among Construction and CSU. The two parties should have a balance of
influence, with neither reporting to the other. Good contracts and organizational structures will set
up the parties for successful Commissioning and Startup.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Construction Management; Business Unit

Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Plant Operations Management

Informed: Project Leadership Team

64 Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart

 CSU Critical Success Factors
Hot Spot #20
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/approved by all

4. Alignment stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
Operations, CSU, 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews, engineered
equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and schedules.

5.1 A CSU manager was assigned at the start of front end engineering and remained
with the project through to initial operations.
5. CSU Leadership
Continuity
5.2 The qualifications and the planned tenure of the CSU manager were well-defined
by early front end engineering.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU objectives,

strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was developed and reviewed/
approved by CSU stakeholders by end of detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project execution
Execution Plan plan and had evident linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering,
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU execution
plan.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well understood
among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and the
Capability
technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

Return to CCSU Activity Flowchart 65