White Paper:

RETROSPECTIVE COMMISSIONING

– THE FIRST STEP IN CONVERTING YOUR

BUILDING FROM AN ENERGY PIG TO AN
ENERGY PRODUCER

P.O. Box 824063

Pembroke Pines,
Florida 33082
Ph: 305-308-6008

www.InnovativeFacilities.com
ABSTRACT
Against the backdrop of increasing pressure to divest ourselves from foreign oil, rising energy costs, discussion of
carbon caps & building labeling, and increasing operating expenses; now is the time to take a comprehensive look at
your facility operations. Consider the following:

 “….. In the area of Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings, there is a lot of low hanging fruit.
I’m fond of saying there is a lot of fruit on the ground …..”
- US Secretary of Energy

 “30% of energy use in buildings is used inefficiently.” - US EPA

 In the U.S. alone, the "low hanging fruit" in building efficiency could save the economy
more than $160 billion by 2030 - McKinsey & Co.

 “Of all the core categories of energy consumption in the United States, the built sector is the
Least efficient and has the largest potential for cost-effective improvement.” -CoStar Group

The process of designing and constructing buildings has Commissioning - Building commissioning provides
involved a variety of stakeholders including, owners and documented confirmation that building systems function
operators, design and engineering firms, customers and end- according to criteria set forth in the project documents to
satisfy the owner's operational needs. Commissioning
users, constructors, suppliers and fabricators, and technology provides a quality control check, from project inception
vendors. While each add value, today’s existing building stock through the installation and operation of energy-efficient
was designed and constructed by this fragmented cadre of equipment. Commissioning existing systems may require
interests and capabilities that were assembled to deliver a developing new functional criteria to address the owner's
current requirements for system performance.
product that is unique. Each existing building is the result of its
unique location, size, use, and project design/construction Re-Commissioning - Re-commissioning involves
stakeholders. applying the commissioning process to a building that has
been previously commissioned (during new construction) or
The majority of existing buildings have not undergone any type retro-commissioned. It is normally done every three to five
of commissioning or quality assurance process. Additionally, years, or whenever the building experiences a change in
use.
over time the facility requirements change and the operational
efficiencies of buildings tend to degrade. Because of these Retro-Commissioning - Retro-commissioning is a
factors many buildings are performing well below their potential, collaborative process that looks at how and why a building’s
use more energy than necessary and cost more to operate than systems are operated and maintained as they are, and then
employs a systematic process for investigating, analyzing,
they should1. Existing Building Commissioning (EBCx) is the and optimizing the performance of building systems. As a
Quality Assurance process designed to establish building process, rather than a set of prescriptive measures, retro-
performance. EBCx takes the form of either Re- commissioning adapts to meet the specific needs of each
Commissioning (Re-Cx), Retrospective Commissioning (Retro- owner.
Cx), or Ongoing Commissioning (see definitions side bar). Ongoing Commissioning - In ongoing
commissioning, monitoring equipment and trending software
Although many are aware that existing buildings can be is left in place to allow for continuous tracking, and the
commissioned, the process is not well understood and there is scheduled maintenance activities are enhanced to include
no standard scope of services. operational procedures. For ongoing commissioning to be
highly effective, the building owner must retain high quality
Interestingly, most existing building owners and operators staff or service contractors that are trained and have the
consistently strive to achieve many, if not all, of the benefits time and budget to not only gather and analyze data, but
also to implement the solutions that come out of the
achieved by the EBCx process. Without a Quality Assurance analysis.
process, some succeed and many fall short. An independent
commissioning agent helps to assure success by utilizing a
methodical, proven quality assurance method. As with new building commissioning, elements of existing building
commissioning have been practiced for as long as buildings have existed. Only in the past two decades have strides
been made to identify the Existing Building Commissioning process and studies implemented to confirm its value.
Recognizing the need for existing building performance enhancements, this paper will focus on Retrospective
Commissioning (Retro-Cx). It will give an overview of the Benefits, Process, and Costs of Retro-Cx..

PAGE 2 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

RETROSPECTIVE COMMISSIONING BENEFITS
Unlike energy audits, which focus on energy savings, Retrospective Commissioning encompasses a holistic approach
to the performance of the building. Generally energy savings in the range of 5% to 15% result from the Retro-Cx
process, but they need not be the sole, or primary driver of a Retro-Cx initiative. Owners can benefit from
implementing a Retro-Cx project prior to entering into an energy services agreement to assure that those energy
savings associated with improperly operated equipment are credited one hundred percent to the owner.
Retro-Cx is considered successful when a building operates as efficiently as possible, meets the owner’s operating
requirements, and includes strategies to ensure benefits last over time. Because there are no industry standards for
Retro-Cx work scope, building owners and managers engage the process for a variety of reasons.
Building Performance Improvements can reduce the costs of employee absenteeism and other productivity losses
related to worker discomfort and complaints. Numerous studies demonstrate that these costs are not trivial.
According to the Buildings Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), payroll costs account for 92% of the cost of
building ownership. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that increased productivity can result
in revenues ten times higher than the energy cost savings2.
Improvements in System Operation and Performance result from the
functional testing tasks of the Retro-Cx process. Systems in modern
buildings are controlled by computerized integrated control systems. It
is extremely rare that building operators posses the skills to manipulate
these systems for optimal performance. In fact, among the highest
reoccurring findings of the Retro-Cx process are problems with the
control systems. Because these systems are integrated, a deficiency in
one component will often effect the operation of other systems and
components. Temporary override of the automatic controls are seldom
temporary and often cascade into a manually operated building.
Equipment Life is Extended and Equipment Repair Costs are Lowered
through both proper performance and routine maintenance Figure 1 – Existing Building Non-Energy Impacts
3

improvements. Optimized equipment performance demands less wear

and tear on the equipment and motors are not overloaded. The Retro-Cx process stresses both the routine
maintenance and routine operational checks in a well-designed operation and maintenance program, emphasizing the
“O” in an Operations & Maintenance (O&M) program.

O&M Staff Capabilities are Enhanced by involving the operations staff in the
process. Staff involvement both lowers the cost of a Retro-Cx initiative and
gives building operators a more comprehensive understanding the building.
Taking advantage of the collaborative aspect of a Retro-Cx project can
provide a morale boost to operations personnel who have had to manually
operate portions of the building. They know that their time is better spent on
the O&M activities.
Building Documentation Improvements are a natural outflow of a detailed
performance improvement process. Locating and organizing documentation
commonly takes some effort, but is essential to ongoing building operation.
A well-designed operations plan encourages documentation libraries be
maintained for quick reference, expedited repair/replacement and ongoing
operator training.
Indoor Air Quality Improvements and Protection against Future Liability are
positive consequences of improved ventilation and a trained building
operators. Properly operated and maintained HVAC systems, with clean
coils, clean air intakes and regularly changed filters, are less likely to
contribute to indoor air quality problems. Understanding the relationships
between humidity control, indoor air quality, and HVAC operation is
Figure 2 – Building Energy Label Example essential in hot-humid climates. In addition, trained operators can spot
potential air quality and ventilation problems before they develop.

PAGE 3 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

Asset Values Increase as a result of buildings that benchmark and improve their operations. Buildings that cost less
to operate and provide both a healthy and productive environment for its inhabitants are inherently more valuable.
Leased space in these facilities garner higher occupancy rates and higher rents than their counterparts.
A Lower Carbon Footprint based on decreased energy costs is an increasingly socioeconomic driver for building
performance enhancements. There are other reasons, however, that are gaining momentum with our policy makers.
Legislators are giving serious credence to both regulating carbon emissions and requiring building performance
labeling (i.e. labeling similar to those mandated in Europe – See Fig 2).

The Retrospective Commissioning Process

The Retrospective Commissioning process is generally accepted as having four distinct phases: Planning,
Investigation, Implementation, and Hand-Off. An Overview of each phase will be presented here in, but prior to the
discussion, it is prudent to identify one additional phase that is widely discussed when presenting the Retro-Cx
process. This additional phase is termed the Persistence Phase (sometimes referred to as the On-Going) phase.
Activities of the Persistence Phase are owner performed, either directly or through subcontractors. Persistence
strategies are vital to maintaining and improving the facility performance and, therefore, this paper will be include
them as an integral element of the Retro-Cx process.
A Commissioning Lead (Cx-Lead) plays an important role in facilitating the process. While the Cx-Lead can be either
an internal or third party resource, a third party can add objectivity and experience. Hiring a third party also
demonstrates a reciprocal commitment and may help to maintain the project motivation and schedule.
Following is an overview outline of the process:
Planning Phase

Process Steps Process Deliverables

Set the Project Objectives Owners Operating Requirements
Select a Commissioning Lead Retrospective Commisioning Plan
Document the Operating Requirements
Perform an Initial Review
Develop the Retro-Cx Plan
Assemble the Cx Team
Hold a Kick-Off Meeting
The Project Objectives set the overall process in motion. This is an owner action item and may be used as a vehicle
for funding. Since there is no industry standard scope for the Retro-Cx process, these objectives begin to form a
foundation for the initiative. The list of benefits (listed above) can be used as a guide to formulate owner objectives.
These objectives will be further defined in the Operation Requirements document as the process gets underway.
Selection of the Commissioning Lead (Cx-Lead) is a pivotal decision. The capabilities and experience of the Cx-Lead
should align with the project objectives. Additionally, the Cx-Lead will posses team building, communication, report
writing, and other requisite skills.
The Owner Operating Requirements is a document authored by the Cx-Lead that becomes a critical foundational
document for the Retro-Cx process. This document expands the project objectives and defines them as measurable
goals. Like an archer aiming at the center of a downrange target, the measurable goals of the Operating
Requirements are the bulls-eye. All subsequent Retro-Cx activities are designed and carried out aiming at this bulls-
eye. Ultimately, the project success is measured by how close the measured Retro-Cx results are to those specified
in the Operating Requirements.
The owner conducts an initial project walk-through with the Cx-Lead and building operations team. Bringing together
these key team members presents the opportunity to discuss the Retro-Cx goals and introduce the Cx-Lead to the
facility operators. A skilled Cx-Lead will take this opportunity for relationship building and ask insightful questions.
The building operator has awareness and intuition about unique facility characteristics that will help to focus the
investigation phase.
The Retrospective Commissioning Plan, developed by the Cx-Lead, establishes the roadmap to success (defined as
achieving the Operating Requirements). It presents a brief overview of the facility, goals and scope of the Retro-Cx
initiative, list of systems to be investigated, team members and their responsibilities, schedule, investigation scope
and methods, and a description of the expected outcomes. It also outlines additional phases of the Retro-Cx initiative

PAGE 4 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

such as the Implementation Phase requirements and project Hand-Off activities. A comprehensive draft document is
adequate at this point, with the final document deliverable after assembling the Retro-Cx project team.
By definition, the Retro-Cx process is a collaborative process. As such, maximizing the facility staff involvement
contributes to both cost reduction and enhanced training opportunities. Additional project stakeholders, as outlined in
the Retro-Cx Plan are brought into the process. All primary team members have the opportunity to review and
comment on the Retrospective Commissioning Plan prior to it being finalized. Presentation and sign-off on the
Retrospective Commissioning Plan presents a good opportunity to conduct a project kick-off meeting.
Investigation Phase

Process Steps Process Deliverables

Review Facility Documentation Diagnostic Monitoring Plan
Execute Diagnostic Monitoring Functional Performance Testing Protocols
Execute Functional Performance Testing Master List of Findings
Perform Simple Repairs List of Improvements for Implementation
Develop the Master List of Findings
Prioritize & Select Operational Improvements
Investigation consumes the largest amount of the project team resources and is at the heart of the Retro-Cx process.
Maximum benefits are derived from a well planned (and documented) process of understanding how the building is
intended to operate compared to actual observed and measured operation. This phase starts with a comprehensive
review of the facility documentation as related to the systems listed in the Retro-Cx Plan. Coupled with a detailed
walk-through, and some preliminary measurements, this review provides the Cx-Lead the insights and knowledge to
formulate a well-designed investigation plan.
The Investigation typically encompasses both monitoring and functional testing to assess how the systems are
performing against expectations. A detailed plan, written for both the diagnostic monitoring and functional
performance testing are key elements that align the project team and allow any obstacles (such as building
occupancy, Building Automation System [BAS] limitations, schedule conflicts, resource constraints, etc.) to surface.
The plans may also identify the need to involve specialty vendors for involvement where the Cx-Lead does not have
expertise.
It is good practice to perform routine maintenance items, instrumentation calibration, and correct known deficiencies
prior to executing of the monitoring and testing. The execution of the diagnostic monitoring and functional testing
supplies the data for the building performance analysis. Both activities will most likely require the involvement of
building operations staff, BAS vendor and the Test, Adjust, and Balance (TAB), vendor. It is not unusual for
deficiency findings to occur during the functional testing. These findings will be noted on the Master List of Findings
and simple repairs should be addressed immediately.
While testing and diagnostic monitoring can be exhaustive activities, the analysis of the data is the where the rubber
meets the road. The output of these activities is a Master List of Findings created by the Cx-Lead. This list
summarizes the findings of the testing and monitoring, including those items that were discovered and addressed
throughout the process. Each of the findings is described, implementation cost estimate provided, associated energy
savings and payback calculated (if appropriate), recommendations provided, and the Cx-Lead comments noted.
The Master List of Findings is a tool to establish owner priorities and budgets. The information can provide a
backdrop for funding requests and/or directives for in-house remediation efforts. A good practice is to formalize the
owner implementation selections into a List of Improvements for Implementation.
Completion of the Investigation Phase is a milestone on the Retro-Cx process and some owners are tempted to either
end the Retro-Cx process and/or complete the selected improvements without the oversight of the Cx-Lead. While
this approach is plausible, it is a good time to step back and evaluate the value that the commissioning lead brought
to the project and the reasons they were invited to participate in the project. Consider again the objectivity,
experience, and leadership of your Cx-Lead as the final phases of the Retro-Cx process approach.
Implementation Phase

Process Steps Process Deliverables

Implement Selected Improvements Implementation Plan & Method Selection
Verity Results Implementation Summary Report

PAGE 5 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

Owner resources and Cx-Lead capabilities are factors to consider in selecting the best methods to use for
implementing the improvements. A turnkey approach via the Cx-Lead may be a viable option for owners with limited
resources. The owner may choose to implement the selected improvements with capable in-house staff, or may
outsource the implementation to established contractors maintaining oversight from the Cx-Lead. Cx-Lead
involvement in the implementation assures continuity and streamlines result verification and project Hand-Off.
The formality of producing an Implementation Plan is recognized best practice for producing a detailed scope of work
and guideline for any testing/verification requirements. The Implementation Plan can be used to solicit Requests for
Quotation from contractors and/or a detailed Scope of Work for in-house staff. Developing a solid Implementation
Plan is key to getting the improvements done and verified correctly.
Testing of the implementation results assures that the systems are working as expected and that the anticipated
benefits are achieved. Testing can be via observation, BAS trending or data gathering as previously outlined in the
Implementation Plan. It is important to not only test the results of the individual improvements, but also to confirm that
multiple improvements and other building systems are properly integrated.
Results of the improvement implementation, along with testing results are complied into an Implementation Summary
Report, which provides updated energy calculations (if applicable), final implementation cost and any editorial
comments.

Hand-Off Phase

Process Steps Process Deliverables

Conduct Training Final Report
Conduct a Close-Out Meeting Systems Manual
Re-Commissioning Plan
A Final Report, prepared by the Cx-Lead, summarizes the project and provides a record of the Retro-Cx activities. It’s
Table of Contents includes Executive Summary, Project Background, The Master List of Findings (with a Description
of the Improvements Implemented), Updated Estimates of Savings, Actual Improvement Costs, results of the
Diagnostic Monitoring and Functional Testing activities, recommended Re-Commissioning Frequency, documentation
of improvements made and a recommendations of further investigation and improvements. The Final Report is a
good reference source for the building owner and operators to aid in maintaining the performance of the building
systems. It is also the definitive reference for any future “Re-Commissioning” activities and should be filed with other
important building documents.
PERSIST

Documentation Performance
Documentation Ongoing Cx
Updates Ongoing Training Perform "O"&M Tracking Reports
Review Re-Cx
CLOSE-OUT

Final Report Systems Manual Re-Cx Plan

Conduct Training Closeout Meeting
IMPLEMENT

Implementation Execute Verify Implementation

Implementation
Plan Implementation Implementation Summary
(Upgrades) Results
INVESTIGATE

Diagnostic Functional Execute

Documentation Testing Perform Simple Master List of Improvement
Monitoring Plan Monitoring &
Gather & Review Protocols Repairs Findings Selection
Testing
PLAN

Operating
Identify Building Set Objectives Initial Review Retro-Cx Plan Assemble Team Kick-Off Meeting
Requirements

Figure 3 – The Retrospective Commissioning Process

PAGE 6 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.
Either included in the Final Report, or as a stand-alone document, the conclusion of the Retro-Cx process is the ideal
time to outline a Re-Commissioning Plan (See previous side-bar for definition). All buildings benefit from periodic
attention that is focused on the building performance. Developing a Re-Commissioning Plan at this juncture
demonstrated a level of commitment that can be carried into future budget planning. Triggers for Re-Commissioning
depend on the performance level and targets for the building. Re-Commissioning can be scheduled on frequency
(every two - five years) or based on events such as change of use, unexplained increase in energy consumption,
indoor air quality/comfort issues, or other change in other building performance metrics.
A Systems Manual is a best practice document, also developed by the Cx-Lead, and its requirement, as a project
deliverable, would have been defined in the Retrospective Commissioning Plan. Whether planned for or not, a
systems manual can be an indispensable resource for both current and future building operators. A Systems Manual
is a compilation of documentation intended to describe how the building should operate. For major systems that
impact the building performance, the manual includes an overview of the system, simple or detailed Process and
Instrumentation Diagrams (P&ID), Descriptive Narratives of Operational Sequences, and other appropriate
operational information such as BAS interfaces (point list, alarm settings, trend data, etc.), TAB Report, Operating
Schedules, Ongoing Diagnostic Information, O&M information, etc, etc. If provided, the Systems Manual becomes the
training handbook and a primary go-to document for building operations staff.
Operator training is essential to maintaining the building performance. Ideally, operators were an integral part of the
Retro-Cx project team and have both offered and gained insights into the performance attributes of building
operations activities. The Hand-Off Phase is the ideal time to provide any additional training that the staff needs to
maintain and improve the building performance. Training on the building performance metrics is key to the
persistence strategies discussed below.
The Retrospective Commissioning project concludes with a Close-Out meeting which is an opportunity to discuss
lessons learned from the project and recognize the contributions of the team members.

Persistence Phase

Process Steps
Implement Periodic Building Documentation Review/Update
Practice Ongoing Training
Enhance the Operation Component (O&M)
Implement Performance Tracking
Practice Ongoing Commissioning
Re-Commission when Appropriate
At the conclusion of the Retro-Cx project, the facility will be operating at a high performance level. Maintaining and
improving this level of performance requires effort and may not happen with business-as-usual approach. Proactive
measures not only prevent a decline in building performance, but also enhance performance and help to assure that
the project benefits persist.
Documentation Review/Update is an action item that commonly falls to the bottom of managers priority list. A well-
maintained and accessible building documentation library expedites and lowers repair costs. Systems Manuals, as
described in the Hand-Off Phase discussion, are foundational resources for maintaining building performance,
seconded by Operation and Maintenance (O&M). The O&M manuals produced by many vendors and equipment
manufacturers include multiple models and options, which, if not marked for the buildings specific equipment, can
waste appreciable time finding detail information for repair. Other characteristics of system documentation include
vendor contacts, performance curves for fans and pumps, spare parts lists, maintenance requirements, start-up
requirements, and troubleshooting requirements.
A frequently overlooked documentation requirement is associated with systems that are controlled by
microprocessors. In addition to the previously listed items, maintain documentation of software/firmware revisions,
configurable parameters, and tested software backup’s. Passwords and access codes need to be available for
trained operators. For those software systems that undergo recurring revision, it is recommended that training and
tools for software back-up and recovery are available.
There is a difference between an Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan and a Preventive Maintenance Plan (PM). By
incorporating operational and control checks into the PM program operators will monitor and maintain the proper
settings for the facility. Procedures for documenting and investigating parameters that are out of tolerance will help to
keep the documentation updated and facilitate an ongoing awareness of building system performance.

PAGE 7 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

Ongoing training of operations staff serves as both a motivator and a means for persistent building performance.
Unless operators and managers have the right knowledge and skills, it will be impossible for the building to perform
optimally over time. The Building Automation System is one of the most powerful and underutilized systems in
buildings. Ongoing training for maximum utilization of the BAS trends and alarms will help building operators identify
performance enhancement opportunities and spot system derogation.
With training on BAS data trending and data analysis, a System Performance Monitoring program can be
implemented. Couple the system level performance monitoring with Utility Monitoring and Building Benchmarking to
create a three tier performance monitoring program that provides the high level tools for improvement goals. Energy
benefits of any additional improvement strategies can be measured and early detection of problems and equipment
failures will be noticed. Building Benchmarking tools such as EPA’s Portfolio Manager are available as well as
automated Energy Information Systems (EIS) to facilitate energy consumption analysis.
Together, these persistence strategies can be considered Ongoing Commissioning (Ongoing-Cx). Some building
owners have taken advantage of the diagnostic monitoring that was implemented during the Retro-Cx process and
added additional continuous monitoring as either a stand-alone system or an enhancement to their BAS trending.
Some owners take advantage of third-party services that install instrumentation and remotely monitor the facility
systems.
Re-Commissioning generally costs less than the Retro-Cx initiatives since much of the planning and documentation
from the Retro-Cx is readily available. Triggers for re-commissioning include change in building use and increases in
energy consumption, complaints, or equipment failures. With a building practicing the persistence strategies
discussed here, re-commissioning becomes a review and validation of the operating practices and provides an
opportunity for enhancing operator training, documentation, monitoring practices and items that can be difficult to
budget
RETROSPECTIVE COMMISSIONING COSTS
Costs for the Retro-Cx initiative can vary substantially depending. Cost variables include:

 Building Type/Use/Age/Size/Location  Scope of Retro-Cx Process

 Number & Complexity of Systems  Availability of Current Documentation
 Equipment Age & Condition  Commissioning Authority Rates
 Site Staff - Skill Level & Project  Presence of an extensive O&M
Involvement Program
Accordingly, it can be difficult to estimate the costs of a Retrospective Commissioning effort at the early planning
stages, particularly for a third party provider that may not know the building operating characteristics.

A 2005 report, issued by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory3 is

the most comprehensive collection and analysis of Existing Building
Commissioning available. This study analyzed the costs of eighty five
(85) existing building commissioning projects. Following are some of the
findings:
The median cost of 100 projects, representing over twenty two million
square feet of building area was $0.27 per Square Foot (ft2) with a range
of $0.27/ft2 to $0.27/ft2 (normalized to 2003 Dollars). Buildings in Texas
and California covering all major building types dominated project
locations.
The median payback for existing building commissioning was less than
3
Figure 4 – Payback Times one year and ranged from 0.2 to 2.1 years (Figure 4). Larger, more
energy intensive and complex buildings, such as laboratories and
hospitals cost more to implement, but yielded higher benefits (Figure 5).

A breakdown of project costs showed that approximately two thirds of the costs were allocated to the planning and
investigation phases, with the next highest allotment going to implementation. The Cx-Lead fees ranged from 35% to
71% of the overall cost

PAGE 8 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

The study showed that, within the variation of project scope, those with
more process steps faired better than those with fewer steps. As
illustrated in Figure 6, most projects incorporated between five to twelve
process steps.
Strategies for lowering costs, and gaining maximum benefit, are centered
on owner involvement. Involvement with documentation gathering,
performing maintenance and calibration prior to the Retro-Cx
investigation, assisting with diagnostic monitoring, trend logging, and
functional testing and performing repairs and improvements all serve to
lower costs and train staff.
3
Figure 5 – Cost Intensity

Sample Size = 73

Document Design Intent or Update Current Documentation

Develop Commissioning Plan
Perform Utility Bill Analysis, Benchmarking
Perform Trend Analysis
Building Modeling
Document Master List of Findings
Estimate Energy Cost Savings for Findings
Present Findings & Recommendations Report
Update System Documentation (Control Sequences)
Implement O&M Improvements
Implement Capital Improvements
Monitor Fixes
Measure Energy Savings
Develop Systems Manual / Re-Commissioning Manual
Final Report

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Share of Projects Including Given Activity

3
Figure 6 – Number of Steps

CONCLUSION
Retrospective commissioning has enormous potential to simultaneously lower the cost of building operations, increase building
performance, and contribute to environmental stewardship. As building systems become more complex in an effort to lower costs
and garner energy savings, the risk of under-performance increases. The desire for increased energy efficiency may itself create
energy waste if those systems are not designed, implemented, and operated properly. The success of a large majority of complex
energy savings and efficiency strategies is directly coupled to a quality assurance process – better known as commissioning.
Investing in a methodical process of systematically analyzing and optimizing building system performance typically
pays for itself in less than two years. Additionally, Retrospective Commissioning begins to prepare building owners
for a green economy, which may include mandates to label buildings according to their performance matrices and
various regulation of carbon emissions.
1
M. Miller, B. Santhanakrishnan, 2008, “Best Practices in Commissioning Existing Buildings” 2008 Draft for Public Comment, Presented at the
16th National Conference on Building Commissioning <http://www.peci.org/ncbc/2008/docs/Miller.pdf>
2
Thorn, Jennifer and Steven Nadel. “Retrocommissioning: Program Strategies to Capture Energy Savings in Existing Buildings” American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy – June 2003 <http://www.aceee.org/pubs/a035full.pdf>
3
Mills, E et al., “The Cost-Effectiveness of Commissioning New and Existing Commercial Buildings: Lessons from 224 Buildings” National
Conference on Building Commissioning: May 4-6, 2005 <http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/PUBS/PDF/NCBC_Mills_6Apr05.pdf>

PAGE 9 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AABC Commissioning Group, “AGC Commissioning Guideline”, 2005
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Guideline 0-2005, The Commissioning
Process (2005).
The Building Commissioning Association, “Best Practices in Commissioning Existing Buildings” Jun 2008
http://www.bcxa.org/downloads/bca-ebcx-best-practices.pdf
Claridge, David Ph.D., “Commissioning of Existing Buildings: A Triple Play on Energy, Comfort, and Operability”, Presented at High
Performance Buildings, Apr 18-20,2007,
http://www.commissioning.org/downloads/Commissioning%20of%20Existing%20Buildings%20A%20Triple%20Play%20on%20Ene
rgy,%20Comfort%20and%20ReliabilityClaridge.ppt
Ellis, R., PE, “When to Re-Commission”, Engineered Systems, Aug 2007
Haasl, T, Et.El., “California Commissioning Guide: Existing Buildings”, 2006, California Commissioning Collaborative.
http://www.cacx.org/resources/documents/CA_Commissioning_Guide_Existing.pdf
Haasl, T,, Sharp,T., “A Practical Guide for Commissioning Existing Buildings” April 1999, Oak Ridge National Laboratory <
http://eber.ed.ornl.gov/commercialproducts/RetroCommissioningGuide-w-cover.pdf >
Harrell, Steve, “Continuous Commissioning”, HPAC Engineering, Nov 2008
Harrell, Steve, “Optimize Building Systems with Commissioning”, Buildings, Jan 2009
International Energy Agency, “Commissioning tools for improved energy performance”, Buildings and Community Systems,
Annex 40
Jewell, Mark. “Understanding the Value of Commissioning in Income-Producing Office Buildings”, 2004, Proceedings of National
Conference on Building Commissioning, Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
McGuire, Bill, P.E, “Energy Savings from Retrocommissioning” Presented at 008 ACG Annual Meeting, April 22-24, <
http://www.commissioning.org/downloads/McGuire%20-%20Retro-Commissioning.ppt>
Mills, E et al., “The Cost-Effectiveness of Commissioning New and Existing Commercial Buildings: Lessons from 224 Buildings” National
Conference on Building Commissioning: May 4-6, 2005 <http://eetd.lbl.gov/emills/PUBS/PDF/NCBC_Mills_6Apr05.pdf >
Mills, E et al., “The Business Case for Commissioning New and Existing Buildings” Presentation 12/06/2005, <
http://hightech.lbl.gov/presentations/Mills_Cx_PEC_lowres.pdf>
M. Miller, B. Santhanakrishnan, 2008, “Best Practices in Commissioning Existing Buildings” 2008 Draft for Public Comment,
Presented at the 16th National Conference on Building Commissioning <http://www.peci.org/ncbc/2008/docs/Miller.pdf>
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) “Guideline to the Commissioning Process for Existing
Buildings, or “Retro-Commissioning”, Prepared by Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
<http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/pdfs/retrocxhandbookfinal040704.pdf>
Portland Energy Conservation, inc., “A Retrocommissioning Guide for Building Owners”, 2007,
<http://www.peci.org/Library/EPAguide.pdf>
Portland Energy Conservation, Inc., “White Paper: Retrocommissioning Your Building for Savings”, Aug 2007, Business White
Paper < http://www.rcx-program.com/docs/PG&E%20RCx%20White%20Paper.pdf >
Thorn, Jennifer and Steven Nadel. “Retrocommissioning: Program Strategies to Capture Energy Savings in Existing Buildings”
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy – June 2003 http://www.aceee.org/pubs/a035full.pdf
United States Department of Energy “Operation & Maintenance Best Practices – Release 2” July 2004
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/omguide_complete.pdf>
United States Green Building Council, “Existing Building Reference Guide, Version 2”, Second Edition, Oct 2006

PAGE 10 OF 10 2009 - Innovative Facility Solutions, Inc.