Contractor Submittal Omits Required Cx Documentation
A hospital addition is out for bid. The commissioning specification requires the mechanical contractor to submit, within 30 days of award: a commissioning plan for its scope, equipment startup checklists, a training plan, and a schedule showing Cx activities integrated with the construction schedule. The low bidder submits a submittal package containing only product data sheets and a one-page letter stating it will 'cooperate with the commissioning authority.' The owner's representative wants to award the contract and 'work out the details later' because the schedule is tight and the bid is $400,000 below the next bidder. The Cx provider reviewed the specification and believes the Cx requirements were clear but that the contractor may have priced them as minimal effort.
1. What should the Cx provider recommend regarding award and the submittal?
Read the worked answer
The provider should recommend conditional award or clarification before award, not 'work it out later.' The submittal is non-compliant with the specification: it lacks the Cx plan, startup checklists, training plan, and integrated schedule. The provider should:
- Document the non-compliance against the specific specification sections and submittal dates.
- Recommend that the owner require a compliant submittal as a condition of award or of the notice to proceed, with a firm date.
- Flag the pricing risk. A bid $400,000 below the next bidder may reflect omitted Cx effort. If the contractor did not price the Cx plan, checklists, training, and schedule integration, the owner will pay for them later through change orders or through a contractor that cannot deliver.
- Avoid accepting a letter of cooperation as a substitute for the required deliverables. 'Cooperate with the Cx authority' is not a plan; it has no schedule, no responsible names, and no acceptance criteria.
- Recommend a pre-award meeting with the contractor to confirm scope understanding and to establish the submittal schedule.
2. The contractor later submits a Cx plan that schedules all functional testing in the final two weeks before substantial completion. How should the provider respond?
Read the worked answer
The plan compresses Cx into a window that cannot support meaningful testing and correction. The provider should:
- Reject the schedule logic and explain why: FPT requires completed pre-functional checks, balanced systems, and operating controls; defects found in the final two weeks cannot be corrected and retested before occupancy.
- Require Cx activities to be integrated throughout construction - design review, submittal review, PFCs at equipment start, FPT per system as it is completed, and seasonal testing as conditions allow.
- Propose a milestone schedule showing PFCs, startup, balancing, FPT, retests, training, and systems manual delivery, with float for retests.
- Escalate to the owner if the contractor will not revise, because the schedule is a contract deliverable and the owner bears the risk of a compressed Cx window.
- Document the exchange so the final report and any schedule claims reflect the provider's timely objection.