Client Asset Management Organisations Must Not Lower Guard on Asset Commissioning and Handover Processes

The Facilities Management (FM) industry continues to face challenges across multiple frontiers. It has low margin pressures, stiff competition, and cost overruns due to skill-related productivity and supply chain issues. Besides, it is also dealing with another mounting challenge with its clients concerning the disputes and escalations relating to legacy building asset management conditions. In two-thirds of our FM engagements, we struggle with aligning this fundamental lacuna, where fundamental processes were either compromised during the construction lifecycle or failure of the previous maintenance regimes to adhere to requisite preventative maintenance protocols. A more glaring issue is in the context of the commissioning and handover processes in newly built environments, where we continue to see widespread procedural failures and a lack of collaboration between stakeholders. 

It is common to see FM companies being dragged into this conflict to fix the snagging issues, getting a beating from clients due to SLA breaches in this particular aspect. It is inappropriate to blame them as expertise within the FM domain is limited in addressing issues emanating from commissioning challenges. In most cases, we have observed that the root cause is the failure of the commissioning and handover regime rather than an FM SLA breach. However, such recurring escalations can still be mitigated should FM companies conduct thorough due diligence on operational readiness to address these before they embark on mobilisation. 

Across many of our FM contracts in our company, we continue to notice that during the construction lifecycle, from design, procurement, and construction to commissioning and handover, procedural measures and best practices are often compromised, multiplying FM challenges. It is common in built- environments to see perpetual maintenance problems as a consequence of substandard construction or design failures in their inability to capitulate the operational needs of the post-construction era. However, these woes are further aggravated if the due processes of procurement clearly outlining the technical terms and conditions relevant to commissioning, testing standards, and deferred liability period (DLP) are not implied. 

In this opinion piece, I am referring to the sanctity of the commissioning and handover process that all stakeholders should follow. To avoid post-construction debacles, client organisations must ensure the building of an effective commissioning and handover regime with zero deviation from industry standards. However, in reality, construction project teams, in pursuit of timely handovers to prevent delays, push timelines and often ignore specific compliances, leading to the circumvention of best practices wherein the integrity of asset data and its inspection reports providing critical insights on asset commissioning and testing are either missing or incomplete. FM teams continue to face hurdles across most of their contract engagements, either receiving an incomplete contract asset list or substandard handover documentation. As an industry practice, we seldom use conditional surveys in newly built environments as during the handover process; the client organisation must undertake to ensure the provision of comprehensive commissioning and testing data, as per the guidelines stipulated in the tender award process. It should be noted that procurement assessment and evaluation of technical bids of all contractors, including OEM, should clearly outline terms and conditions and specifications on the commissioning, handover and DLP maintenance. We continue to see contractors dragging their feet in the context of their obligations by citing certain grey areas in the contract. For instance, project delays because of the client's own reasons that are beyond the control of the contractors often raise conflict on commissioning and handover issues, especially in the context of DLP maintenance. 

The colossal issue is the rushed project handover timelines that leave client organisations to lower the bar on due process compliance. As a result, limited time is provided for due diligence by FM service providers, exposing them to safety breaches and trust issues with clients' operational teams, raising SLA failures and conflicts.  

From building fabrics surveying reports to MEP assets commissioning and handover, they are all fundamental to building a sustainable FM regime. This is critical data and documentation. Client organisations must ensure that a competent third party is put in place for testing and commissioning and that project handover and operational teams collaborate closely before concluding the RFP processes for FM, clearly defining the underlying scope of commissioning and handover. 

The DLP's terms and conditions with contractors are another additional process in the asset management program, and the client asset management team must thoroughly review this. They must not just be left for procurement but thoroughly scrutinised by them with no deviation. The FM company must be given complete access to essential requirements of the DLP contracts with construction phase contractors to factor in order to align its performance management SLAs. The client organisation must ensure a proper transition between the various stakeholders in this process. They must not leave FM companies to juggle with project organisation teams to fix critical tasks in the name of snags. How often are FM companies pushed into handover processes that are otherwise the job of the client operational team to conclude before handover? Even if it is defined explicitly in the RFP as a separate scope, the commissioning and handover process is a specialised capability that requires an expert team with technical skills. Putting FM personnel in asset management handover may not be suitable and should be managed by a third party. 

My strong advice to client asset management teams is not to disregard this critical aspect, as this sets the foundation of a sustainable FM regime. Any compromise on commissioning, handover processes and DLP management will impair FM goals. They should appoint competent in-house and outsourced teams to conclude this process. RFP for FM must identify such a scope, detailing SLA on the asset handover process and KPIs, if any.

Whilst I call upon client organisations to reinforce their compliances across the construction lifecycle to strengthen commissioning and handover processes, I also urge FM companies to build specific capabilities across their people, processes, and practices to handle asset management and handover processes. Defining SLAs, a comprehensive operational risk review framework and conditional asset assessment programs are some critical requirements FM companies must have to build a win-win strategy to address this vital asset management requirement.