I spent many hours this past summer watching my son play lacrosse and couldn’t help thinking about how the team sport of lacrosse is similar to the team sport of design and construction. I’m sure this is analogous to the other team sports that move an object up and down a rectangular field, court, or rink, but this is how I see its comparison with lacrosse.

This is the conclusion of my series addressing training for buildings where O&M will be outsourced.

Last month, I introduced the importance of providing building-specific training to outside service contractors when a building owner does not have or does not intend to hire in-house O&M staff.

Last month, I addressed the challenge faced by new construction project teams to build faster and cheaper. In the normal project delivery process, this responsibility falls on the construction manager and/or general contractor (CMGC).

The transfer of knowledge, skills, and documentation to the people responsible for operating new systems is required in order to sustain the benefits of the commissioning process.

This is apt to be the last of my series of columns regarding the relationship between Substantial Completion management and efficient and successful commissioning. Previous columns have addressed various reasons why projects are being declared substantially complete when the building systems are barely functional and ideas for how to improve that situation. This month’s column will look at how substantial completion is actually determined by the owner and/or owner’s representative.

My recent columns have been puzzling through the question of why owners are accepting unfinished construction projects as substantially complete.

This month I will continue addressing what can be done to reverse the trend of building owners prematurely accepting projects as substantially complete.