Independent reviews are crucial for easy construction.

Design review can be an effective method of controlling construction budget in the early stages of a project, where rising costs will tarnish the reputation of even the most respected design firm. The peer review of engineering design is conducted to identify and mitigate deficiencies when they can be corrected on paper, a far less costly proposition than resolution during construction or occupancy.

The avoidance of costs associated with the resolution of defective work during the design phase is an especially neglected part of the process. Whether due to contractual obligations, resources or workload, the ability to look at the entire scope of the project can escape even the most devoted design team. The necessity of independent review is no less true of design engineers than of a student grading his own test. The inherent conflict of interest is just as problematic in the design and construction world.

Most engineering firms perform an internal review of their work, typically under the auspices of quality assurance and control, but find it difficult to provide a truly objective critique that accounts for future complications in the operation and maintenance of a building. The difference between agreement and conflict of interest can be blurred by claims of added value by design professionals. Because a conflict of interest is a situation in which a consultant has competing professional or personal interests, his ability to render professional duties impartially is hindered. To ask the project engineer to conduct an "independent" review of his or her design represents such a conflict.

The determining factor of independent review should be the client's comfort level with leaving a firm to certify its own engineering design. Despite this dilemma, the use of an independent, third-party consultant to conduct a genuinely objective review remains an occasional, if infrequently part of today s design and construction process. Owners are wary of adding up-front cost to a project, especially to correct work that they pay to be done right the first time.

However, there is growing appreciation for the role commissioning plays in the design review process, and the proven return on investment has led to a surge in the commissioning of residential and commercial properties throughout New York region. Newcomers to the market may be surprised to know that payback for commissioning has been shown to be as little as two years for new construction, despite the increasing complexity and magnitude of today's building systems. This return on investment can have much to do with savings found during the design phase.

This is not to say that internal review doesn't have its benefits, but rather that there should be much more to peer review than is often the case. Whereas an engineer may ensure the accuracy of design details and load calculations, a commissioning agent will look to mitigate the long-term and big-picture impact design may have on operation and maintainability of equipment, such as inadequate accessibility to doors or controls.

When commissioning is introduced in the earliest stages of a project, design review, along with assistance in the development of design intent and basis of design, becomes an essential part of the commissioning process. This early perspective on the relationship between design and operations should lead to fewer call backs and change orders during construction and the avoidance of equipment replacement costs and the correction of items leading to maintenance inefficiencies.

It is important for engineering professionals to recognize that the commissioning agent is performing its review to enhance the design from an operational and building performance perspective only. Rather than create an adversarial relationship, independent review by the commissioning agent should lend practicality and field experience to the design table.

Commissioning lends an operator's eye to the designer's vision.