Specifying smart
The Building Controls Industry Association explains how its BEMS Delivery Framework can help building owners define the right level of BEMS functionality, improve specification and tender clarity, and ensure the system delivered matches the building’s operational needs.
A building owner asks for an “intelligent” building energy management system (BEMS), the consultant specifies an “integrated BEMS”, and several contractors tender against the same requirements. On the face of it, everyone is working towards the same outcome, but in practice those terms can mean very different things to different people.
One contractor could interpret integration as central monitoring and control of HVAC, while another might include third-party systems, structured data, analytics and dashboards. As a result, a client expecting a platform capable of supporting increasingly sophisticated smart building applications could ultimately receive something considerably less capable.
The problem is not necessarily poor technology or engineering. It can begin much earlier, with ambiguity over what the BEMS is actually expected to deliver.
The BCIA’s new BEMS Delivery Framework, originally authored and led by Christopher Kelly CEng BEng MCIBSE and developed and maintained by the BCIA Technical Working Group, has been created to help address that problem.
What does the BEMS Delivery Framework change?
The Framework introduces six progressive Delivery Levels, from L0 to L5, ranging from basic controls capability through to highly integrated intelligent building functionality. As the levels progress, so too does the expected capability, integration and intelligence of the BEMS, giving project teams a clearer way to define what a building actually requires. More importantly, it establishes a common language.
Rather than relying on broad descriptions such as ‘smart’, ‘integrated’ or ‘intelligent’, clients and their project teams can establish the level of functionality expected from the outset. This matters because BEMS specification sits at the beginning of a much longer chain of decisions.
Where expectations are ambiguous, contractors may price different interpretations of the same tender, making bids harder to compare on a like-for-like basis. Requirements can also be diluted during value engineering, potentially leaving a considerable difference between what the client originally expected and what is ultimately delivered. Greater clarity at the beginning can help reduce the likelihood of those gaps emerging later in the project.
Start with what the building needs to achieve
One of the Framework’s most useful principles is that it is manufacturer-agnostic. Rather than beginning with the question of which BEMS or technology to buy, it encourages project teams to first consider what they need the building to do.
For example, they may need to establish how HVAC should respond to occupancy, which third-party systems need to interact, what information facilities teams require, how energy performance will be monitored and what level of analytics is appropriate. There is also the longer-term question of how those requirements might change over the building’s life.
Only once those outcomes and operational requirements are understood should the appropriate technology be determined.
More sophisticated does not automatically mean better
Importantly, the highest Delivery Level is not necessarily the right one for every project. A relatively straightforward building may not need the functionality appropriate to a large, highly connected estate.
Specifying unnecessary sophistication can increase cost and introduce complexity without creating corresponding operational value. Conversely, underspecification can constrain performance and limit the building’s ability to adapt to future requirements.
The objective is therefore not to achieve the highest possible Delivery Level, but to identify the level that is appropriate for the building. That requires an understanding of its occupants, operational strategy and energy objectives, as well as the needs and capabilities of the people who will ultimately manage it.
Better specifications, better tenders
Clearer requirements also have important implications for procurement. When bidders make different assumptions about functionality, the lowest tender may not represent the lowest price for an equivalent solution; it may simply include less.
By providing a common reference point, the Framework should make tender submissions easier to compare and reduce the risk of important functionality disappearing unnoticed as a project progresses.
It can also support clearer conversations between clients, consultants, controls specialists, electrical contractors, system integrators and manufacturers, with each party working towards a more consistently understood outcome.
Commissioning becomes part of proving delivery
Specification alone, however, cannot guarantee performance. Commissioning remains the point at which design assumptions meet operational reality. Control sequences, sensors, interfaces, graphics and system responses need to work as intended, while facilities teams need sufficient understanding of the system to operate it effectively.
The Framework can support this process by providing a clearer reference point against which the delivered system can be assessed. At handover, the question is therefore not simply whether the BEMS works, but whether it delivers the functionality that was agreed at the outset.
From controls technology to building performance
Ultimately, this is why better BEMS specification matters. Advanced controls can help reduce unnecessary plant operation, coordinate building services, reduce energy usage, respond to occupancy, improve comfort and give facilities teams better information. But having that capability on paper does not automatically translate into performance in practice.
When controls, integration and operational requirements are considered too late, technology can end up having to work around decisions already made elsewhere in the project, rather than supporting the required outcomes from the outset.
The BCIA BEMS Delivery Framework provides an opportunity to change that conversation. By defining the required outcome and appropriate level of functionality early, project teams have a clearer basis for specification and procurement, and a stronger reference point through commissioning and handover.
Capable technology, effective integration and good controls engineering will always be essential. But they need to start with clarity about what the BEMS is expected to deliver.
That is how a BEMS specification becomes building performance.
