Don’t Turn the Installation Contractor Loose!

A common practice in today’s security industry is to turn the installation contractor loose with a minimum design criteria package. The expectation is that the contractor can then proceed to fulfill the client’s design intent.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

The architect-engineering industry has long practiced established project management principles during the installation phase that include provision of a sufficiently defined design package, clear performance expectations, periodic monitoring of contractor performance and final testing of the installed system.

On any project, and security projects are no exception, it is important that the owner communicate his definition of success to the installation contractor. That definition should include:

The success of an installation project is directly related to the quality of the project design information provided to the installation contractor. This design information essentially takes two forms:

Drawings: Some kind of drawing package needs to be provided to the installation contractor to definitively express the intent of the project. If this is the first project with this particular installation contractor, the design drawings will need to be more extensive than if there is an established, long-term relationship. In either case, the direction to the contractor needs to be definitive to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about the specifics as well as the intent of the project.

Specifications: Specifications deal with the project in three areas. First, they contractually define the interaction between the owner (or owner’s agent) during the course of the installation project. This primarily has to do with submittals and submittal reviews, and provision of other types of information to the owner. Second, the specifications define either by make and model number or by performance parameters the equipment that will be used on the project. Third, the specifications define the performance requirements that will need to be met by the system before the system is accepted as complete by the owner.

A significant portion of our practice is investigating inoperable systems that have been designed and installed by others. In most cases, many of the problems can be traced to either the lack of design information or inadequate specifications. Design problems generally involve no design documents at all or documents that are inadequate to sufficiently define the project. The common practice today is to simply provide the installation contractor a walk-through with a brief written description of the project. This, then, forms the basis of a proposal by the contractor. The other area of singular difficulty is the specifications (or written description of the project). We find that there is little definition of the performance requirements of the final installed system. For example, many organizations today are utilizing CCTV cameras to record pictures of individuals entering and exiting a building. This requirement is often defined textually in the absence of definitive design drawings. Too often, the textual description of this requirement is something like: The camera shall provide a clear view of all individuals in the hallway.

A description that is more likely to result in a desired functional performance is something like: The camera shall provide at least 400 lines of resolution and provide a clear head and shoulders shot of all individuals within 10 feet of the doorway.

Our specifications always include a strong requirement for testing the installed system prior to acceptance by the owner. This testing normally occurs in two phases: performance verification testing and endurance testing. The performance verification test is performed to ensure that all components of the system are operating properly, the system operates as an integrated unit and the system meets all of the performance measures that were previously defined either in the design package or the specifications. We normally provide the procedures by which the performance verification tests will be performed in addition to forms on which the results of the test are documented. Performance of the tests and submission of written documentation are a requirement in the contract with the installation contractor.

Long-term, or endurance testing, is performed so that the system can meet the defined performance measures reliably over an extended period of time. Depending upon the size of the project, the endurance test usually is conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is normally a one-week test period where the system performance is observed and documented. Phase 2 is normally an adjust and repair period of one to two days, depending on the magnitude of the items discovered during phase 1. Phase 3, if needed, is another one-week period where the performance of the system during operation is monitored to ensure compliance with the performance measures.

All of the contractual requirements placed upon the contractor need to be monitored to ensure compliance. Some owners have existing staff with the time and qualifications to perform this responsibility; others look to their existing consulting resources to assist them with these responsibilities. Whoever performs the installation phase monitoring services must be intimately aware of the ultimate performance requirements of the project as well as the contractual obligations of the installation contractor. All meetings, telephone conversations and design or project direction changes must be documented in writing to ensure an accurate understanding by all parties as well as an audit trail in case of later disputes.

As security systems become more complex, more expensive and more globally dispersed, it is essential that they operate efficiently and perform the required as well as desired functions in order to contribute to an overall risk reduction for the owning organization. This requires a proper conceptual foundation for the project (i.e., know what you want the system to do and why), a properly prepared design package which sufficiently designs the project, and a responsible approach to installation phase services on the part of both the installation contractor and the owning organization. Our experience has shown us that a well conceived and properly designed project can be fatally compromised during the installation phase. Therefore it is essential that the same level of project oversight and management exercised during the project development and design phases be continued through the installation phase.

Don’t settle for second best!

Randy Nason, PE, VP