August 2017

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
(Click Message to Learn More)

Who Are The “System Integrators”?

The challenge to this discussion is that there is no clear agreement about what a System Integrator should be doing.

Ira Goldschmidt

Ira Goldschmidt, P.E., LEEDŽAP
Engineering Consultant,
Goldschmidt Engineering Solutions

Contributing Editor

As published
Engineered Systems 
August Issue - BAS Column

New Products
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Site Search
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Past Issues
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Integration of a variety of non-BAS controls & systems has become an increasingly important aspect of building projects.  These controls/systems range from packaged HVAC equipment to “fully engineered” mechanical systems (e.g., VRF & lab controls) to non-mechanical equipment/systems (lighting controls, electrical equipment, security, fire alarm, etc.) and even to building operations or enterprise systems (e.g., energy management/tracking, CMMS, tenant billing systems…).  And “IoT” has the potential for further accelerating this trend.

This has led to an increasing number of projects that are integration-intensive (i.e., integration of non-BAS controls/systems has become a major portion of the scope vs. that of the core BAS installation efforts).   Therefore I thought it useful to revisit the notion of “who should do system integration.”  This is a question that has been floating around for years without any definitive conclusion to-date.  Arguments have been made about whether a BAS contractor should be the system integrator vs. whether system integration should be provided by a separate contractor operating at a different level/location in the construction hierarchy (e.g., the division 23 vs. 25 argument).

What are System Integrators?
The challenge to this discussion is that there is no clear agreement about what a System Integrator should be doing.  Is system integration a BAS-centric activity since many non-BAS controls or systems are currently integrated to the BAS?  Would system integration be better provided (i.e., less finger pointing) by a contractor that provides no controls/system but is instead a master of integrating anything to anything else (which appears to be the CSI division, 25 model)?  Finally, should system integration be provided by a “Technology” contractor (CSI division 27) whose primary expertise is IP communications but has the expertise to expand into integration if not also control systems?

BAS Contractors as System Integrators
BAS contractors are currently the de facto System Integrator for most, if not all, projects.  There is little evidence that BAS’s won’t continue to be the “hub” for building integration so this may not change anytime soon.  But is this the best approach?  In my experience, the BAS contractor as “System Integrator” leads to several problems.  First, their focus is primarily on HVAC control since that is their core expertise but also because they are typically a sub to the Mechanical Contractor.  Therefore any integration work, especially with non-Mechanical systems, seems to be a low priority that often leads to project delays or incomplete work.  Secondly, the BAS contractor, as the BAS provider, is usually not an objective partner when integration challenges arise.  Lastly, due to their position in the construction contractor hierarchy, they have no authority over the providers of non-BAS controls/systems and therefore are often hamstrung in their integration efforts. 

System Integration as a Separate Contractor
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Would a different type of contractor operating at a different position in the construction contractor hierarchy be a better System integrator?  Not too long ago some BAS contractors were attempting to re-brand themselves as “System Integrators.”  In some cases, this just seemed to be a marketing exercise while in other cases there was a serious attempt to broaden their services (i.e., adding IP infrastructure, lighting control, security, etc. expertise).  Unfortunately, this did not seem to change how non-BAS low-voltage systems are delivered and/or integrated into a construction project.  More recently I’ve seen efforts by “Technology” consultants and contractors to also broaden their expertise into other low-voltage building systems and integration.  Once again I’ve seen nothing to indicate that this approach is being considered as a compelling alternative to the construction industries’ status quo.

I do see merit in combining broad low-voltage system and integration expertise under one contractor’s responsibility, and/or to separate those that provide the controls/systems from that responsible for integrating them.  Perhaps this issue needs to start with a change at the design level (e.g., should “technology” consultants design all low-voltage systems along with any integration requirements)?  But is no new idea however helpful, going ever to be considered by the A/E construction industries’ “good old boys” club, or is this a case of the BAS Contractor as System Integrator being the worst approach except for all others?


[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[Click Banner To Learn More]

[Home Page]  [The Automator]  [About]  [Subscribe ]  [Contact Us]


Want Ads

Our Sponsors