search
Ask ACHR NEWS AI
cart
facebook twitter instagram linkedin youtube
  • Sign In
  • Subscribe
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
  • NEWS
  • TECHNOLOGY
    • Heating & Boilers
    • Cooling & Chillers
    • Pumps & Flow Controls
  • SECTORS
    • Commercial
    • Health Care
    • Data Center
    • Educational Facilities
  • DESIGN | CONSTRUCTION
  • OTHER TOPICS
    • High-Performance Buildings & Automation
    • Ventilation and IAQ
    • Commissioning
    • HVAC Retrofits
  • TODAY’S BOILER
    • Today’s Boiler Archives
    • Today’s Boiler Digital Edition
  • MORE
    • Case Studies
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Directory
    • Webinars
    • ES NEWS Store
    • White Papers
  • SIGN UP
  • Back to The NEWS
Engineered Systems NEWSHVAC Engineering SectorsHVAC Design/Construction ProcessCommissioningCommercial HVAC

Commissioning Escrow Accounts

By Rebecca T. Ellis, P.E.
Commissioning
October 6, 2015

A colleague and I met with a group of code officials to discuss new commissioning requirements in an updated energy code that recently went into effect. We were talking about what the code called for in terms of enforcement and what the inspectors should expect with respect to documentation from commissioning professionals. This led to a more generic discussion about code enforcement in general and the inspectors’ frustration with being pressured to sign off on buildings that do not necessarily meet all code requirements.

Buildings are often accepted for occupancy on a temporary basis, contingent on the project team completing a documented list of outstanding code requirements within one year. However, there are typically no consequences for the project team not meeting those code requirements after one year. What are the inspectors supposed to do, throw the occupants out of the building?

I imagine every city, county, or state has their own way of dealing with this situation, and one of the inspectors shared an approach used by a previous jurisdiction in which he served. When a contractor applied for a permit, the contractor not only had to pay the permit fee, s/he also needed to set up an escrow account, the size of which I assume was proportional to the value of the construction cost. The funds in the escrow account were released upon completion of all required code activities and deliverables. Presumably, if code requirements went unmet after a certain period of time, the contractor forfeited the escrow money.

As we are always looking for ways to motivate construction teams to take commissioning seriously and see a project through to successful operation and not just successful installation, I got to thinking about this escrow model for commissioning contracts. We have worked on projects where the contractor was motivated with “award fee” money for meeting certain commissioning milestones. The award fee was over and above the base contract amount and came out of the owner’s project budget.

The beauty of the escrow model is that the money would come out of the contractor’s pocket as a prerequisite for signing a contract. This is a negative incentive, i.e., if the contractor does not meet contract commissioning requirements, she loses money. However, by the end of construction, it may actually feel like a positive incentive, i.e., the contractor will get her money back if she sticks with the commissioning process through successful completion and documentation.

Exactly which objective commissioning milestones or deliverables are tied to the escrow account would be defined by each owner, depending on the owner’s priorities. I recommend considering the following.

  • Operations & maintenance manuals
  • Operations & maintenance training
  • As-built drawings
  • LEED systems manual contributions
  • Spare parts delivery
  • Test, adjust, and balance report indicating all system parameters meet design requirements
  • Successful correction of all system performance deficiencies agreed to be the contractors’ responsibility.

In order to encourage timely delivery of each requirement, it might make sense to start whittling away at the value of the escrow account a little bit every month over the course of an allotted time period. For example, if the owner wants all of the above delivered within two months of substantial completion, perhaps the owner gets to withdraw 25% of the escrow account after each of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth months.

 I would steer away from assigning individual values to each requirement because that could easily lead to the contractors making a value decision about the cost of delivering each of the bullet items versus the escrow value of that item. They could decide it is cheaper to lose the assigned escrow amount than to produce the product. Invariably, the intrinsic value of the commissioning deliverables is much greater to the owner than any escrow account could reasonably hold. Requiring an all-or-nothing criterion for releasing the escrow money is a means to gain and hold the contractors’ attention to every detail. 

Share This Story

Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!

 

Rebecca is president of Questions & Solutions Engineering, Inc. She can be reached at rteesmag@qseng.com

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
To unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • HVAC-enrollment

    The Trades Are Back: HVACR Programs See Nearly 30% Enrollment Spike

    A new wave of future technicians is entering the pipeline.  
    Training and Education
    By: Matt Jachman
  • 2025 Top 40 Under 40

    2025 Top 40 Under 40 HVACR Professionals List

    The 11th annual Top 40 Under 40 list highlights those...
    HVAC Commercial Market
    By: Hannah Belloli-Oster
  • LG Ductless Mini-Split Systems

    The 9 Types of Heat Pumps

    As the U.S. moves toward electrification, heat pumps are...
    Air Source Heat Pumps
    By: Joanna R. Turpin

More Videos

Today's Boiler

Spring 2026 Issue

Today's Boiler - Spring 2026 Cover

Read More from Today's Boiler

Case in Point Logo

Smarter Hydronic Design for Data Centers - Free Webinar - January 22, 2026

Related Articles

  • Commissioning

    When Building Commissioning Is Not Commissioning

    See More
  • Commissioning: Equipment Startup And Commissioning

    See More
  • Commissioning

    Post-Commissioning Design Changes

    See More

Related Products

See More Products
  • 9781482255676.jpg

    Testing and Balancing HVAC Air and Water Systems, Fifth Edition

  • Manual D® - Residential Duct Systems.jpg

    Manual D® - Residential Duct Systems [ANSI/ACCA 1 Manual D - 2016]

See More Products

Related Directories

  • AABC Commissioning Group (ACG)

    The AABC Commissioning Group (ACG) is a non-profit dedicated to advancing independent commissioning professionals through education, training, and certification since 2004.
×

Sign Up. Stay Informed.

The #1 trusted source for the HVACR industry since 1926

SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Advisory Board
    • Classifieds
    • Submit a Letter
    • Directories
    • Store
  • ACCOUNT CENTER
    • Create an Account
    • Start a Subscription
    • Manage My Account
    • Sign Up for Newsletters
    • Visit Customer Service
    • Update Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • YouTube
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2026. All Rights Reserved BNP Media, Inc. and BNP Media II, LLC.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing