EC wanting Square D to come set up the switchgeer

[wallypiper]

Let's see, the owner saved money by buying the gear, the consulting firm sold the gear and just made enough money to cover their costs (an option that was taken away from the EC), and everyone wants the EC to make an adjustment on gear the EC did not supply which in effect will put the EC's head on the chopping block 1st if something goes wrong.

Gee, I really don't understand why the EC doesn't want to make any adjustments. I guess I'm just ignorant.

That's just not true. We don't help people responsible for things they aren't responsible for. If the EC sets the breakers according to the EE's spec and that doesn't work, it's not his fault and he won't be blamed or held responsible for it.

 

[wallypiper]

Seems someone dropped the ball somewhere. In this area a pumping station is not brought on line that has
not be thoroughly tested.

What I would do to avoid hassles if there is no testing involved is get the coordination study and set the CB's. Simple, easy and job done.

Coordination study reviewed, circuit breaker set per the coordination study,
Motors, feeders, switchboard, ATS and generators all tested per job
specifications and most likely NETA as this is the commonly referenced
specification.

Not sure what you mean by "thoroughly tested". The pump system for this job will have been tested on a test stand prior to shipping but that's different from testing on site under site conditions so it will be commissioned on site including run testing all pumps. The control panel on the pump system will be very thoroughly checked on site before being energized and then thoroughly tested for both power and control functions once it's powered up. The job specifications leave testing up to the individual equipment suppliers. They are required to deliver function on site. If there's a problem with their equipment, they have to solve it and they have to do that without delaying the project. They all know that and take whatever steps they feel are necessary to comply with those requirements. Obviously a conveying system with dozens of motors and hundreds of sensors is more complicated to install and commission that an air handler with one fan and one control valve. Most equipment on the job falls somewhere in between. The primary production equipment is extremely complex and undergoes witnessed acceptance testing at the manufacturer's facility before it's shipped. The support equipment is much more standardized and does not get that treatment. This isn't a public utility. It's a manufacturing plant. If something malfunctions, 99% of the time that just means they have to stop making widgets until the malfunction is correct. That's bad. Downtime is expensive. Many systems are designed with redundancy so that a single component failure doesn't stop production. But not all. Initial cost prevents that from being done to every component. In many cases, an equipment failure can't be completely bypassed but limited production can continue. The budget isn't unlimited. Years of experience allows us to provide solid advice to the owner with regard to the likelihood of failure and the cost of redundancy and they make decisions about how much redundancy to buy when the cost is high. For many parts of the system, it's a no brainer and no discussion happens. We just do it. The whole project is about $10mil. Adding another $million ensure zero downtime isn't generally a good financial decision, especially when the risk of failure is low. There are, for example, spare pumps for every pumping loop. There are not spare air compressors although there are two so limited production could continue if one of them went down. We have had customers who would have purchased a third air compressor in that situation. This particular customer can tolerate limited production capability for limited time so they didn't do that.

As for the breakers, that is exactly what we wanted the EC to do. Not take any responsibility. Not accept any blame for incorrect calculations. Just set the dials so the gear can be energized and power can be provided to some equipment that is ready for it. The EE has done the study and provided the settings.

 

[Strathead]

That's just not true. We don't help people responsible for things they aren't responsible for. If the EC sets the breakers according to the EE's spec and that doesn't work, it's not his fault and he won't be blamed or held responsible for it.

You keep going back and forth, yet you evade the question that has been asked several times.


Are you saying the EC is only responsible to set the long time trip function by turning the screw and then turning it over to others for testing, or are you saying the EC has a responsibility to verify that the breakers work in coordination with the others?

These are two totally different things! Regardless of what you think as an Electrical Engineer, many of us who are in the Contracting business resent the method your Company uses to take profit out of our work by buying the Switchgear yourself! Your Company could just as easily require sole source purchase. As such, unless you state in the specifications that I, as the installer, not the supplier, am responsible to perform testing to verify coordination of the breakers or testing to NETA standards, as a Contractor, I am going to fight you every inch of the way. As far as merely turning the adjustments, there isn't a NETA testing agency out there, including the manufacturer's personnel who would really care whether they were "adjusted" right before they came out or not, so I have to assume your Company is trying to force the EC to pay for NETA testing on Switchgear you supplied. So, I have to conclude that your Company IS asking the EC to pay for testing equipment you supplied or there really wouldn't be an issue.

Regarding what testing method is "most common", I think the reason you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer is because there isn't one. If it were on a job I estimated and Managed, it would go like this... If the Specifications required me to provide factory testing then the factory would do it. If the Specifications required, "NETA Testing" Then I would get an independent testing Agency (or two or three) quote(s) and if the manufacturer also provided a quote, and I would compare them using the least costly method that I was comfortable satisfied the specifications. No most common or least common, just least expensive. To which, I would of course put my mark up on. So it seems to me that you aren't asking the right question.

 

[Strathead]

As for the breakers, that is exactly what we wanted the EC to do. Not take any responsibility. Not accept any blame for incorrect calculations. Just set the dials so the gear can be energized and power can be provided to some equipment that is ready for it. The EE has done the study and provided the settings.

It just seems that something is missing. What you describe can't be 4 hours worth of work. 4 hours x $70.00 is $280.00. Retainage is certain to be more than $280.00 on the job. Hire another electrician to go in and do the settings, or do them yourself. Then backcharge retainage and let them fight for $280 or walk away. What is the big deal?

 

[hardworkingstiff]

That's just not true. We don't help people responsible for things they aren't responsible for. If the EC sets the breakers according to the EE's spec and that doesn't work, it's not his fault and he won't be blamed or held responsible for it.

My experience is that an attorney or insurance company would not see it that way.

 

[wallypiper]

We contacted Square D.

They confirmed that commissioning was not included in their quote to us and quoted us a price (not unreasonable) for tech to come to the jobsite. They said of course the somebody, the EE preferably, would have to provide the appropriate settings for the tech to apply. The owner had requested, directly to the EC, that the "safeties" be checked. Square D's response was they did not know what was being referred to but would be happy to perform whatever tests the owner wanted performed. That seems in direct conflict with some of the responses I've gotten here.

I'm sorry if EC's here are offended by the practice of owners providing equipment. You're right about the basic philosophy behind it. To minimize cost, something most companies try to do, owners are more and more breaking a project like this into what seems to be logical components. On the one hand, you need hardware. Hardware comes from hardware manufacturers so you may get the best price for hardware by going directly the manufacturer (not a universal truth at all, depends on the manufacturer and their sales policies, but frequently the case).

On the other hand, you need installation. Installation is performed by skilled trained technicians and engineers that specialize in installing particular parts of the system. That can generally be split into specialized, mechanical and electrical. The idea that contractors are being somehow screwed over by this process implies that making money only from your expertise at installation isn't viable. I can assure you that we work with contractors day after day in all the locations we work in that seem very content to take on projects on that basis. If you're doing electrical, you still get to buy and resell the wire, the conduit, many of the smaller items such as local disconnects, wire tray etc etc. You will not get to supply many motor starters (they're all included in prefabricated systems purchased by the owner) and in some cases large switchgear. The mechanical contractor is in the same boat. He will buy and resell pipe, fittings, valves, supports etc. He will not supply major equipment such as pumps (all part of prefabricated systems purchased by the owner) or single large ticket items like cooling towers and chillers.

Not all contractors seem so bitter about this process. If you are good at installation, you can make plenty of money doing installation. I don't know about your area, but commercial building is in the toilet where I live. Industrial projects are still happening all over the place and can provide plenty of work for professional, competent installation experts. Most of our projects mean months of continuous work for the mechanical and electrical contractors on the job.

Because of our purchasing power and our well established relationships with most of the major manufacturers of all the big ticket items, we often purchase those items and resell them to the owner. We can do that, lower his cost and still make some money on the equipment ourselves. What he gets in return in addition to lower cost is single source responsibility for the function of the entire system. There will never be a meeting around a conference table where everybody points their finger at somebody else. If it's part of the system and it's not working, it's our responsibility to solve that. We get great service from our vendors when we need it because we only ask for it when we really need it. We don't ask for assistance in selecting the equipment or picking the optional features. We know what equipment we want and what features we want it to have and we order it.

An exception to that is some electrical equipment. At the equipment and motor control level, we know a lot because nearly all of the equipment we deal with has motors and controls. For switchgear, we are not experts in picking it or in deciding what extra features are true value added items and which ones are just bells and whistles. But we are not afraid to ask and we are inherently skeptical because of our many years of watching owners get taken to the cleaners when they buy major equipment directly. I've seen some gold plated equipment out there with features that will never be utilized or, even worse, actually end up having a negative impact on functionality. That comes from inexperienced purchasers dealing with salespeople that have their own commission in mind rather than the best value for the buyer. So when an owner, for whatever reason, invites us or requests us to source switchgear, we know who to call (not always Square D, they were probably chosen in this case based on availability as much as price) and we have relationships with some key people that know us and know how we work. If you want us to buy an extra doodad, you have to be prepared to justify it. If it's justified, we'll either buy it or at least recommend it to our customer. If you can't convince us that it's justified, we'll just pass.

I came here looking for feedback from experts in installing switchgear because there was obviously an issue with it on this project. That issue hasn't come up before even on projects where we supplied the switchgear so I was looking for impartial (as opposed to Square D) feedback on the issue. I appreciate the useful feedback from a few here and apologize to any contractors that are offended by the fact that I asked the question. We're not trying to screw anybody, contractor, owner or manufacturer. We like truth and know that you often have to seek answer from multiple places and then sift them to get the whole truth. Nobody is lying. Everybody is looking out for their own best interest. For us, our best interest is a totally satisfied customer. Over 90% of our business is repeat customers, some of whom we've been working with for 20 years. We provide great service to them, solve problems for them and save them money in the process. So they keep coming back. Many contractors that we have worked with over the years, both mechanical and electrical, also seek us out because they like working with us on our projects despite the fact that they may not get to buy and resell any big ticket hardware. They know we won't try to screw them and we will do everything we can to help them complete a quality job. That is our goal and their goal.

 

[roger]

I am not trying to speak for everyone across the board but, 90% of my projects include Coodination studies, Arc flash studies, Isolation power system startup, etc... and we have SQ D, CH, or whom ever include this in their pricing, this would also include specifics of who would actually do the field work or if we were going to assist in doing it. It's apparent someone (the purchaser) dropped the ball here by "assuming" something.

OTOH, I would have specifically excluded any of this in my scope letter if I were not the purchaser so, it is a little of both parties at fault IMO.

Roger

 

[weressl]

You keep going back and forth, yet you evade the question that has been asked several times.


Are you saying the EC is only responsible to set the long time trip function by turning the screw and then turning it over to others for testing, or are you saying the EC has a responsibility to verify that the breakers work in coordination with the others?

These are two totally different things! Regardless of what you think as an Electrical Engineer, many of us who are in the Contracting business resent the method your Company uses to take profit out of our work by buying the Switchgear yourself! Your Company could just as easily require sole source purchase. As such, unless you state in the specifications that I, as the installer, not the supplier, am responsible to perform testing to verify coordination of the breakers or testing to NETA standards, as a Contractor, I am going to fight you every inch of the way. As far as merely turning the adjustments, there isn't a NETA testing agency out there, including the manufacturer's personnel who would really care whether they were "adjusted" right before they came out or not, so I have to assume your Company is trying to force the EC to pay for NETA testing on Switchgear you supplied. So, I have to conclude that your Company IS asking the EC to pay for testing equipment you supplied or there really wouldn't be an issue.

Regarding what testing method is "most common", I think the reason you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer is because there isn't one. If it were on a job I estimated and Managed, it would go like this... If the Specifications required me to provide factory testing then the factory would do it. If the Specifications required, "NETA Testing" Then I would get an independent testing Agency (or two or three) quote(s) and if the manufacturer also provided a quote, and I would compare them using the least costly method that I was comfortable satisfied the specifications. No most common or least common, just least expensive. To which, I would of course put my mark up on. So it seems to me that you aren't asking the right question.

Our Company ALWAYS directly procur major capita electrical equipment. We do have the engineering AND operational expertise that no EC can match. We also control our electrical studies and provide the commissioning entity, be it a specialized Sub or the main EC, with the set of settings. WE are responsible for those settings to be correct and coordinated. The only alteration to the above is when on large projects we pre-bid a major Electrical Supplier/Manufacturer for EPC(EngineerProcureConstruct). Depends on whether it is an extention of an existing major facility, where we would tag on the new plant section to the existing Electrical Distribution Study or a grass-roots plan when the EPC would also do the Study on our preselected/preferred software.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

..... so, it is a little of both parties at fault IMO.

Roger

I think you nailed it Roger. The EC may be a little out of his comfort zone, or, he may have an attitude about how the job went, or he has seen how when the blame time comes, common sense goes out the window.

I see the EC not wanting to "adjust" equipment he did not sell (and don't blame him), but if it's just a matter of turning a dial to a setting prepared by an engineer, then I think maybe he's being a little unreasonable. I think an adequate statement of indemnification and hold harmless could be given by the owner and engineer that should satisfy his concern.

To the OP, did you offer a legal document holding the EC harmless and a promise of indemnification for him adjusting the equipment to your instructions?

 

[Neil Volk]

Former square d field service engineer

Former square d field service engineer

Like anything else in life , you don't get what you don't ask for. If start up service wasn't
Purchased, it won't be provided

If you would require this service call us. I have done it for 31 years.
www. all-test.com

My company supplied some switchgear for a new manufacturing installation. It's nothing huge, maybe 2000A. An electrical engineer worked with us and Square D to select the gear and breakers. This is pretty common for us. We also supply pumping equipment, air compressors, chillers etc. and design the mechanical installation. The EE we work with does the power distribution design and provides the drawings for that.

So now the electrical contractor on this job is apparently wanting Square D to send somebody to set up the switchgear which means, I believe, just set all the breaker trip points. The EE says he will happily supply the correct settings but that normally the contractor handles actually setting them on site.

What's normal? I've been on a lot of sites with new gear and don't remember ever seeing the switchgear manufacturer on site unless there was a problem with the gear of some part of it.

 

[brian john]

Not sure what you mean by "thoroughly tested". s.

I would think even if you do not perform electrical testing as part of your normal job specifications that you should know what throughly tested means, though a fairly generic term (as used here) all contractors and engineers we deal with that do WWTP and WTP know the basics of electrical testing.

 

[wallypiper]

We don't expect anything to be provided that wasn't purchased but an hour turning dials with a screwdriver? It's a big project and it's dynamic and fast track. The pendulum will swing both ways before it's over - some work not included in the original bid will be required and some work that was included in the original bid will be dropped. Information provided by equipment suppliers when the bid documents are being prepared is inevitably preliminary and incomplete. Changes in the design will happen in response to owner preference, product availability, input from contractors and equipment vendors etc. Equipment will show up with connections on the right instead of the left. Dimensions will be different from the drawings provided earlier. There will be changes. If this project is like many I'll end up doing control terminations that were part of the installation scope because I'm there, they need to be done to keep things moving and all the contractor's are busy with other things that have to be done. I don't ask for money back when that happens. It's just part of the ebb and flow of taking a complex system from a simple concept to a functioning plant and getting it all done on time.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Strathead]

We don't expect anything to be provided that wasn't purchased but an hour turning dials with a screwdriver?

It really seems like a situation where you had to be there. Unless someone really got under my skin and I had absolutely no intention of ever working with them again, I would just tell my guys to adjust the trips, but I would have done it right away, since any "benefit" from doing it has surely evaporated with the back and forth. It seems to me that most "right-minded" EC's in this situation would do the same thing. That is why I said before, and I will say again, there is probably more to the story. I especially feel this way when you indicated earlier that this is a private job and the EC is the owner's preference. Given only the information you have presented, there seems to be no advantage to the EC to refuse the adjusting. Let's face it, what we do is a marginally a contest, with Engineers and Architects on one side and us on the other with the goal of providing a product to the owner, but still looking good while doing it. What does the EC have to gain by refusing to adjust the trips. It is certainly not the 2 man hours. Something just isn't coming through in the thread.

 

[wallypiper]

I would think even if you do not perform electrical testing as part of your normal job specifications that you should know what throughly tested means, though a fairly generic term (as used here) all contractors and engineers we deal with that do WWTP and WTP know the basics of electrical testing.

Interesting. WWTP and WTP. Waste water treatment plants?
That's a very different environment from a manufacturing plant I would think. I've never been involved with one.

I've never seen a contractor or a factory technician test the function of the component parts of swtichgear on a job site. They set the different trip dials, sometimes. The very thorough ones hi-pot their wiring. Lots don't. I've seen plenty of big switchgear energized for the first time as soon as the inspector says OK and put in service immediately. Most of the time that has nothing to do with us other than the power to our equipment is coming from that gear. We often have nothing to do with the electrical side of a project beyond the things that are directly part of the equipment we supply so I just let the EC know when I'm ready for power to my equipment and he turns it on. Often, I am the first to ask for power because our equipment is prerequisite for all the other equipment. So I do often see the main on the gear turned on for the first time. Sometimes the EC comes over and checks the incoming lines at my panel with a handheld mm, sometimes I do that myself. And I've tripped plenty of breakers at the switchgear the first time I turn on a motor because all the dials are still set to their minimum. I've seen GF trips for the same reason.

 

[wallypiper]

It really seems like a situation where you had to be there.. . . Something just isn't coming through in the thread.

It's an ongoing project. The EC has lots of work left to do and the successful completion of the project on time requires his continued cooperation. He could be here reading this thread for all I know so, yeah, there are details I know that I won't talk about here. He hasn't done anything wrong and I don't intend to imply that.

But in general, I agree. There has to be more to his response to this and I wasn't there to speak to him first hand. In fact, I've spoken to him on the phone about other aspects of the project and found him cooperative and enthusiastic and flexible. I really didn't come here to bash him at all. As I've said in other posts, I've never seen factory techs on the jobsite testing or otherwise commissioning switchgear so I was curious as to how common that was. I've been on hundreds of projects. I'm not new to this. But my experience is mostly limited to a couple of very specific types of facility that I generally describe as light manufacturing. Lots of high tech high speed production equipment but it's not making cars or casting metal. Electrically, it's a bunch of motors between fractional and about 600 HP and a ton of controls.

The whole issue of whether he should be responsible for it or not was sort of a red herring. He's not. It is not required by Square D and our contact at Square D was somewhat surprised when we asked about having it done. Since they sell that service, he wouldn't say it was useless but he was pretty forthcoming in saying that it was not common for gear as simple as what we have on this project.

I'm curious about the code requirement for testing of the GFP. I've never seen that done and I've seen plenty of gear energized and utilized for the first time. Can that testing be done at the factory prior to shipment? Are many AHJ's satisfied that the protection is there and don't care about the testing? Or is it just getting done by the EC at some point when I wasn't around. I've seen them trip a few times as soon as the gear is energized because they're still set to some minimum level. And then usually somebody turns it up until it stops tripping.

 

[zog]

I've never seen a contractor or a factory technician test the function of the component parts of swtichgear on a job site. .

There are hundreds of companies in the US that do nothing else but switchgear commisioning tests. It is an entire industry in itself. The NFPA 70B and ANSI/NETA specifications outline the requirments of the testing, it is very common in industrial facilities. Additionally the NFPA 70E requires these tests to be done as part of complaiance and validation of your arc flash analysis and entire electrical safety program.

 

[zog]

I'm curious about the code requirement for testing of the GFP. I've never seen that done and I've seen plenty of gear energized and utilized for the first time. Can that testing be done at the factory prior to shipment? Are many AHJ's satisfied that the protection is there and don't care about the testing? Or is it just getting done by the EC at some point when I wasn't around. I've seen them trip a few times as soon as the gear is energized because they're still set to some minimum level. And then usually somebody turns it up until it stops tripping.

Article 230.95 (C)

 

[jim dungar]

Article 230.95 (C)

In addition, this code sections requires the GF system to be tested, not just the relay (which is all the push-to-test button does). Testing the system requires verifying the absence of downstream neutral-ground bonds.

If the OP has never seen testing of a GF system, it is no wonder he has seen 'nuisance trips'.

Properly commissioning equipment and systems, is your best hope for them doing what they are supposed to, when they are supposed to do it.

 

[hillbilly1]

In addition, this code sections requires the GF system to be tested, not just the relay (which is all the push-to-test button does). Testing the system requires verifying the absence of downstream neutral-ground bonds.

If the OP has never seen testing of a GF system, it is no wonder he has seen 'nuisance trips'.

Properly commissioning equipment and systems, is your best hope for them doing what they are supposed to, when they are supposed to do it.

Yeah, and make sure the tester puts the neutral/ground bond jumper back in place after testing. I went behind one testing company that failed to do this.:roll:

 

[masterinbama]

Yeah, and make sure the tester puts the neutral/ground bond jumper back in place after testing. I went behind one testing company that failed to do this.:roll:

Makes for some interesting sparks when you accidentally short a 277V lighting circuit to ground on the 10th floor.