Commissioning Success on Major WWTP Projects: Why Relationship Building Matters

Why relationships matter as much as technical plans on WWTP projects.

Major wastewater treatment plant projects are technical undertakings, but their success often hinges on something less tangible: the quality of relationships among stakeholders. Owners, operators, designers, constructors, maintenance staff, contract managers and regulators all bring different expectations, priorities and interpretations of contract documents. On projects of any scale—and especially on major projects ($100M+)—those differences compound and become the primary barrier to smooth commissioning, testing and handover.

The Cost of poor relationship management related to commissioning.

When relationships are unmanaged or neglected the results are predictable and expensive:

• Startup stalemates and stalled testing sequences

• Rework and repeated submittal disputes that delay progress

• Extended on-site staffing and supervision costs

• Delayed warranty start, with long-term cost implications

• Payment flow issues, disputes, claims and potential arbitration

In short: technical readiness alone won’t get your project into reliable operation. The commissioning program must include deliberate relationship management as a core activity.

The Commissioning Lead: a role that blends technical and stakeholder management.

A commissioning lead’s most important responsibility is not just technical oversight, but thoughtful and decisive stakeholder management. That means:

• Clarifying roles and acceptance criteria early

• Facilitating agreement on test plans and data requirements

• Managing expectations tied to contract language and schedule

• Anticipating areas of conflict and creating escalation paths

Failure in this arena creates friction that cascades through construction, testing and handover, multiplying time and cost impacts.

When to start commissioning: at mobilization, not at energization.

Too often commissioning is treated as an afterthought—assigned in the last 10% of a project or to someone who transitions into the role late in the schedule. That approach guarantees rushed planning and antagonism when testing begins. Instead, start commissioning activities at mobilization. Early involvement provides time to:

• Identify the core commissioning stakeholders from engineering, construction and O&M

• Establish a common commissioning framework tied to contract language

• Create an indicative, systems-level commissioning schedule within the first six months

• Run early workshops to align on testing protocols, instrumentation, and data formats

This early engagement builds trust and confidence. Stakeholders who see a clear, professionally scoped commissioning approach are far more likely to cooperate when issues arise later.

Practical steps to build relationships that improve the effectiveness of testing and progress handover

• Stakeholder mapping:

  Identify who will be needed for design reviews, factory acceptance tests (FATs), site acceptance tests (SATs), and final handover. Include maintenance and operations staff early.

  • Side Note – while often operations and maintenance staff are not officially involved with projects, getting their input on how they’ll operate the plant regardless of contractual obligations often proves insightful. Their intentions can be used to help guide how handover documentation should be presented.  

• Appoint a commissioning lead with authority:

  Empower them to coordinate decisions, manage schedules and lead joint testing activities.

• Integrated kickoff and regular testing meeting cadence:

  Run a commissioning-specific kickoff and scheduled workshops (monthly or phased by workstream) so issues are surfaced early.

• Joint test plans and acceptance criteria:

  Produce shared, contract-aligned test plans and data templates before major equipment arrives.

• Single source of testing data:

  Use a centralized document repository and testing dashboard so everyone sees the same information. Often major projects are set up with something like this for documentation as part of the contract documents.

• Multi-discipline commissioning walkthroughs:

  Regular site walkthroughs with engineers, constructors and O&M staff reduce surprises at startup. Even if O&M staff are unavailable as they are often busy maintaining existing facilities, ensuring they have a place and making it known that they are welcomed into the fold is an important step in relationship building.

• Training and knowledge transfer:

  Begin operator familiarization long before handover—include O&M in FATs and SATs.

• Contract alignment and KPIs:

  Where possible, align incentives and milestones to encourage collaborative behavior instead of siloed compliance.

• Escalation and dispute pathways:

  Define clear escalation steps tied to the commissioning plan to avoid reactive, adversarial behavior.

  
  

Here’s a brief example of a practical timeline for a major project.

• Mobilization (0–6 months): Stakeholder mapping, appoint commissioning lead, draft indicative commissioning schedule tied to contract clauses.

• Design and procurement (6–18 months): Joint review of submittals, FAT participation, instrumentation and SCADA data templates agreed.

• Construction and pre-commissioning (18–end): Progressive testing, documented handover of systems, operator training and performance verification.

• Final acceptance and warranty start: Confirm agreed acceptance criteria and initiate warranty timeline with shared documentation.

  
  

Conclusion: commissioning is a relationship program with technical deliverables.

Treat commissioning as a relationship-driven program from day one. Appoint a commissioning lead early, create shared test plans and schedules, and keep O&M involved well before handover. Those investments reduce risk, compress handover duration, protect cash flow and set the plant up for reliable, long-term operation.

Commissioning confidence starts at mobilization. Start there, and you’ll reduce surprises at the finish.