Sample report — fictional property
Sample Controls Health Check
- Prepared for
- Sample Retail Center
- Prepared by
- Clark & Soma Controls
- Report date
- [illustrative]
This sample is published to show the structure, depth, and typical finding categories of a Controls Health Check deliverable.
§3 — Scope and assumptions
What a Controls Health Check examines.
A Controls Health Check examines how a building's mechanical equipment is controlled day to day. Work includes a site walkdown, equipment and controls inventory, schedule and occupancy review, available trend and override review, prioritized findings, recommended next steps, and a verification window. Intent is operational — not a capital-project proposal, not a retro-commissioning study, and not a vendor sales motion.
In scope
- Equipment inventory with controls-interface notes
- Schedule programming and occupancy alignment
- Override behavior and unoccupied setback posture
- Trend review at the supervisory layer where available
- Controls-layer documentation hygiene
Out of scope
- Capital-project quotes and equipment-replacement proposals
- Full retro-commissioning
- Refrigerant work and mechanical service
- Electrical panel evaluation
- Fire-life-safety controls
- IT network and cybersecurity work
Assumptions for this sample
- Stated occupied hours are accepted as reported by the property manager.
- Tenant override behavior is treated as observed, not commanded.
- No additional on-site instrumentation was deployed.
- Trend data is observed only at the supervisory layer where present.
- Equipment ages are operator-reported, not verified against nameplates.
§4 — Property and equipment snapshot
Property and equipment snapshot.
Numbers in this section: All numeric values shown are illustrative for a fictional property. Not a quote. Not a savings projection.
Sample Retail Center is a small-to-mid multi-tenant retail property in a mixed heating and cooling climate. Approximate floor area is 20,000–30,000 sq ft [illustrative], with four to six tenant bays plus a common corridor and shared restrooms. Stated occupancy is roughly 7am–9pm weekdays with reduced weekend posture; no documented holiday schedule. Mechanical equipment mixes networked rooftop units and standalone smaller systems. A supervisory front-end is installed and partially programmed but not actively used day to day. The inventory below captures scope, controls-interface granularity, and the operational notes that triggered the findings in §7.
| ID | Type | Service Area | Capacity | Controls Interface | Age (yrs) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTU-1 | Rooftop Unit | Tenant Bay A | 5 tons [illustrative] | BACnet/IP | 8 [illustrative] | local schedule only |
| RTU-2 | Rooftop Unit | Tenant Bay B | 5 tons [illustrative] | BACnet/IP | 8 [illustrative] | no trend data |
| RTU-3 | Rooftop Unit | Tenant Bay C | 4 tons [illustrative] | Local thermostat — no network | 12 [illustrative] | stuck damper observed |
| RTU-4 | Rooftop Unit | Common Corridor | 3 tons [illustrative] | BACnet MS/TP | 6 [illustrative] | override active |
| HP-1 | Packaged Heat Pump | Back-of-house office | 2 tons [illustrative] | Local thermostat — no network | 7 [illustrative] | schedule unclear |
| EF-1 | Exhaust Fan | Restrooms | 600 CFM [illustrative] | Standalone | 5 [illustrative] | runs continuously |
| DHW-1 | Domestic Hot Water Heater | Restrooms | 50 MBH [illustrative] | Standalone | 9 [illustrative] | no setback |
| LC-1 | Lighting Controller | Common Corridor | n/a | BACnet MS/TP | 4 [illustrative] | schedule not aligned |
| BAS-1 | Supervisory Controls Front-End / BAS Controller | Whole property | n/a | Supervisory only | 8 [illustrative] | no trends configured |
§5 — Executive summary
Executive summary.
The Controls Health Check identified one site-wide visibility gap, two control-logic concerns, and one mechanical-controls hygiene issue. The supervisory front-end is in place but not actively delivering value. Schedule programming is partially aligned on networked equipment and largely absent on standalone equipment. Three findings summarized below; full set in §7, prioritized placement in §8.
Outdoor air damper not modulating on RTU-3.
RTU-3 (Tenant Bay C) shows a fixed-position outdoor air damper that does not respond to commanded position changes. In shoulder seasons the unit forces additional mechanical heating or cooling to overcome unconditioned outdoor air, and tenant comfort complaints in that bay are consistent with this behavior. Recommended action: mechanical inspection and damper actuator service, with verification after repair.
Permanent override on RTU-4 in the common corridor.
RTU-4 runs under an active override that bypasses the programmed schedule and unoccupied setback. The override appears to have been applied during a past comfort complaint and never released. Clearing the override and confirming the corrected schedule will reduce after-hours runtime without changing occupied comfort.
No historical trends configured on the supervisory front-end.
BAS-1 is online but has no trend objects configured for any networked equipment. Without trend history, the operator cannot review schedule adherence, setpoint behavior, or overrides after the fact, and cannot confirm whether corrective actions are holding. Recommended action: enable a standardized trend set for networked equipment (RTU-1, RTU-2, RTU-4, LC-1, BAS-1).
A fourth finding — schedule misalignment on tenant-bay RTUs and common-area lighting — is captured in §7 with a quick-fix path.
§6 — Schedule and occupancy audit
Schedule and occupancy audit.
Numbers in this section: All numeric values shown are illustrative for a fictional property. Not a quote. Not a savings projection.
Stated occupancy is 7am–9pm weekdays, reduced weekends, with no documented holiday schedule. The audit compared programmed schedules and standalone runtime against stated occupied hours, reviewed unoccupied setback posture and override status, and noted mismatches between equipment runtime and actual use. Gaps below are described qualitatively and are not converted to runtime hours, dollar figures, or percent reductions.
| Equipment / Group | Current schedule | Occupancy-aligned schedule | Gap / concern | Follow-up action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTU-1, RTU-2 (Tenant Bays A & B) | 6am–10pm, 7 days [observed] | 7am–9pm M–F, 9am–7pm Sat–Sun [recommended] | runs outside occupied hours; weekend posture not reduced | confirm tenant occupied hours; align schedule with operator review |
| RTU-3 (Tenant Bay C) | continuous, no programmed schedule [observed] | occupied schedule with unoccupied setback [recommended] | equipment runs 24/7; no setback | configure schedule via local thermostat or upgrade controls interface |
| RTU-4 (Common Corridor) | 5am–11pm, 7 days [observed] | 6am–10pm with unoccupied setback [recommended] | active override bypasses schedule and setback | release override; confirm schedule; verify setback engages |
| EF-1 (Restrooms) | continuous [observed] | occupied-hours run with off-hour delay [recommended] | runs 24/7 regardless of use | interlock with occupancy sensor or align with occupied schedule |
| LC-1 (Common-area lighting) | 5am–12am [observed] | aligned with occupied hours plus short transition [recommended] | lights on ~2 hours after close; no holiday calendar | align schedule; add holiday calendar |
Observations
- Holiday schedule is not documented for any equipment.
- Unoccupied setback is not configured on tenant-bay RTUs.
- Override on RTU-4 is undated; no operator note explains the reason.
- EF-1 has no occupancy interlock and no time-of-day schedule.
- Common-area lighting schedule is not aligned with the corridor occupied window.
§7 — Findings detail
Findings detail.
Numbers in this section: All numeric values shown are illustrative for a fictional property. Not a quote. Not a savings projection.
Tenant-bay RTUs run outside occupied hours
- Operational impact
- Tenant-bay RTUs condition space outside stated occupied hours, on a continuous 7-day schedule with no weekend reduction. Effect is added runtime without an offsetting comfort benefit during unoccupied periods.
- Observation / evidence
- RTU-1 and RTU-2 run on a 6am–10pm, 7-day programmed schedule [observed]. Stated occupied hours are 7am–9pm M–F with reduced weekend posture [observed]. No unoccupied setback is configured at either RTU. BAS-1 sees the units online but holds no trend records.
- Likely cause
- Schedule appears to have been programmed once at install and never revisited. Consistent with a generic “always-on retail” template rather than a schedule reviewed against tenant occupancy.
- Recommended action
- Align schedule with stated occupied hours: 7am–9pm M–F, 9am–7pm Sat–Sun [recommended]. Configure an unoccupied setback band at each RTU [recommended]. Document a holiday calendar and apply to RTU-1, RTU-2.
- Verification step
- Review schedule programming and unoccupied setback engagement at a follow-up check 30–60 days [illustrative] after the change. Where trend data is available (see F-3), spot-check after-hours runtime against the corrected schedule.
Permanent override on RTU-4 bypassing schedule and setback
- Operational impact
- RTU-4 runs continuously at occupied setpoints, including overnight and weekends, because of an active override at the supervisory layer. Effect is added runtime plus an unmonitored override that obscures the unit's true control posture.
- Observation / evidence
- RTU-4 reports an active manual override on its occupancy command at the supervisory front-end [observed]. Programmed schedule is 5am–11pm, 7 days [observed], but the override forces the occupied state regardless of schedule. No expiration is configured. Override-window setpoints are 72°F cooling and 70°F heating [setpoint] — a 2°F deadband tighter than typical for this equipment class.
- Likely cause
- Consistent with an override applied during a past comfort complaint and never released. The tight deadband may have been set to suppress short-cycling complaints without addressing the underlying control-loop response.
- Recommended action
- Release the override and re-engage the programmed schedule. Configure an unoccupied setback band [recommended] so the override no longer hides the lack of setback. Review occupied setpoint separation with the operator; a wider separation (e.g., 74°F cooling, 70°F heating [recommended]) may reduce cycling risk.
- Verification step
- Spot-check occupancy command and schedule one week after release, then again at 30 days [illustrative]. Confirm no new override has been applied. Where trends are available, review setpoint and supply-temperature behavior across one shoulder week.
No historical trends configured on the supervisory front-end
- Operational impact
- Without trends, the operator cannot review schedule adherence, override patterns, or setpoint behavior after the fact. Verification depends on a return site visit, and intermittent issues leave no record. The front-end is online but not delivering operational visibility.
- Observation / evidence
- BAS-1 has no trend objects configured for any networked equipment [observed]. The supervisory layer reads live points from RTU-1, RTU-2, RTU-4, and LC-1, but no historical record is captured. Alarm configuration is minimal; only basic offline alarms are present.
- Likely cause
- Consistent with a supervisory front-end commissioned for live-point visibility only, with trending and alarming deferred and never returned to.
- Recommended action
- Enable a standardized trend set across networked equipment as a qualified controls follow-up: occupied/unoccupied state, supply and zone temperatures, setpoint values, and override status, at a 5–15 minute interval [recommended]. Pair with a short alarm set covering schedule deviation and override-without-expiration. Configuration task at the supervisory layer; no equipment replacement needed.
- Verification step
- After enable, confirm 7 days [illustrative] of data are captured for each enrolled point and that one trend report can be exported for operator review.
Outdoor air damper on RTU-3 not modulating
- Operational impact
- RTU-3 (Tenant Bay C) shows a fixed-position outdoor air damper that does not respond to commanded position changes. In shoulder seasons the unit must overcome unconditioned outdoor air with additional mechanical heating or cooling. Tenant comfort complaints in Bay C are consistent with this behavior.
- Observation / evidence
- At a site walkdown, RTU-3's outdoor air damper was observed in a partially open position [observed] and did not respond to a position change attempted at the local thermostat. No fault is reported because RTU-3 has no network interface and lacks a damper end-switch or position-feedback signal at a supervisory layer.
- Likely cause
- Consistent with a stuck or seized damper actuator, a disconnected actuator linkage, or a failed actuator drive. Root cause requires mechanical inspection.
- Recommended action
- Schedule a mechanical inspection of the RTU-3 economizer assembly to confirm whether the actuator, linkage, or damper itself is the source. Service or replace the damper actuator as required. Equipment-level replacement is not recommended at this stage and would require a separate quote if actuator service does not resolve the fault.
- Verification step
- After service, verify economizer/damper operation via the unit's economizer test procedure, controller test mode, or service tool — or, where no such interface exists, via direct actuator and linkage inspection. Visually confirm the damper moves through its expected travel. Re-inspect at 30–60 days [illustrative] for actuator stiffness or repeat failure.
§8 — Risk / priority matrix
Risk and priority at a glance.
The matrix below places each §7 finding by likelihood and operational impact. Likelihood reflects how reliably the issue is occurring based on observed behavior. Impact reflects building-operations consequence — comfort, runtime, maintenance burden, occupant disruption, control reliability, or operator attention. Impact is explicitly not financial. Action labels (Address now, Address soon, Schedule, Monitor, Defer) are operational sequencing only, not commitments to price, project schedule, or guaranteed outcome.
| Low impact | Medium impact | High impact | |
|---|---|---|---|
| High likelihood | F-3 Monitor | F-2 Address soon | — |
| Medium likelihood | — | F-1 Schedule | F-4 Address now |
| Low likelihood | Defer | Monitor | Schedule |
Likelihood and impact reflect operational risk only and are not a project cost, savings forecast, or schedule estimate.
§9 — Recommended next steps
Recommended next steps.
- 01
Confirm operator decisions on occupied hours and setback posture.
Ratify true occupied hours per tenant bay and a shared common-area schedule with the operations lead. Document a holiday calendar and an unoccupied setback band as a reference for future edits.
- 02
Quick-fix schedule and override work.
Release the active override on RTU-4 and align RTU-1, RTU-2, and LC-1 schedules with the ratified occupied hours. Configure unoccupied setback on networked tenant-bay RTUs. These edits may be suitable for in-house action if the operator has access, authority, and comfort with the controls interface.
- 03
Schedule a mechanical service on RTU-3.
Inspect and service the stuck outdoor air damper before the next shoulder season. Use the existing mechanical service path; do not bundle with controls work.
- 04
Engage qualified controls follow-up for trending and alarm hygiene.
Enable the standardized trend set on BAS-1 across networked equipment (occupied/unoccupied state, supply and zone temperatures, setpoint values, override status) and add a short alarm set for schedule deviation and stale overrides. Scope outline only; pricing and delivery are separate.
- 05
Set a verification window of 30–60 days [illustrative].
After the schedule/override edits and trend set are in place, revisit the property to confirm corrections held, review one week of trend data, and spot-check overrides and setbacks. Planning recommendation, not a guaranteed timeline.
Contact information for follow-up questions appears at the end of this report.
§10 — Documentation handoff and contact
Documentation handoff and contact.
Documentation handoff
A real Controls Health Check engagement closes with a documented operator handoff. Artifacts below are produced from the property's own observations, not from a sample template.
- Final report PDF populated with property-specific findings
- Equipment inventory with controls-interface notes
- Schedule comparison and recommended schedule
- Findings detail with priority rankings
- Risk / priority matrix
- Recommended next steps with verification window
- Raw observation and trend captures referenced in findings, where applicable
Sample reports do not include property-specific data. A real Controls Health Check engagement produces these artifacts populated with the building's own observations.
Contact
Clark & Soma Controls
info@clarkandsoma.comWe respond to inquiries about Controls Health Check engagements via email.