There’s no getting around it: service calls are simply part and parcel of running a facilities department. The vast majority of these service calls tend to be reactive. Someone on the facilities team notices a problem, an equipment failure, or a building system that seems out of whack, and calls in a service technician to fix it. Over time, these reactive service calls can become disruptive and costly.
According to one industry benchmark, facilities issue around six to eight reactive service calls or work orders per every 1,000 square feet of space every year.1 These service calls end up incurring more than the cost of the repair. For a facilities department, every service call eats up labor resources, causes disruptions, reduces staff productivity, and can result in repeated work that impacts efficiency.
Reducing the number of reactive service calls, on the other hand, comes with a number of advantages.
Lower maintenance costs: Emergency and after-hours calls often involve higher labor rates, expedited parts, overtime, and more complicated repairs. Reduce the number of calls, and you reduce these related costs.
Less disruption: Service calls can be disruptive to occupants and business operations. Catching issues earlier can reduce both system interruptions and the need for onsite technicians.
Increased staff productivity: Fewer recurring service calls means your staff will be able to stay focused on preventative maintenance, building system performance, and operational improvements.
More predictable budgets: Scheduled maintenance is easier to plan for and forecast than a constant stream of unpredictable breakdowns, emergency invoices, and replacement requests.
Longer equipment life: Repeated failures and deferred repairs can put additional stress on building systems. Monitoring and addressing smaller problems early on can delay major replacement costs and extend operational life.
Lower energy consumption: Poorly calibrated or improperly operating equipment, such as stuck dampers or failed sensors, can lead to excessive service calls as well as wasted energy.
Every facilities department wants to reduce reactive service calls. The question becomes how?
Step 1: Knowing the Source of the Issue
The first step is to identify the most common causes for service calls, so you can better understand how to avoid them. In many instances, the root cause of the problem is self-inflicted. A sensor is recalibrated incorrectly, a schedule gets changed, a setpoint may be in conflict with another control sequence, or a network connection may have been disrupted during unrelated work. Someone makes a small change or adjustment, and suddenly you’re calling in a service technician to address an issue.
The good news is, many of these self-inflicted service calls can be avoided through proper training, documentation, preventative maintenance, coordinated vendor visits, and open communication between facilities, mechanical, controls, and IT teams. Let’s take a closer look at some of the more common causes for service calls, and practical steps to avoid them.
Temperature and Setpoint Problems
Service calls often get triggered when a space is too hot, too cold, or not responding to adjustments. It’s common to assume that the cause of these issues lies with a failed or faulty sensor, prompting a service call. And sometimes, that is indeed the case. But before picking up the phone, consider the possibility that the issue may be the result of an internal change.
For example, the sensor may have been recalibrated incorrectly. Or perhaps the sensor was moved or replaced without updating the controls configuration. A zone setpoint may have been changed at the wrong control level, a schedule may have been modified, or heating and cooling setpoints may not be aligned correctly.
Avoiding the Problem
Training facilities personnel in the proper operation and verification of sensors, schedules and setpoints, as well as proper calibration and adjustments, can help significantly reduce the number of temperature- and setpoint-related service calls.
Before a service call is placed, make sure onsite staff reviews any recent changes, alarm histories, schedules, setpoints, and trend data. It’s also a good idea to confirm basic conditions such as power, equipment status, and network connectivity.
Drifting Sensors Causing Issues
Another common cause for service calls is field-level sensors that appear to be operating inaccurately. Over time, sensors can drift outside an acceptable range without failing completely. Because the reading still appears on the graphics interface, the issue may not be instantly obvious, while the effects are.
Sensor drift can result in uncomfortable spaces, improper heating or cooling, excessive equipment runtime and energy waste, and nuisance alarms. A sensor that is routinely out of calibration may indicate a larger issue that needs addressing.
Avoiding the Problem
Establish a current standard for sensor variance that identifies:
- An acceptable range for each type of sensor.
- Which sensors are most critical.
- How often to test sensors.
- Which conditions require calibration.
- When it’s time to replace a sensor rather than adjust it.
As part of your routine PM, compare sensor readings with a calibrated reference and review performance over time. This trend data can help pinpoint sensors that need frequent adjustment or that routinely fall outside the acceptable range, indicating they may need replacing.
Mechanical Equipment Failure
We see a lot of service calls from dampers, valves, fans, and other mechanical components that fail to respond to a command from the building automation system. Common causes for this may be loose or broken damper linkages, a stuck or obstructed damper, a failed actuator, motor control problems, lack of lubrication, damaged control wiring, or mechanical components that have deteriorated.
In cases like this, the controls system may look like the culprit when the root cause is actually mechanical.
Avoiding the Problem
We recommend aligning controls service visits with the mechanical vendor’s PM visits whenever possible. When both vendors are onsite, they can more easily collaborate to determine where the issue stems from: the controls or the equipment and its components.
This coordination is particularly helpful during planned maintenance service. A controls technician can confirm that the system is issuing the correct command while the mechanical technician verifies whether the equipment can physically carry that command out. Working together makes it more likely that the underlying issue will be identified and corrected rather than covered with another temporary fix.
When Modules Fail to Communicate
Facilities teams also tend to make service calls when the control graphics interface indicates a breakdown in communication between modules, or that modules are offline. There are multiple potential reasons for communication errors between modules, including:
- Loose or damaged wiring.
- Loss of power at a controller or network device.
- Incorrect addressing.
- A failed controller, router, or gateway.
- Improper termination or polarity.
- Recent construction or electrical work.
- A disconnected cable in a closet.
Many of these issues could be diagnosed and addressed by your facilities or IT team.
- How the controls network is organized.
- Which controllers serve which equipment.
- Where network panels, routers, and control modules are located.
- Which closets contain critical infrastructure.
- How communication pathways connect different areas of the building.
- Which indicators suggest a local issue versus a broader network problem.
As-built drawings provide a roadmap to help technicians and IT administrators locate a communication failure. If the onsite team knows where a specific closet, controller, or network panel is located, it can quickly check whether a device has power, whether a cable has been disturbed, or whether nearby equipment is affected.
Knowing the Difference between Critical and Nuisance Alarms
Many service calls are triggered by nuisance alarms and recurring alerts that seem important but don’t require immediate intervention. When facilities teams receive too many alarms, they can become desensitized to them. That creates a more serious risk in that a genuinely critical condition may be overlooked because it appears alongside dozens of routine or non-actionable alerts.
Avoiding the Problem
Each alarm should have a clear meaning, a level of priority, and a defined operator response. We suggest conducting a thorough review of alarms to determine:
- What condition triggered it.
- Whether that condition requires operator action.
- How quickly someone should respond.
- What happens if no one responds.
- Whether the alarm is duplicating another notification.
- Whether the alert should be treated as an event rather than an alarm.
These steps can reduce nuisance alarms that trigger unnecessary service calls, and help facilities staff focus on conditions that genuinely affect safety, comfort, equipment, or operations.
Construction and Building Changes
Construction projects are another frequent source of unexpected controls issues that can trigger reactive service calls. Contractors may disconnect equipment, move sensors, modify ceilings, interrupt communication wiring, alter room layouts, or place systems temporarily out of service. If the controls provider is not informed, the resulting alarms, alerts, and issues may look like unexplained equipment or network failures.
Avoiding the Problem
If you have upcoming or ongoing construction projects, let your controls service provider know. Make sure you also share with them the project schedule, affected areas, any equipment taken out of service, temporary control requirements, planned electrical or network work, any relocations for sensors, controllers, or devices, and expected dates for testing and recommissioning.
With advance notice, your service provider can help place systems in and out of commission appropriately and return the system to normal operation after the work is complete. This communication also helps distinguish project-related changes from unexpected failures.
Lack of Critical Spare Parts
Some service calls become more disruptive because the required replacement part is not available when the problem is diagnosed. A failed actuator, controller, sensor, power supply, transformer, or communication component may leave equipment offline while the provider locates and ships a replacement.
Avoiding the Problem
It’s a good idea to maintain an inventory of critical and commonly replaced components based on your building’s equipment, system age, lead times, and operational priorities. Be sure to label, document, and check inventory periodically, and let your staff know what’s available.
Prevention Through Partnership
One of the most effective ways to reduce the number and frequency of reactive service calls is by building a strong relationship with your controls service provider. The better a service provider understands your team, your building, and your systems, the more effective they can be in helping prevent service calls in the first place.
By giving your service provider secure, appropriate access to building systems, you enable them to review system performance without sending technicians onsite. Remote monitoring can help identify abnormal trends, recurring alarms, communication problems, and declining equipment performance before they become major failures or unscheduled outages.
The best service providers serve as partners who proactively help your facilities team understand your systems, maintain accurate data, coordinate with other vendors, and address warning signs early. By making sure the right people have the right information to identify the real problem, you’re able to solve issues before they require a service call and a costly disruption.
Authored with contributions from Todd Ocus, Jr., Director of Service, Mid-Atlantic.
Sources
1. Facilities Management Department. “FY 2025 Advertised Budget Plan: Performance Measures.” Fairfax County.
