How to Prioritize Building Automation Upgrades for Commercial Facilities

Commercial facilities rarely need just one improvement. HVAC equipment ages, schedules drift, comfort complaints accumulate, utility costs rise, and controls become harder to manage over time. The challenge for facility managers and building owners is not recognizing that an upgrade may be needed—it is deciding where to begin.

The best building automation projects are not always in the oldest building, the loudest zone, or the facility with the highest utility bill. The highest-priority opportunities are usually the places where energy opportunity, operational pain, controls readiness, and delivery feasibility overlap.

For a single commercial building, that may mean starting with the systems or zones creating the greatest comfort, scheduling, or maintenance issues. For a multi-building portfolio, it means applying the same criteria consistently across sites so capital and operational resources go first to the facilities with the clearest opportunity.

The Short Answer: Prioritize Opportunity, Not Age

A building’s age can be useful context, but it is not enough to determine whether it should be upgraded first. An older property may need mechanical repair or equipment replacement before new controls can deliver their intended value. Meanwhile, a newer facility with static schedules, limited visibility, recurring comfort complaints, or high energy use may be a stronger candidate for a building automation upgrade.

Start with facilities that have a combination of:

• Higher-than-expected energy use compared with similar buildings or their own prior performance

• Frequent comfort, indoor air quality, scheduling, or maintenance issues

• HVAC equipment that is serviceable but controlled by disconnected thermostats, limited legacy controls, or inconsistent sequences

• A realistic path to installation, commissioning, and ongoing operational ownership

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR program defines benchmarking as measuring and comparing a building’s energy use with similar buildings, its own past performance, or a reference performance level. EPA notes that benchmarking can help building owners identify underperforming properties, set investment priorities, and verify whether improvement efforts reduce energy use over time.

Why Facilities Need a Consistent Prioritization Process

HVAC systems evolve over time. One facility may have a legacy building automation system, another may rely on standalone thermostats, and a third may have newer equipment but little visibility into how it is performing. Without a consistent process, it becomes difficult to compare energy performance, comfort outcomes, maintenance needs, and project feasibility on equal terms.

A standardized review helps teams avoid two common mistakes.

First, it prevents every facility from becoming a completely unique project. When each site is evaluated differently, teams often end up with inconsistent scopes, schedules, data, and control strategies.

Second, it prevents organizations from selecting a project solely because it is the loudest problem. A facility with persistent complaints may still be a poor first candidate if it has unresolved mechanical deficiencies or no practical path to commissioning and ongoing operations.

In a recent discussion on building automation upgrades, 75F Chief Evangelist Bob French described how owners increasingly evaluate return on investment beyond energy consumption alone. They also consider unexpected HVAC trouble, occupant comfort, and maintenance costs—particularly in smaller commercial and retail properties where operating teams have limited time to manage recurring problems.

Use a Four-Factor Upgrade Scorecard

A practical way to compare facilities is to score each one using the same four factors. Rate each factor from 1 to 5, then review the combined score alongside site-specific constraints.

A simple preliminary formula is:

Upgrade Priority Score = Energy Opportunity + Operational Pain + Controls Readiness + Delivery Feasibility

A higher score does not automatically authorize a project. It gives facility, operations, and finance teams a common starting point for comparing opportunities and deciding which locations deserve a deeper assessment. These ranges are a planning aid, not a substitute for an on-site HVAC, controls, and financial assessment. A lower-scoring site may still move forward if it has safety, compliance, lease, resilience, or mission-critical requirements.

1. Start With Energy Opportunity

Energy benchmarking gives facilities teams an objective way to identify outliers. EPA defines benchmarking as measuring and comparing a building’s energy use against similar buildings, its own historical performance, or a reference level.

EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager helps owners review energy and performance metrics, compare properties, and evaluate progress after improvement efforts. For eligible property types, the 1–100 ENERGY STAR score compares a building’s energy performance with similar buildings nationwide. EPA adjusts the score for key operational characteristics, including weather, where applicable.

For a single facility or a group of comparable sites, review:

• At least 12 months of energy and utility-cost data

• Electricity demand charges where applicable

• Building size, operating hours, occupancy patterns, and primary uses

• Site, source, or weather-normalized energy use intensity, where available

• Changes in energy performance over time

Weather and operating conditions matter. EPA recommends comparing buildings by relevant factors such as function, size, location, and metering scenario, and then using metrics such as weather-normalized energy use intensity, cost, water use, or emissions to understand relative performance.

A high-energy-use building is not necessarily the best first project. Investigate whether the outlier is driven by schedules, control issues, equipment condition, occupancy, tenant loads, weather, or incomplete utility data.

2. Measure Operational Pain, Not Just Utility Spend

The business case for building automation is broader than kilowatt-hours. Energy performance matters, but facility teams also need to account for the time and risk created by recurring operational problems.

Operational pain can include:

• Repeated hot/cold complaints from occupants or tenants

• Recurring IAQ, humidity, or ventilation concerns

• Equipment that runs outside occupied hours

• Manual overrides that remain in place longer than intended

• Frequent emergency calls, truck rolls, or after-hours troubleshooting

• Alarms that occur often but do not help staff identify the most important issue

Capture these signals consistently. A simple count of comfort tickets, emergency service calls, manual overrides, and maintenance work orders can help identify facilities that consume disproportionate staff and contractor attention.

3. Confirm Controls and Mechanical Readiness

In a recent 75F article on building automation upgrades, Istiaque Baig of Trane Technologies addressed a common misconception: controls alone cannot correct underlying mechanical deficiencies. A mis-sized air handler, failing chiller, or improperly balanced ductwork still requires mechanical attention. Before moving forward, evaluate the condition of the HVAC equipment and the controls strategy together.

For each facility, document:

• Primary HVAC equipment type, age, condition, and known service issues

• Existing BAS, thermostats, controllers, and communication protocols

• Available network, power, and low-voltage pathways

• Current zone coverage and sensing gaps

• Whether schedules, setpoints, and alarms are accessible and documented

• Planned equipment replacements, renovations, or lease events

A strong candidate often has serviceable HVAC equipment but limited controls capability: disconnected thermostats, inconsistent schedules, poor zone visibility, or a legacy system that is difficult to operate.

A weaker first-wave candidate may have major mechanical failures, active capital replacement work, or infrastructure needs that should be addressed before a controls project begins.

4. Evaluate Whether the Project Can Be Delivered Well

A theoretically attractive upgrade can become a poor first project if site access, local support, contractor capacity, or ownership of ongoing operations are unclear.

Building automation upgrades can often be phased. Where site conditions and project scope allow, a facility may start with the most critical systems or highest-value areas, then use what it learns to inform later phases. For a multi-building organization, early projects can also help define a repeatable standard for future sites.

Before prioritizing a facility, ask:

• Can work be completed without unacceptable disruption to tenants, patients, students, guests, or operations?

• Is there a local contact who can support site access, equipment identification, and commissioning?

• Does the team know who will monitor alarms, manage schedules, and act on insights after go-live?

• Are there planned renovations or equipment replacements that should be coordinated with the controls scope?

• Are utility incentives, demand-response programs, or budget windows available?

A first project should be both meaningful and executable. A well-delivered initial deployment creates a better operational template for every later upgrade.

A Practical First-Wave Decision Framework

Use the following guide after completing the scorecard and preliminary assessment.

First-Wave Candidates

Prioritize facilities that combine clear opportunity with reasonable readiness, such as:

• A building with high energy use relative to comparable properties, recurring comfort complaints, and serviceable HVAC equipment

• A location with manual or fragmented schedules that regularly operate outside occupancy hours

• A facility that creates repeated reactive maintenance work but has enough controls and equipment access to support a focused upgrade

• A building where the local team, contractor, and owner can coordinate installation and commissioning without major disruption

Second-Wave Candidates

Plan these facilities after a first deployment has established standards, lessons, and a scalable process:

• Buildings with potential energy or operational value but incomplete baseline data

• Sites where a scheduled renovation or equipment replacement will create a better integration opportunity later

• Locations that need a more detailed mechanical assessment before a controls scope can be finalized

Not-Ready Candidates

Defer or separate facilities where fundamental conditions need attention first:

• HVAC equipment has unresolved mechanical deficiencies or is near replacement

• Critical network, power, or controls-access requirements are unavailable

• There is no accountable team for commissioning, operating, and maintaining the system

• The building’s use, occupancy, or ownership is likely to change before the project can deliver value

What Data to Collect Before a Facility Review

Build a consistent site profile for every facility. At minimum, collect:

• Building address, size, primary use, operating hours, and occupancy patterns

• One year or more of utility bills and demand data, where available

• Equipment inventory and recent maintenance history

• Existing controls architecture, BAS access, and communication details

• Comfort, IAQ, and service-ticket history

• Current schedules, setpoints, and override practices

• Planned capital projects, renewals, or renovations

• Available utility incentives and demand-response opportunities

EPA recommends gathering the information needed for the intended benchmarking analysis before entering a property into Portfolio Manager. The required inputs vary by property type and the metrics an owner plans to use.

Standardize What You Learn From the First Project

The first building automation project should not be treated as an isolated pilot. Use it to establish a standard for later facilities, systems, and phases.

Document:

• The baseline measures used to evaluate success

• How facilities are scored and selected

• Required equipment, controls, and site-survey information

• Standard schedule, comfort, and IAQ practices for comparable spaces

• Alarm-management and escalation responsibilities

• Commissioning steps and post-install performance checks

• The recurring reports stakeholders need to see

75F’s IoT BMS is designed to give facility teams centralized insight into building and portfolio performance, including equipment status, comfort, IAQ, and energy-related data across sites. But technology is only one part of the operating model. The greatest value comes when teams use consistent data, clarify ownership, and apply lessons from early projects to every subsequent phase.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which facilities should receive building automation upgrades first?

Start with facilities that show both need and readiness: unusually high energy use, recurring comfort or maintenance issues, serviceable HVAC equipment, and a feasible path to installation and ongoing management. Compare opportunities with a consistent scorecard rather than choosing solely by building age or the loudest complaint.

How do I compare energy performance across different commercial facilities?

Benchmark each property against similar buildings, its own historical performance, or a target. EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager supports comparisons using metrics such as weather-normalized energy use intensity, cost, water use, and emissions.

Should I replace HVAC equipment before upgrading controls?

It depends on the equipment condition and project scope. Controls can improve scheduling, visibility, and operation, but they cannot fix mechanical deficiencies such as failing equipment, improper sizing, or unbalanced ductwork. Assess mechanical and controls needs together before determining the right sequence.

What information is needed to prioritize a building automation program?

Collect building size and use, utility data, HVAC and controls inventories, maintenance history, comfort or IAQ issues, schedules and overrides, planned capital work, and site-delivery constraints. This information allows teams to assess energy opportunity, operational pain, readiness, and feasibility consistently.

Why not just upgrade the oldest facility first?

Age alone does not reveal current energy performance, occupant impact, controls limitations, or mechanical readiness. A newer site with poorly managed schedules and recurring operational problems may provide a better first opportunity, while an older site may need equipment repairs or replacement before controls work can deliver value.

Turn Facility Data Into an Upgrade Plan

Whether a facility has one location or hundreds, the first step is the same: establish a clear baseline, identify the places where HVAC operations create the greatest cost or operational risk, and determine which projects are ready to be delivered well.

A phased, data-informed approach makes it easier to improve performance now while creating a repeatable standard for future upgrades. A site assessment can help validate energy data, HVAC condition, controls compatibility, and delivery constraints before a facility commits to a project scope.

Ready to evaluate your building or portfolio? Talk to 75F about a phased building automation strategy.

Sources

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Benchmark Your Building With Portfolio Manager.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Analyze Benchmarking Results.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Get Started with the Benchmarking Starter Kit.

4. 75F. Demystifying Building Automation Upgrades for Every Building.

5. 75F. 7 Things Facilities Teams Should Know About IoT Building Management Systems.