In utility construction projects, design is rarely the final word—it’s the starting point. As soon as boots hit the ground and installation begins, the field becomes the ultimate validator of engineering plans. And nowhere is this tension more apparent than in station service installations, where design assumptions often clash with on-the-ground realities.
A misaligned panel. A voltage mismatch. A location that makes sense on paper—but not in a live substation yard.
These aren’t edge cases—they’re everyday occurrences in capital delivery. And when they’re not resolved quickly, they turn into major risks: lost days, incomplete commissioning, mounting costs, and fractured communication between engineering, field crews, and contractors.
Why Station Service Design Is More Prone to Conflict
Station service systems are critical for powering protection and control (P&C) equipment, lighting, HVAC, and backup systems within substations. But because these systems are often finalized late in design and installed near the end of the build, they carry a unique set of challenges:
- Tight placement tolerances near energized equipment
- Complicated routing for AC/DC supply, transfer switches, and grounding
- Conflicting stakeouts with conduit runs, equipment pads, or control buildings
- Variability between as-designed vs. as-built conditions
As a result, even minor inconsistencies between design documents and field conditions can cause installation to grind to a halt.
And because station service is often part of energization readiness, every day of delay has a direct impact on project milestones.
Case Study: Station Service Conflict Resolved Without Delay at AEP
While overseeing a substation construction project for American Electric Power (AEP), Think Power Solutions’ field team identified a station service design conflict involving the station service disconnect switch. During on-site inspections, it became clear that the originally planned location for the disconnect did not meet clearance requirements based on actual field conditions.
This issue, if not addressed immediately, could have caused installation delays and impacted downstream work.
Here’s how Think Power responded:
- Field Discovery: The clearance issue was identified during routine oversight as the team verified equipment placement against real-world site constraints.
- Proposed Resolution: Think Power’s field team developed a practical solution by identifying a nearby alternative mounting location for the disconnect switch that satisfied all clearance requirements and maintained functional alignment with the overall design.
- Engineering Engagement: The team communicated the conflict and proposed fix to AEP engineering, supporting the change with detailed field documentation.
- Issue Closure: AEP approved the proposed solution, and the relocation was implemented smoothly, avoiding any impact to the schedule.
The result:
Thanks to proactive field oversight and rapid coordination with AEP engineering, the station service design conflict was resolved without delays or rework—demonstrating the value of integrated QA/QC and design collaboration in the field.
What Causes Station Service Design Conflicts—and Why They Go Unresolved Too Long
In utility capital programs, design conflicts like the one AEP experienced aren’t rare—they’re routine. But they’re often left unresolved for too long because of:
- Delayed Field Escalation
Field crews may spot a problem but continue working, assuming “someone else” will address it. - Siloed QA/QC Processes
QA/QC inspections aren’t always integrated with real-time engineering communication. - No Standard RFI Workflow
Without a clear process for escalating and resolving design conflicts, confusion slows decisions. - Engineering Overload
Design teams may be spread thin and not receive the detailed field context they need to make fast, confident revisions.
These bottlenecks create a dangerous lag—where delays mount not because a solution doesn’t exist, but because communication failed.
The Solution: Embedded Oversight That Bridges Design and Delivery
What made AEP’s success possible wasn’t just good problem-solving—it was field-embedded QA/QC oversight with decision-making authority.
Here’s what utilities can do to replicate this model:
1. Empower Field QA/QC to Flag and Escalate
Give your oversight team the tools and authority to immediately flag design conflicts—and make escalation part of their daily workflow.
2. Create a Fast-Track Design Conflict Protocol
Standardize how field issues are logged, documented, and shared with engineering. Use photos, sketches, and markup tools.
3. Involve Design Teams in Critical Field Walkdowns
Bridge the gap by having designers participate in key field milestones, virtually or in person.
4. Document the Resolution Process
Capture before/after conditions and approvals in your QA log so the change is traceable—and prevent recurrence in future builds.
5. Treat Field Conditions as the Final Blueprint
Engineering intent matters—but field reality wins. Allow the people closest to the problem to help shape the solution.
Why This Matters Across the Utility Lifecycle
Station service is just one example—but the principles apply everywhere: control cable routing, relay panel mounting, transformer foundations, grounding paths. In every one of these scenarios, the cost of inaction is high:
- Unplanned rework
- Contractor downtime
- Missed energization dates
- Distrust between field and engineering teams
Utilities that can respond quickly—and document those responses with rigor—will maintain credibility, schedule, and budget alignment in an increasingly demanding regulatory and operational environment.
Design Conflicts Aren’t the Enemy—Inertia Is
The best utilities aren’t the ones who avoid every field conflict—they’re the ones who solve them faster, smarter, and without drama.
AEP’s ability to resolve a critical station service conflict without delay is a clear example of what’s possible when field oversight, engineering, and construction teams operate in sync.
With proactive QA/QC, structured workflows, and clear communication, your utility can do the same—no matter how complex the project or how unexpected the obstacle.
Need help building field-ready QA/QC workflows for design conflict resolution?
Contact us to learn how we embed oversight into utility infrastructure delivery—bridging engineering intent with construction execution.
Linkedin
Linkedin
Linkedin
Linkedin
Linkedin
Linkedin