Exploring Multi-Vendor BAS Solutions Webinar
We had a great turnout at our webinar, Exploring Multi-vendor BAS Solutions. More than a dozen facility leaders from around the country joined us.
Bill Broadhurst, VP of Operations at Smith Engineering and former Director of Campus Energy at Princeton; Matt Mscichowski, Operations Manager at BEP; and Adam Boltz, Director of Building Automation and Performance at Princeton shared industry insights along with a behind-the-scenes look at Princeton’s Building Automation System (BAS) journey.
If you missed it, you can catch the full recording by filling out the form at the end of the blog post.
Here’s what we covered!
Today’s BAS Challenges
One of the themes that emerged during the discussion was the growing complexity of BAS systems — and the real-world challenges teams face in keeping them running efficiently. The ideal setup combines high-quality controllers and software with a skilled, experienced installation team; it’s the green smiley face every facilities team hopes for. On the flip side, pairing subpar controllers and software with underqualified installers can result in major setbacks, costly inefficiencies, and long-term performance issues.
Adding to the complexity, the amount of systems integration are rising and the technical expertise required to keep systems running smoothly continues to grow. HVAC systems are becoming more advanced to improve energy efficiency, while BAS platforms are expanding to integrate with third-party systems like lighting and water management. The days of RS485 networks are behind us — everybody’s systems now sit on an IT network.
One of the industry’s biggest challenges is the shortage of experienced BAS technicians. There is competition for top talent and consolidation within the market is reshaping the landscape as smaller, high-quality firms are acquired by larger organizations.
Princeton’s BAS History
Many of the building automation decisions Princeton made back in the late 70s, early 80s are still shaping the campus today.
Princeton’s story mirrors the broader evolution of the controls industry. Companies merge, technologies shift, and those changes ripple into how buildings are managed.
Princeton jumped into digital controls early with a Hamilton system, a UTC subsidiary. UTC eventually bought Carrier, which automatically turned Princeton into a Carrier campus. Back then, Carrier didn’t offer a full lab controls solution, and as Princeton expanded its research facilities—labs, cleanrooms, and animal spaces—that became a problem.
Enter MCC Powers, which later became Siemens through a series of acquisitions. So even though the name “Siemens” came later, their infrastructure was already taking root. Siemens could provide full turnkey solutions for labs, which helped solidify their place on campus alongside Carrier. Other vendors, like ALC, often had to partner with third parties, which wasn’t always ideal.
Things shifted in 2004 when Carrier acquired ALC. Princeton began piloting ALC projects through dealers. A couple of years later, Honeywell acquired Tridium, a platform Princeton later adopted.
By 2009, the central plant had grown more complex, Cogen was added in 1995 and thermal storage in 2004. Princeton shifted the plant to Allen Bradley PLCs for more robust control. Two satellite geothermal plants followed, adding even more layers to the system.
In 2010, Princeton launched a DDC master plan to prepare for major campus growth. It involved everything from evaluating current systems and staffing, to benchmarking against peer institutions and bringing IT into the fold, something that hadn’t really happened before.
That planning effort led to a formalized dual-sourcing strategy between Siemens and the ALC branch. While dealer pilots had gone well, the scale and complexity of Princeton’s projects made the branch a better fit.
By 2016, ALC’s branch faced staffing issues, so Princeton brought dealers in to help on the service side. Around the same time, Siemens phased out Insight in favor of Desigo, which triggered a long period of due diligence, complicated further by COVID.
Today, Princeton bids new projects between ALC and Distech, the latter using a Tridium front end. The university is now actively migrating older Siemens Insight buildings over to Tridium as part of a broader modernization effort.
The timeline shows how Princeton had to think ahead to support their own growth and keep up with what was happening in the market. On the procurement side, it was about picking the right systems for the campus while responding to changes in the platforms.
Sole Source vs. Multi-Vendor
Princeton’s journey highlights a broader question many campuses face: sole source, multi-vendor, or somewhere in between.
The right model depends on how you want your campus to operate. Sole-source setups are simpler — one system to train on, fewer contracts to manage, and more consistent IT standards. But they also come with risks, like limited pricing leverage or dependency on a single vendor.
Multi-vendor strategies offer competition and backup, but they also bring added complexity in training, coordination, and contract management.
Princeton’s experience shows that dual sourcing can strike a healthy balance. It keeps options open while avoiding the chaos of too many systems and vendors — and it gives you a fallback when one team falls short.
What’s the Right Approach for You?
Ultimately, there’s no one-size-fits-all BAS strategy.
Your approach will depend on:
The size and complexity of your campus
Availability of qualified local installers
In-house expertise and staffing models
Administrative capacity to manage contracts and training
Your institution’s risk tolerance and procurement philosophy
By learning from peers and staying flexible, you can build a BAS strategy that works today and can adapt for tomorrow.
Fill out the form to watch the recording.