Reworked Scope of Energy Performance Guarantees

Energy Performance Guarantees Maintaining investment and commitment of entire team after design and construction

MSRP Consortium Research Project University of Minnesota Mortenson Construction Chris Massey Spring 2015

Definition

Energy Performance GuaranteesSimilar to other energy regulatory programs: LEED, Living Building Challenge, Architecture 2030, and state energy codes like Minnesota’s B3 program, Energy Performance Guarantees (EPG) provide a way for owners and clients to have some control in the energy use of their buildings. This control happens early in the design and construction phase as opposed to post occupancy, like energy performance contracts. EPGs take the energy regulations of other programs a step further through financial incentives or penalties.

Function

The energy performance guarantee performs many different roles: -Places responsibility, on design/build firm, for the building to perform as designed -Encourages investment of entire design team to solve problems -Mitigates owners risk -Helps align owner and design team’s goals -Provides accountability and facilitates an ongoing relationship with the construction team for a period of time after construction is completed -Ensures construction team will work with those operating the building -Useful tool in achieving and proving other energy tools like LEED, Living Building, etc.

Background Sustainability time line 2000

2001

LEED LBC ARCH 2030 B3 ASHRAE FEDERAL

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2000 certified buildings in the US

2007

2008

MN state government begins developing sustainable building guidelines

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

AIA adopts 16 of the world’s leading 2030 Challenge architectural firms sign commitment

EPAct 2005 established new energy goals and standards

2011

2012

Renamed International Living Future Institute

60% less energy consumption of standard buildings

Expanded to include all major renovations

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Executive Order 13423 and EISA 2007 expanded upon goals and standards

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Executive Order 13514 created a new series of requirements

2013

2014

2015

LEED v4 launched

International First projects Living Building certified Institute founded

2030 Challenge is mandated for all federal buildings

Mandatory for all new construction that recieves state funds

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

2010

LEED buildings LEED v3 become launched defacto standardin US Living Building LBC v2.0 lauchedChallenge v1.0 greater scope of launched imperatives

Edward Mazria establishes Architecture 2030

2009

Presidental Memoradum directed agencies to cut energy costs

v3.0 launched

2030 Palette launched

70% less energy consumption of standard buildings

Version 2.1

Current ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Goal of an additional 30% federal energy reduction

Background Sustainability time line 2000

2001

LEED LBC ARCH 2030 B3 ASHRAE FEDERAL

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2000 certified buildings in the US

2008

MN state government begins developing sustainable building guidelines

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

AIA adopts 16 of the world’s leading 2030 Challenge architectural firms sign commitment

EPAct 2005 established new energy goals and standards

LBC moves towards standard buildings being energy exporters

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 included money for EPG projects.

2011

2012

Renamed International Living Future Institute

60% less energy consumption of standard buildings

Expanded to include all major renovations

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

Executive Order 13423 and EISA 2007 expanded upon goals and standards

Executive Order 13514 created a new series of requirements

2013

2014

2015

LEED v4 launched

International First projects Living Building certified Institute founded

2030 Challenge is mandated for all federal buildings

Mandatory for all new construction that recieves state funds

New ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

2010

LEED buildings LEED v3 become launched defacto standardin US Living Building LBC v2.0 lauchedChallenge v1.0 greater scope of launched imperatives

Edward Mazria establishes Architecture 2030

2009

v3.0 launched

2030 Palette launched

70% less energy consumption of standard buildings

Version 2.1

Current ASHRAE 90.1 Standard

Presidental Memoradum directed agencies to cut energy costs

LEED v4 has categories for positive contribution instead of just less negative.

ARCH2030 now at 70% better than standard -many governing bodies have committed to it

Goal of an additional 30% federal energy reduction

LEED State Map

Background Sustainability map

ASHRAE Adoption State Map

Governing Body B3

Federal WA State Other LEED 2004

ASHRAE Adoption

2013

Scope of Research All Case Studies

Navy Gateway Inn & Suites Newport, RI Agricultural Engineering Building Renovation State College, PA Centennial Office Building St. Paul, MN University of Chicago Res Hall Chicago, IL Duluth Entertainment, Cultural Center Duluth, MN UMTC Biomedical Discovery District Minneapolis, MN UMTC Physics & Nanotechnology Lab Minneapolis, MN Washburn Center for Children Minneapolis, MN

Focus of this part: King County Children and Family Justice Center Seattle, WA WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus Center Everett, WA Bullitt Center Seattle, WA

Research Support Facility Golden, CO

1063 Block Replacement Project Olympia, WA

Federal Center S Building 1202 Seattle, WA

Breakdown of Case Studies- 14 total projects: Delivery Method

Governing Body WA State

Design- Build IPD

B3

Design-Bid-Build

Federal

Construction Manager at Risk

Universities

GCCM

Budget

Bullitt Foundation

Size of Project (ft2)

$30-50

<100,000

$50-80

100,000- 150,000

$80-110

150,000- 200,000

$110-$140

200,000-250,000

>$140

>250,000

Scope of Research Topics Explored EPG

-What is your understanding of the performance guarantee?

-How has it affected the design process or how do you expect it to?

-Did it change it anyway how the project is approached?

-Why did your company pursue this project?

-Has your firm previously done EPG projects or other energy sustainability oriented projects?

Team- IPD

-How is the team organized, or expected to be?

-Has anything been done differently in putting a team together, or in planning the team?

-Is there a greater emphasis on collaboration?

BIM

-What was the role, or expected role, BIM plays in this project?

-Is this any different than a typical project?

Energy Modeling

-What was the role, or expected role, of energy modeling in this project?

-Is this different than typical?

Energy Sources

-What are the energy sources this building is expected to use?

-Is there any talk of using renewables?

Users

-How was the variability of users (changes in scheduling, plug loads, etc.) handled? Both contractually and functionally?

Measuring and Verification Period

-How long and intensive was the M&V period?

-How did the user play into this part?

-What are your responsibilities throughout the entire period?

Maintenance and Operations

-Was there separate requirements for maintenance and operations?

-How did M&O work with the EPG?

Metering -Was there an atypical level of metering in this project?

Success

-How successful was the project?

-How was success defined?

-Where did problems arise?

-How did EPG relate to the success?

Risk

-What are the risks (financial or reputational or other) associated with this project?

-Does this project have a different amount of risk because of the performance guarantee?

-How present is the threat of legal action?

-How does your firm plan on managing that risk?

5 Case Studies Focused On

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett To be completed August 2017 Hoffman Construction/SRG Architects Financial Incentive

1063 Block Replacement Project To be completed in fall 2016 ZGF Architects/Sellen Construction Financial Penalty

King County Children and Family Justice Center To be completed in 2019 Howard S Wright construction Financial Penalty

Federal Center S Building 1202 Completed in 2012 ZGF Architects/Sellen Construction Financial Penalty

Research Support Facility Completed fall 2011 RNL Architects/Haselden Construction Financial Penalty

Washington State University at Everett Campus Center Everett, WA To be completed August 2017 Campus Center Building Owner- Washington State University Contractor-Hoffman Construction Architect- SRG Architects Mech./Elect. Sub- McKinstry Design-Build 95,000 ft2 $50.36 million total Energy Design Criteria *LEED Silver- with specific credits, *water performance requirements, *Specific Targets= 50% reduction in energy cost relative to ASHRAE 90.1 2007 baseline, EUI between 25-40 kBtu/gsf-yr, *Prescriptive Requirements= Wash State Energy Code Financial Incentive of EPG*3 year performance period, *$240,000 financial incentive if DB meets performance requirements Companies Understanding of EPG- passed down from the state legislature that’s funding the job.

Energy Performance Guarantee, Maintenance Operation Guarantee. Keeps contractor accountable for environmental control systems.

Team organization- Upfront collaboration was key in the selection process. McKinstry was a vital member of the team. SRG’s greatest energy contribution was envelope and lighting.

Energy Modeling- a lot more detail and back and forth to make sure fully integrated energy strategies.

How to deal with user variable- both guarantees just tied to environmental control systems, M&V Period- 12 months to dial building in and then 3 years on M & V period.

Risks in the project and how they were managed- Part of DB’s proposal must include how they plan to manage both EPG and MOG (maintenance and operation guarantee). SRG’s contractual relationship with Hoffman did not include any part of the guarantee.

McKinstry felt brand risk much greater than financial risk.

1063 Block Replacement Project Olympia, WA To be completed Summer 2017 Office Building Owner- Washington State Department Contractor- Sellen Construction Architect- ZGF Architects Design-Build 215,000 ft2 $82 million total Energy Design Criteria EUI= 30.1 with renewables, $1.18/ft2 for operations and maintenance, LEED Platinum Financial Penalty of EPG5 year performance assurance through M&V, tier release schedule of compensation, $420,000- (equal to 1st year operating costs) withheld Companies Understanding of EPG- Meeting the design and construction criteria for 5 years, responsibilities are coupled at years 2 and 5. Ripples energy design right through to the thinking at the beginning.

Team organization- Team that was picked was integrated and had done EPG projects before. All members part of team have worked together on at least one project- most more than that. Highly integrated, successful team.

Use of BIM- Mainstream for every project.

How to deal with user variable- These buildings are going to take a retraining of the users as well. If users do not follow assumptions in performance agreement, contractor is off the hook.

M&V Period- 1 year to tune it. Quarterly reports through 2-5.

Risks in the project and how they were managed- Retraining of facility staff to change old habits/ ways of doing it. Full-time mechanical/electrical engineer on project site for whole first year, in charge of all operations and maintenance as well as training.

Distinguishing Factors- 1063 has a 75-year minimum life- before significant changes. Payoffs begin around year 25. This works because in WA public owns all buildings.

Federal Center S 1202 Seattle, WA Completed 2012 Office Building Owner- GSA Contractor-Sellen Construction Architect- ZGF Architects Design-Build 209,000 ft2 $74 million total Energy Design CriteriaLEED Gold, 2030 Challenge compliant, Energy Star Score of 100top 1% energy efficient office buildings in nation, 30% better than ASHRAE 90.1 2007, EUI of 28 or less Financial Penalty of EPG1 year performance period, $400,000 dollars withheld Companies Understanding of EPG- GSA required list of minimum performance criteria in contract, EUI of 28 or less, basis of contract.

Team organization- Very important how integrated selected team was. How the teams had worked together to predict how they would work together.

Use of BIM- BIM can go further but this project took a good step with it.

Energy Sources- Primarily electric with geothermal. Phase change machine can cool the building on almost every day until 2 pm.

How to deal with user variable- Educational programs- both email and classes.

M&V Period- Adjusted calculations, Monthly meeting with DB firm. â&#x20AC;&#x153;continuous commissioning.â&#x20AC;?

Success of the project- Keeping financial penalty made sure the entire team stayed engages- already a great team but money made a difference. DB as invested as GSA to prove building would run as well as designed.

Risks in the project and how they were managed- Contractor initially felt there was a greater risk but difference was made when contractors understood what GSA was after. Main lawyer never came into the mix- everyone was on board as a team.

King County Children and Family Justice Center King County, WA To be completed September 2019 Justice Center Owner- King County Contractor-Howard S. Wright Architect- HOK Architects, Integrus Architects Design-Build 347,000 ft2 $210 million total Energy Design Criteria LEED Gold, King County Green Building Ordinance, state LCCA requirements, King County City’s Collaboration Requirement, DOE Better Buildings Challenge, Seattle’s 2030 district commitment, 20% better than Seattle Energy Code Financial Incentive of EPG$500,000- (equal to 1st year operating costs) withheld during 3 year performance guarantee period, one time payout

Companies Understanding of EPG- Primary motivation was to ensure the building performs as designed. Provides accountability and facilitates an ongoing relationship with the construction team for a period of time after construction is completed. Secondary goal is to ensure the building aligns with county policy and target.

Team organization- IPD, ensure strong pre-construction planning- improved cost control- quality and budget management.

Use of BIM- Yes BIM- some specific requirements for how the building needs to be modeled but also work with design team.

Energy Sources- Consider both site and source EUI, performance guarantee just site.

How to deal with user variable- Work with design team to minimize plug loads going into the building- Update the model to reflect real conditions as construction progresses.

Risks in the project and how they were managed- Risk on owner of having the building actually perform as designed- point of guarantee to keep designers on board making sure it actually works and trains facility operators. One time payout, started with incremental system but owner felt didn’t give enough control.

Research Support Facility Golden, CO Completed Fall 2011 Research Building Owner- National Renewable Energy Laboratory Contractor-Haselden Construction Architect- RNL Architects Design-Build 222,000 ft2 $80 million total Energy Design Criteria35.1 kBtu/sf-yr(including data center), 50% better than ASHRAE 90.1 2004, 3 tiers performance objectives: mission critical/highly desirable/if possible Financial Incentive of EPGInitially- 100% project price at risk, Actually- 50% project price at risk Companies Understanding of EPG- Owner develops performance specifications and the design-builder comes up with the solutions.

Team organization- Integrated design and construction with significant upfront planning. Owner devoted a team, IPT, to meeting regularly with the DB team to make sure the building was an integrated system.

Energy Modeling- Modeling early and often, Having a computer model of the proposed RSF ensured that performance expectations were being met as the design evolved and construction continued.

Energy Sources-Thermal massing, triple glazed operable windows, hydronic heated/cooled through thermal slabs in ceiling. Solar panels and an energy efficient data center.

How to deal with user variable- “You can design and build a very efficient building, but what you need are all of the occupants in the building to make that same commitment.”

Wendy Weiskopf, Interiors Manager, RNL What made it a success of the project- Educating the Team. Clear, Comprehensive RFP. Prioritized Scope. Award Fee- Money drives behavior, and DOE/NREL was willing to pay for superior performance.

Risks in the project and how they were managed- Once the design-builder has assumed contractual responsibility for achieving the performance goals, the owner’s risk is dramatically reduced compared with a design-bid-build scenario.

Comparison Matrix

Projects Team/IPD

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus 1063 Block Replacement Project Federal Center S 1202 King County Children and Family Justice Center Research Support Facility B3

BIM

Energy Modeling

Energy Sources

User Flexibilty Built in

M&V Period

Maintenance and Operations (separate)

Metering Success

Amount of Risk

Measurement and Verification Period

Projects Team/IPD

BIM

Energy Modeling

Energy Sources

User Flexibilty Built in

Federal Center S 1202

Maintenance and Operations (separate)

3 years

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus 1063 Block Replacement Project

M&V Period

5 years

1 year

King County Children and Family Justice Center

3 years

Research Support Facility B3

Responsibility on owner

Metering Success

Amount of Risk

Role of BIM

Projects Team/IPD

BIM

Energy Modeling

Energy Sources

User Flexibilty Built in

M&V Period

Maintenance and Operations (separate)

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus 1063 Block Replacement Project Federal Center S 1202 King County Children and Family Justice Center Research Support Facility B3

Every project used BIM modeling but never in a unique way, always typical.

Metering Success

Amount of Risk

How Users Were Handled

Projects Team/IPD

BIM

Energy Modeling

Energy Sources

Research Support Facility

Maintenance and Operations (separate)

Metering Success

Retraining users with educational programs, Adjust model to reflect actual conditions Retraining users with educational programs, Adjust model to reflect actual conditions

Federal Center S 1202 King County Children and Family Justice Center

M&V Period

Owner unsure of actual operations, flexibility is being built in though.

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus 1063 Block Replacement Project

User Flexibilty Built in

Adjust model to reflect actual conditions Retraining users with educational programs, Adjust model to reflect actual conditions

B3

Adjust model to reflect actual conditions

Amount of Risk

Maintenance and Operations

Projects Team/IPD

BIM

Energy Modeling

Energy Sources

User Flexibilty Built in

M&V Period

Maintenance and Operations (separate)

Metering Success

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus 1063 Block Replacement Project Federal Center S 1202 King County Children and Family Justice Center Research Support Facility B3

Both projects emphasized Maintenance and Operations. WSU has two guarantees- energy performance and maintenance and operations. 1063 have both included but pushed important of M&O.

Amount of Risk

Risk

Projects Team/IPD

WSU North Puget Sound at Everett Campus

BIM

Energy Modeling

Energy Sources

User Flexibilty Built in

M&V Period

Maintenance and Operations (separate)

Metering Success

So great because of undefined operations/program

1063 Block Replacement Project Federal Center S 1202 King County Children and Family Justice Center Research Support Facility

Very high penalty if goals not met

B3

Not integrated design teams allow for problems

ZGF project manager talked about problems with project manager on the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s side not on board with B3 goals, and because of extensive level of documentation held up the project significantly.

Amount of Risk

Conclusion

Early to truly conclude but some of the most helpful strategies for EPG: -Owner needs to clearly understand building operations and goal -Highly integrated teams -Users need retraining as well as facility staff -Energy model early and often, adjust for real conditions as they are