Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLaw and Justice Center public comment from Susan Bilo - articleAn Energy-Performance-Based Design-Build Process: Strategies for Procuring High-Performance Buildings on Typical Construction Budgets Authors removed for Peer Review ABSTRACT NREL experienced a significant increase in employees and facilities on our 327-acre main campus in Golden, Colorado over the past five years. To support this growth, researchers developed and demonstrated an acquisition method that successfully integrates energy-efficiency requirements into the design-build contracts for new buildings. We piloted this energy- performance-based design-build process with our first new construction project, a large office building, in 2008. We have since replicated and evolved the process for an office-building expansion, a smart grid research laboratory with a supercomputer, a parking structure, a site- security building, and a cafeteria. Each project incorporated unique and measureable energy performance requirements in the design-build contracts resulting in the use of aggressive efficiency strategies with typical construction budgets. We have found that when energy efficiency is a core requirement, defined at the beginning of a project, owners can now expect facility energy performance to meet design expectation. NREL successfully completed the new construction projects in 2013 and have documented relevant best practices in training materials and a how-to guide so that other owners and owner’s representatives can learn from our experience and replicate market viable, world-class energy performance in the built environment. In this paper, the best practices are summarized, and given context within the NREL projects and industry partner projects. Introduction A primary goal of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is to demonstrate leadership as a state-of-the-art laboratory that supports innovative research and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies that address the nation’s energy and environmental needs. Due to continued energy cost increases, energy security concerns, and environmental impacts from our energy systems, the market demand for renewable energy and energy efficiency has expanded. NREL’s growth has paralleled this increased demand. Specific to NREL’s site operations, the growth resulted in a significant increase in employees and facilities on our 327-acre main campus in Golden, Colorado. In the 2011 fiscal year, NREL staff levels increased 20% from 2010, and campus square footage expanded 48%. This pace of campus construction continued through FY 2013 with the addition of six new structures on campus with a construction cost of near $400 million. To simultaneously support the growth and DOE’s energy and sustainability goals, NREL Commercial Building researchers worked with the capital construction team to develop and demonstrate a new construction acquisition method that integrates measureable energy- performance requirements into the project requests for proposals (RFP) and contracts. This process is founded in the idea that cost effective and deep energy savings are possible when the design and build industries are better integrated; one way to do this is through contracting mechanisms that force design/build teams to develop integrated and innovate designs and construction delivery process. NREL facility growth was an opportunity to demonstrate this concept in real projects. We developed and piloted this energy-performance-based design-build process with our first new construction project (1) in 2008. We have since replicated and evolved the process over five other buildings, grouped by project contract in the following list and shown in Figure 1.  (1) Research Support Facility (RSF I) – a 824 occupant, 220,000 ft2 office building with a datacenter, completed in June of 2010  (2) Research Support Facility Expansion (RSF II) – a 500 occupant, 138,000 ft2 office building and conference space expansion to RSF I, completed in November of 2011  (3) Parking structure and (4) site entrance building (SEB) – a five-deck, 1,800-car parking garage and 1,500 ft2 campus access control building, both completed in February of 2012  (5) Staff cafeteria – a 12,000 ft2 commercial kitchen, servery, and 250-seat dining hall, completed in July of 2012  (6) Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) − a 182,500 ft2 smart grid research laboratory with a supercomputer and 200 workstations, completed in January of 2013. Figure 1. Aerial Picture of the NREL campus taken in May, 2013. Source: images.nrel.gov # 25812 Each project features world-class efficiency strategies, performs as expected, and was constructed within typical DOE project budgets. Based on our experience incorporating energy- performance requirements into these NREL campus projects, we developed a set of best practices for replication by others:  Best Practice #1: Include a measureable energy goal in the RFP and contract  Best Practice #2: Develop the energy goal using multiple resources  Best Practice #3: Develop the energy goal using normalization factors  Best Practice #4: Include technology-specific efficiency requirements in the contract  Best Practice #5: Define owner loads  Best Practice #6: Provide calculation methods for substantiation  Best Practice #7: Require goal substantiation throughout design  Best Practice #8: Develop a process for performance assurance in operations The purpose of this document is to summarize how NREL incorporated energy-performance requirements into the building acquisition process, inform owners and owner’s representatives of the state of replication and direct them to more detailed resources that give guidance and support for improving the operational energy performance of future commercial buildings. Toward this end, the body of this paper is divided into three sections: (1) Definition of an energy- (4) (3) (5) (1) (2) (6) performance-based design-build process using a set of best practices; (2) Select examples of how recent NREL construction projects used the best practices; (3) Outreach and deployment efforts that have helped spark replication of the process on a broader scale. The paper concludes with links to the training and how-to materials created for use by owners and design teams interested in replicating the process. An Energy-Performance-Based Design-Build Process Defined NREL’s recent construction project designs incorporated a range of readily available energy efficiency strategies combined in innovative ways; while this should not be overlooked as a key aspect of success, the innovation started with rethinking the acquisition process. In 2007 during the initial acquisition planning process for the RSF, it was decided that in order to deliver the RSF, with its challenging performance requirements, on time and on budget, a traditional design-bid-build procurement process would not suffice. Rather than designing the building and then putting it out to bid in the traditional way, the team opted for a performance-based design- build process. The goal to achieve significant energy savings couldn’t override a focus on cost effectiveness and ensuring DOE obtained the best value, as DOE provided a firm fixed price of approximately $64 million to design and build the RSF. DOE budgeted the RSF’s construction costs of 259/ft2 to be competitive with today’s less energy efficient institutional and commercial buildings. To reach this level of performance for the available budget, DOE and NREL felt that a different project delivery approach was required in selection of the project team and the design/construction process. Traditionally, DOE used a design-bid-build approach to project acquisition, selecting separate design and construction contractors. While this process typically provided the best price for the project, it limited the design team’s creativity in developing the most cost effective, integrated, energy efficient solution. In addition, as learned on past NREL projects, this design-bid-build process often limited the design team’s full integration with the builder, cost estimators, and subcontractors, resulting in a longer, more costly delivery process with less value. DOE and NREL selected a performance-based “Best Value Design-Build/Fixed Price with Award Fee” (DBIA 2013) delivery approach for the RSF and all future projects to encourage innovation of the design and build private sector, reduce owner’s risk, increase the speed construction and delivery, control costs, and establish measurable success criteria. All recent NREL projects now use a performance-based design-build process. Instead of specifying technical standards such as building size, configuration, conceptual drawings, and other attributes, DOE and NREL uses the RFP to specify prioritized key performance parameters as “Mission Critical”, “Highly Desirable”, and “If Possible”. Competing design-build teams are, in part, judged based on their ability to incorporate and support as many of the prioritized objectives as possible within the overall fixed budget and schedule constraints. Using this acquisition process to incorporate energy-efficiency requirements is a natural extension of benefits of performance-based design-build. As such, all recent NREL projects have demonstrated the feasibility of procuring low-energy and net zero energy buildings on typical construction budgets. The best practices identified, that collectively define the process and differentiate it from more traditional approaches are given in the following sections. While a larger set of best practices is necessary for teams to ensure energy use integrity is maintained through equipment specification/installation and continues during a building’s life, the guidance presented here serves as a cornerstone for achieving real energy savings. Best Practice #1: Include a Measureable Energy Goal in the RFP and Contract Energy requirements should be included in prominent parts of the RFP (and later the contract) and reinforced throughout the document. The RFP is the opportunity for the owner to express the mission of the building and will define the focus of the design team for the reminder of the project. While general energy language can be included, a strong statement should be made using a specific, aggressive, and measureable target. This goal should be presented in context with other project requirements. Energy Goal Options The following options for an energy goal are given in order of most to least effective for reducing total annual energy use.  Net zero energy building: A building with greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such that the balance of energy needs can be supplied with renewable technologies.  Whole Building energy use intensity (EUI) Target: A building’s energy use per unit area, most commonly given in kBtu/ft2/yr.  Percent savings relative to a baseline: Typically, energy cost savings compared to a well- documented baseline representing the code minimum form of the building design.  Sustainability rating system requirement: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is the most widely used sustainable rating system encouraging wise use of land, materials, water, and energy, as well as promoting occupant comfort. In general, owners should consider using a combination of a goal types to drive design-build teams to focus on efficiency while achieving general sustainability. Whenever possible, an EUI target should be used in all cases. This sets a hard boundary for net zero energy design, gives a clear and measureable goal that will focus the design team during design development and into operations, and it allows for simple comparison to the performance of other buildings. Tiered Goal Structure A tiered goal structure helps the team prioritize an owner’s wish list of building features/ functions and design process outcomes. The following is an example of the tier language used on NREL projects to classify the importance of goals such as energy, safety, and schedule.  Mission Critical: Required by the contract.  Highly Desirable: Not required by the contract but plays heavily into design-build team selection. If not mission critical, general sustainability goals or aggressive EUI targets can be located in this section of the RFP.  If Possible: Not required by the contract but can play into design-build team selection if a number of design competition submittals are similar. This is a good location for stretch goals such as a highly aggressive EUI and percent savings goals. Whether one or multiple goals are used, include at least one energy-related goal in the mission critical section and place this in an introductory page of the RFP. Best Practice #2: Develop the Energy Goal Using Multiple Resources Once the goal type and structure is defined, the owner team must select the value for specific energy use or percent reduction goals. In this task, use a broad range of resources to ensure that it is aggressive yet achievable. The ideal approach to setting whole-building absolute energy use targets makes use of all available data, taking advantage of the strengths of each data type. Examples of data types are:  High-level sector data: Examples include CBECS and Energy Star Target Finder.  High performance case studies: Examples include the High Performance Buildings Database, ASHRAE High Performance Buildings magazine, and AEDG case studies.  Portfolio energy use data: An example is a retailer with a number of stores that share the same prototypical design.  Whole-building energy simulation: Examples of energy simulation programs include EnergyPlus, eQUEST, and DOE-2. Best Practice #3: Develop the EUI Goal Using Normalization Factors Normalizing energy use goals to floor area is helpful for building comparisons but should not be stated without conditions. Incentive factors should be defined in the RFP that encourage space efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the energy goal as defined for a given building size and occupancy. For example, NREL used the following two factors in the office building energy goal definitions.  Occupant density factor: For office spaces, define an increase in EUI for increased occupant density. This can be given as a table or as en equation.  Parking space density factor: For parking garages, define the energy goal per parking space instead of per area to maximize the number of cars in the structure and/or minimize the footprint of the structure. Additional normalization factors can be created and defined depending on building unknowns such as data center capacity or other housed services. Best Practice #4: Include Technology-Specific Efficiency Requirements in the RFP Additional end use or technology-specific goals can add value by focusing team attention to specific design challenges and encouraging passive building design. Example technology specific requirement to include in the RFP are:  Passive system requirements: Include general system requirements such as daylighting or natural ventilation to influence concept design. Add specific performance language such as a daylight quantity-hour metrics to ensure attention to detail in the execution of the passive systems.  System efficiencies: General language such as “best in class” can be used if specific efficiencies are unknown or cannot be determined. Specific metrics, such as data center Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE), will bring design team attention to the RFP requirement and ensure the desired level of performance. Best Practice #5: Define Owner Loads Additional RFP language that is helpful to include for both the owner and design team is a detailed list of all loads that the owner intends to include/allow in the building. Expected counts, efficiencies, and use profiles can be included as baseline information but teams should be encouraged to consider design approaches encouraging highest efficiency use. Examples of owner loads are:  Miscellaneous loads: This load type primarily consists of plug loads such as computers, printers, phones, and televisions. Create a list of all typically used loads in similar building types, taking care to think through all tasks, occupant types, and season equipment needs to capture potential use cases, which are also potential energy use reduction opportunities.  Process equipment: Also list the equipment required to complete a specialized function such as cooking or surveillance. In addition to Best Practice #4, which encourages system level efficiency goals, the RFP should include specific equipment-specific efficiencies for owner loads. Best Practice #6: Provide Calculation Methods for Substantiation There are many energy calculation/modeling approaches for any given design solution. To prevent ambiguity in how the team is to substantiate that the energy goal is achieved, the RFP should include an appendix that lists all calculation methods to be used. The required methods can be broad such as calling out specific energy modeling software. Ideally, the required calculation methods should focus on key parameters that will clarify energy goal definitions and influence high-level design decisions. Examples of specific calculation methods to include are:  Net zero energy site-to-source factors: Multipliers for converting site energy to source energy so that renewable energy systems can be sized accordingly if the energy goal definitions require source net zero energy.  Central plant and conversion efficiencies: Energy loss factors to be used when calculating the effectiveness of plant or off site energy resources.  Require ALL building loads to be included in energy use requirements: Forces teams to consider all building loads, and therefore, identify possible efficiency strategies. Distribution transformers, light control parasitic loads, elevator lights and fans, etc. are all building loads that should be incorporated into energy goals.  Define minimal thermal comfort, lighting levels, and ventilation rates: This will set the minimal level of services required for each space type. Best Practice #7: Require Goal Substantiation Throughout Design The energy goal and supplemental calculation information/methods are only helpful to the decision making process if substantiation results are available prior or in tandem to key decision points. This can be ensured by including RFP language about substantiation schedule.  Energy modeling schedule: The modeling schedule should coincide with design package completion for owner review. Comments on the design package provided by the owner can incorporate ideas on additional energy saving opportunities and questions about modeling assumptions with respect to the plans and specifications.  Model results for commissioning: A final, updated design model should be provided prior to commissioning if possible so that end use system profiles and sequence of operations can be used as an extension of typical functional testing checklists. Best Practice #8: Develop a Process for Performance Assurance in Operations RFP language requiring energy goal substantiation should be followed by energy performance assurance expectations so that energy performance does not end on paper. The owner must be able to get feedback on the energy performance throughout the warranty phase (and beyond), compare the results to model predictions, and have leverage with the design team to correct installation or control mistakes that are inhibiting maximum energy performance. Specific considerations to include in the RFP are:  Submetering requirements: The granularity of a metering plan will vary depending on building type but the RFP should require separate metering for at least end-use and whole building energy consumption, water, and gas.  End use budgets: Requiring the design team to provide end use budgets determined through the energy goal substantiation process will give owners a point of reference for comparing end use metering data.  Real performance incentives: An award fee can be structured so that a large portion of the money can be withheld until predicted energy performance is realized within a defined error range. This delayed incentive can help smooth the transition process of the building from the intimate knowledge of the design team to new owner operation. It is important to include the design substantiation schedule and performance assurance plan in the RFP so that design teams understand the time commitment necessary to produce a high performance building. While RFP requirements cannot guarantee a world-class energy design, these best practices are a comprehensive list of actions that has proven to be effective for the NREL facilities. An Energy-Performance-Based Design-Build Process at NREL The following sections describe the representative NREL campus projects in terms of their use of the best practices. Each project used the entire best practice set in some form; highlights are given. Research Support Facility I and II The RSF I (the two wings shown in Figure 2) and the RSF II expansion (a third wing) is NREL’s 360,000 ft2 administrative support office building, and includes 1375 workstations, numerous conference rooms, NREL’s datacenter, a lunchroom, a library, and an exercise room. The RSF showcases numerous high-performance design features and passive energy strategies such as optimal east-west building elongation, daylighting, static solar shading, transpired solar collectors, a crawl space for thermal storage, radiant heating and cooling, underfloor ventilation- air distribution, and a high-efficiency data center, and approximately 1.5 MW of PV on the office wing roofs and on the adjacent parking lot canopy. Figure 2. East perspective image of the RSF I wings. Source: images.nrel.gov # 19548 RSF I / II Energy goal: 35 / 33 kBtu ft2/yr; net zero energy Final EUI prediction: 6 / 14% better than goal Actual performance: Net zero energy The acquisition process used for the RSF was the seed for the rest of the campus. The energy goal was developed in preplanning and included in the tiered, best-value RFP with the help of a design-build acquisition consultant (DesignSense 2010). The goal type diversification, goal status in the RFP structure, and normalization approach was replicated for the other campus construction. The following are snapshots of the first three best practices in application. Best Practice #1  RSF goal types: Net zero energy, an EUI, percent reduction, and rating system goals were all specified in the RSF I and II contracts. The team focus for energy goal substantiation was primarily on the EUI.  Energy Goal RFP Language: – Mission Critical: LEED Platinum – Highly Desirable: 35 kBtu/ft2/yr, normalized, as discussed in this section – If Possible: Net zero energy design approach Best Practice #2 The EUI goal for the RSF was developed using high-level sector data, case study comparison, and whole building energy modeling. An EnergyPlus-based optimization engine, now being incorporated into OpenStudio, was used to find a low energy use range when footprint and window-to-wall area ratio were varied. Since the building was a first of its kind in efficiency, a high level of consideration was required to make sure the goal was aggressive yet attainable. The following NREL campus buildings either reused this goal with some tweaking or used simple spreadsheet estimates to set a new goal. Best Practice #3 For RSF I, the RFP goal of 25 kBtu/ft2/yr was developed using an assumption of 650 people in a 220,000 ft2 building. A normalization table was given with the intent of maintaining a constant energy impact of each employee in the building as was determined for the original goal. The space density was increased due to the elongated wing design, which also helped daylighting and natural ventilation. Additional data center capacity allowance was also defined. The space density and data center capacity increased, resulting in a final RSF I EUI target of 35 kBtu/ft2/yr. Energy Systems Integration Facility The ESIF has three distinct functions: office, laboratory, and supercomputer. It houses approximately 200 scientists and engineers and a wide range of fully equipped, state-of-the-art laboratories and out-door test areas. A sample of the technologies used in the final solution:  Reuse of supercomputer and laboratory waste energy  Transfer of electrical energy from experiments between laboratories  Underfloor air distribution for interior cooling and ventilation; outside air economizer  Active radiant beams provide for perimeter cooling and heating  Evaporative-based central cooling meets ASHRAE 55 thermal comfort range and all super-computer cooling  Natural ventilation mode with operable windows and ventilation shafts  Daylighting with high efficacy lighting  Energy Star rated equipment Figure 3. Southeast perspective image of the ESIF. Source: images.nrel.gov # 25820 The full data center build out will be 10 MW, making this a primary focus of the energy reduction effort. While an EUI requirement was used for the office area, mimicking that of the RSF, the an energy use effectiveness goal and heat recovery requirement for the data center were the most prominent RFP energy language. Best Practice #4 The specific language listed as “required” early in the RFP:  Achieve an annualized Power Use Effectiveness (PUE) of 1.06 or lower and an annualized Energy Use Effectiveness of 0.9 or lower for the HPCDC.  Excess waste heat from the data center above that which is used to heat the facility is exported for use by the remainder of the campus. The RFP requirement of heat recovery from the data center was the primary driver for early massing decisions. The office (left side of Figure 3) was aligned on an east-west axis mimicking the other newly constructed RSF office wings. The data center was centrally located between the office and laboratory space for increased heat recovery efficiency to both occupied masses. The laboratory wing consists of high-bay spaces that can use translucent clerestory panels diffusing the low solar angles seen on east and west facades. Additional RFP requirements on hydronic system purpose, heat recovery, and air distribution minimum specifications led to the following sample of design features: Data Center:  Water side free cooling, cooling tower plant  Low approach cooling towers and HX  Low pressure-drop air delivery system  Low pressure-drop piping design Labs:  Active chilled beams on perimeter  100% of heating from data center Cafeteria The 12,000-ft2 cafeteria was designed to accommodate 240 guests inside and 70 additional outside. Its efficiency features include daylighting in the dining and servery, with some perimeter daylighting for kitchen staff. Optimal orientation of glazing to the south and north control unwanted summer sun, but allow for winter solar gains and diffuse daylighting year round. A direct/indirect evaporative cooling system provides kitchen and dining area cooling without the use of mechanical cooling equipment. ESIF Energy goal: 27 kBtu ft2/yr, office 1.06 PUE and 0.9 EUE, data center Final EUI prediction: 7% better than goal Actual performance: TBD Figure 4. East perspective image of the cafeteria. Source: images.nrel.gov # 21698 Like the ESIF, the energy use of the cafeteria is driven by equipment. In these instances, the most important set of best practices are the clearly set expectations for equipment and define the loads or equipment that will be needed so that all design team members are clear as to which equipment needs to be “best-in-class” and included in energy calculations. Best Practice #5 The following list is a sample of what was provided to the owner in addition to an extensive survey of best in class kitchen equipment.  Best in class energy efficiency kitchen equipment- maximize high efficiency electric cooking equipment such as commercial induction cook tops  Best in class water efficiency kitchen equipment  All-VFD demand based exhaust hoods  Lowest possible cfm/linear foot of hood (close proximity hoods with side and back panels)  Integrated off-hours equipment controls to automatically schedule appropriate kitchen/support loads disconnects  Maximize waste heat energy recovery from exhaust air  Maximize waste heat energy recovery from hot water drains (only true on some equipment scales, including dishwashing equipment)  World class, most efficient commercial kitchen and cafeteria in the world that can attract commercial kitchen partners to demonstrate efficient equipment This language helped drive the design team to select ENERGY STAR equipment and higher efficiency models when attainable. For example, the facility’s dishwashers use half of the water that a standard ENERGY STAR model consumes. The cafeteria’s exhaust hoods have high- efficiency filters, wall-style canopies and proximity hoods, with stainless steel end panels to reduce the airflow requirements, and variable volume exhaust, all saving up to 75% of the energy use in a typical kitchen exhaust hood. Additionally, dual-rinse ware washing technology (the unit recycles the dirty rinse water to wash the next load) were specified and refrigeration systems were removed from the general proximity to all coolers, freezers and ice machines, thereby reducing the heat generated in the kitchen and the demand on the HVAC cooling systems. Site Entrance Building While one of NREL’s smallest buildings at 1,500 ft2, the LEED Platinum SEB includes an array of world-class efficiency and sustainability strategies: CAFETERIA Energy goal: 30% energy-cost savings Final savings prediction: 32% energy cost savings Actual performance: Successful daylighting, no mechanical cooling needed in cafeteria, high performance hood operations  Fully daylit occupied spaces using light redirecting devices and dimming controls  High performance thermal envelope, including fiberglass window frames  Ground source water-to-water heat pumps with radiant cooling and heating  Underfloor ventilation air distribution system connected to energy recovery ventilators  8 kW roof-mounted PV system to allow facility to meet net zero site goals Figure 5. Southeast perspective image of the SEB. Source: images.nrel.gov # 22680 Of the NREL campus construction, the energy-performance-based acquisition process for the SEB most closely parallels that developed for the RSF. An EUI was developed, required, and became the focal point of substantiation discussion throughout the project. Best Practice #6 Since the RFP requested a net zero energy building the RFP appendix provided conversion factors for site to source energy so that net-zero source energy status would be targeted. An additional calculation detail that could have caused ambiguity if not defined was the efficiencies of hot and cold water used from NREL’s central plant. The plug load calculations required peak hourly assumptions. The RFP included a description of assumptions used to arrive at the required plug loads and gave consent to decrease the load in the calculation if further efficiency measured were applied in design. A snapshot of the direction given in the RFP: “9300 kWh Annual Goal. This goal is intended to serve as a mechanism to create a building that uses less than this energy intensity annually within its own footprint. The goal is a demand-side goal to be achieved through energy efficiency strategies. Supply-side renewable generation options such as PV, biomass, wind, or renewable energy credits do not count toward the 9300 kWh goal. The intent is to use the goal as a tool to develop a comprehensive program of efficiency measures and building operational strategies and policies to reduce energy use in the building as the first priority, rather than encouraging the use of supply side renewable options coupled with a less efficient building where all energy efficiency options have not been first fully exploited.  The whole building energy use will be measured at the building footprint. It includes all loads in the building for lighting, HVAC, plug loads, and other miscellaneous equipment connected through the building, such as transformers and control systems. It also includes any façade lighting.  All losses from transformers and inverters are considered part of this energy calculation.  Under this definition, PV on or through the building will be considered a supply side technology, and not count toward the 9300 kWh goal.  Daylighting, natural ventilation, transpired collectors, Trombe walls, solar hot water, and other such technologies are considered demand side technologies. SEB Energy goal: 32 kBtu ft2/yr; net zero energy Final EUI prediction: 3% better than goal Actual performance: Net zero energy  Plug loads will be included in the demand side calculation. Equipment included in the annual energy goal derivation: – One Dell Latitude E6400 Laptop, and docking station per occupant – Two Dell 24” G2410h LCD Monitors per occupant – One all-in-one machine – One LED task light per occupant – One VOIP phone per occupant – One refrigerator – One coffee pot/maker – One microwave – One visitor badge printer – One visitor badge camera, scanner and signature pad” (NREL Ingress/Egress RFP) Parking Structure NREL’s parking structure project proves that large garages can be designed and built with world class energy efficiency at no additional cost. While meeting staff needs with up to 1800 parking spaces, the structure features energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies such as daylighting, natural ventilation, an 80-percent reduction in lighting power density versus code, and a PV array to make the RSF complex (RSF I, RSF II, and garage) net zero energy. At a construction cost of $14,172 per parking space, the high efficiency garage is cost competitive with other comparable, but less efficient garages. Figure 6. Northeast perspective image of the garage. Source: images.nrel.gov # 22471 Best Practice #7 In a unique request for the design team, the parking garge RFP required to use of energy use calculations throughout design. Typically, garage design focuses on the electric lighting and ventilation systems, but this aggressive goal, which was normalized per parking space, drove the design team to focus on passive technologies first, maximizing daylighting and eliminating all mechanical ventilation requirements through passive natural ventilation. An example from the parking garage RFP for requiring substantiation for meeting daylighting efficiency requirements at all stages through the design process is highlighted below: Daylighting: Provide ambient natural lighting in primary spaces that is of intensity adequate for essential tasks when measured on a typical overcast winter day in midafternoon. Substantiation:  Proposal: Information on overall building configuration that will permit daylighting to levels specified GARAGE Energy goal: 175 kBtu/space/yr; net zero energy Final EUI prediction: 10% better than goal Actual performance: Net zero energy  Design Development: Engineering calculations for representative spaces, predicting anticipated daylighting levels under specified conditions  Construction Documents: Details of lighting control mechanisms  Construction: Field test of lighting levels verifying compliance with performance requirements.” (NREL Ingress/Egress RFP) Best Practice #8 End use metering, enhanced commissioning, and M&V were all project requirements for the RSF complex, which took on net zero energy meaning once the parking structure project was complete. Figure 7. RSF Complex (RSF I, RSF II, and Parking Structure) Energy Performance Dashboard, March 13, 2013. The dashboard has proven useful as an energy performance assurance tool, procured during campus construction, in addressing energy loads in operations. For example, lighting energy use was shown to be higher than predicted in evening hours due to cleaning staff hours. Training was provided for the staff to use the egress lighting when possible or switch on entire zones as needed in attempt to realize predicted energy performance. In general, the NREL projects have succeeded in meeting all the energy specific RFP performance objectives. The Cafeteria is the only project that did not meet all the “Highly Desirable” or “If Possible” energy objectives, which was due to a poorly defined program and budget. This resulted in the project carrying too much scope during the design process, and when the project budget became defined, significant scope and efficiency strategies were removed from the project to meet the schedule requirements. This lesson learned emphasizes the importance of specific, measurable energy goals being set in the contract along with a firm, fixed budget. An Energy-Performance-Based Design-Build Process, Deployed During the course of the NREL campus construction, once the energy-performance-based design-build process had proven successful for the RSF, DOE funded NREL to create training materials for a new construction, design-build suited audience. Additionally, organizations such as NASA asked NREL to hold workshops to transfer the best practices and lessons from our integrated project team to their key construction and operations team members. Over the past five years, these outreach efforts have continued and amassed into a set of deployment partners that have either directly or indirectly learned from our experience, and are on the path to realizing aggressive energy savings in operations. Figure 8 illustrates the ripple effect created by the success of the RSF, propagated to other NREL campus buildings, and onto larger organizations such as GSA and FEMP through outreach and deployment mechanisms. Figure 8. Illustration of Outreach and Deployment Impact Associated with NREL’s Energy Performance Based Acquisition Table 1 lists replication efforts completed or underway. NREL was involved in the formulation of the acquisition process for these projects. Project outcome is not meant to be attributed to NREL, rather this list shows the breadth of project type using an energy-performance-based acquisition process of some form. Table 1. Sample of Industry Replication of the Energy Performance Based Acquisition Process Project Name Description Federal Center South for the Army Corps of Engineers 200,000 ft2 GSA office building in Seattle, WA EUI goal: 27.6 kBtu/ft2/yr including renewables Fort Carson New Command Air Battalion $700 million of new construction including barracks Minimum EUI goal: 44 kBtu/ft2/yr with option to exceed; Net zero energy SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 60,000 ft2 visitor center and office space Tiered EUI goals: 40, 35, and 31 kBtu/ft2/yr University of California, San Francisco Academic office building Tiered EUI goals: 33 and 20 kBtu/ft2/yr The how-to guidance, annotated RFPs, case studies, and training materials developed in support of the replication effort are housed within a guided website for access by the variety of owner, design, and construction team members (NREL 2014). The primary deployment effort to date, which launches the training into a broader realm that can be access singly by NREL, is the development of a Design-Build Institute of America online course (DBIA 2013). For many building owners and professionals, performance-based design-build is a new and intimidating prospect. The construction industry is notoriously conservative, and it takes time and repeated exposure for building professionals to embrace new concepts and strategies. NREL and DOE, owners of the RSF, had an advantage in that they have engineers and researchers on staff with the technical expertise and personal and professional commitment to write performance criteria that are likely to result in a positive outcome. The training materials developed as a result of the NREL campus experience can serve as a guide for owners and their representatives to replicate our successes and learn from our experiences in attaining market- viable, world-class energy performance in the built environment. References DBIA. (2013) http://www.dbia.org/education/continuing-education/Pages/Online-Course- Offerings.aspx. NREL-Integrating Measureable Energy Efficiency Performance Specifications Into Design-Build Acquisition and Delivery. Last Accessed March, 2014. DesignSense Incorporated. (2010) http://www.designsense-inc.com. The 3PQ Management System; http://www.ipdeducation.com. Last Accessed March, 2014. NREL. (2014) https://buildingdata.energy.gov/cbrd/energy_based_acquisition/. Energy Performance Based Acquisition for Commercial Buildings, Portal to the Commercial Buildings Resource Database. Last Accessed March, 2014.