case jyväskylä life cycle procurement: sharing the risks and savings

12
Case Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings SCI Network meeting, Malmö 19.9.2012 Sanna Ahvenharju, Gaia Consulting Oy Based on presentation by Mikko Lepo, City of Jyväskylä

Upload: omar-sexton

Post on 31-Dec-2015

25 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Case Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings. SCI Network meeting , Malmö 19.9.2012 Sanna Ahvenharju, Gaia Consulting Oy Based on presentation by Mikko Lepo, City of Jyväskylä. Gaia team – at Your Service. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Case Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savingsSCI Network meeting, Malmö 19.9.2012Sanna Ahvenharju, Gaia Consulting OyBased on presentation by Mikko Lepo, City of Jyväskylä

Page 2: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Gaia team – at Your Service• 35 highly-educated experts –

multidisciplinary and cross-sectorial

• Sustainability consultancy and business development since 1993

• Strategy and implementation partner

• Over 400 clients in 5 continents• Offices in Finland, Switzerland,

China, Ethiopia and Argentina

2

Page 3: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Construction of a campus of childrens’ facilities• School for grades 1-9 • Day care centre• Special school for children requiring specific

support

• Altogether 1000 children, 180 personnel• Investment of 16 000 m2, 35 M€• 20-23 years lifecycle, ~55 M€

Page 4: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

4

Page 5: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Timeline

Preselection of providers (5-6/2010)

Presentation of solutions (9-10/2010)

Tenders (1/2011)

Final decisions (5-6/2011)

Signing of contracts (8/2011)

Procurement announcement 4/2010

Tendering of procurement consultants 1-2/2010

Procurement decision 1/2010

Project plan 2009

Construction 3/2012 – 7/2015Service until 2033

Co

mp

etit

ive

ne

got

iatio

n

Page 6: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Aims of the procurement project

1. Efficiency and multifunctional use of space

2. Monitoring and reporting the set goals for functionality and condition of different spaces/facilities

3. Application of new technical solutions

4. Sustainable development and energy efficiency

5. Competitive financing for life cycle procurement and the legislative requirements of the process

6

Page 7: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Life cycle approach

Feasibility study

Project planning

Procurement preparation Construction Use Maintenance

7

Lifecycle procurementProcurement of - usability, - functionality and - predefined conditions of a facility

Page 8: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Risk assessment identified over 100 risks

8

Page 9: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Target values defined for different spaces

9

TILAKORTTITilaohjelma KOHDE 3, YHTENÄISKOULU

YLEISET SISÄILMAN VAATIMUKSET (LVI)TILARYHMÄ LVIS-ÄÄNIOLOSUHTEET

TILA K3 T11 LVIS-äänitaso 33

huoneessa (38) dBA

pinta-ala m2 75

henkilömäärä 25 TILAN KUORMITUS- JA KÄYTTÖTIEDOT

m2/henkilö sisäiset lämpökuormat ihmiset 25 hlöä

valaistus 12 W/m2

LÄMPÖOLOSUHTEET laitteet 20 W/m2

sisälämpötila kesä 20-25 C käyttöaika ma-pe 8-16

talvi 20-23 C la-su -

käyttöaste käytön aikana 50 %

LVI-KALUSTEET ON / EIvesipiste tilassa ON

SISÄILMAN LAATU lattiakaivo tilassa EI

ulkoilmavirta * 8 (dm3/s, hlö)

4 (dm3/s, m2) MERKKIEN SELITYKSET

ilman maksimi CO2 -pitoisuus 900 (ppm) - ei vaatimusta

* mitoitetaan suuremman ilmavirran tuottavan mukaan

Opetustilat

FYSIIKKA KEMIA

K3 T11

Page 10: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Contractual requirements, examples

• The condition of buildings have to fulfill certain level of quality throughout their lifetime

• Assignment of required response times- Decrease service contract payments 1 €/m2/day, if response is delayed

• Predefined maximum energy consumption - Costs for exceeding the limit are carried by the provider- The potentially achieved savings are divided 50% / 50% between

procurer and provider

10

Page 11: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Lessons learned

11

• Innovation limited by the fact that many equipment requirements had to be specific in order to allow for quantitative comparison between tenders

- Life-cycle contract allows for further development during later phases of the project

• Energy and water contracting mechanism worked well – encouraged savings and new innovations

• The reporting mechanisms and usability and functionality assessment mechanisms carry a potential for further service providers and innovations

• The target levels for energy consumption could have been even more tight

Page 12: Case  Jyväskylä Life cycle procurement: Sharing the risks and savings

Notes for the guide

• 2.a - good project team• 2. g - funding from national programme• 3.f – performance targets• 5.a – procurement model• 6.a – use of incentives

12