gsa – energy and productivity retrofit

GSA – Energy and Productivity Retrofit

Emily DamonDimitris FarmakisAdam PharrRichard Tsai

March 18, 2011CEE 211Advisor: Professor KunzTeaching Assistant: Henning Roedel

Confidentiality AgreementDisclaimer: “This Presentation has been prepared

solely for academic purposes as a student group project for CEE211, Multi-Disciplinary Analysis & Design, at Stanford University. It is based on confidential information from an actual project of the U.S. General Service Administration (GSA) that is not meant to be shared.”

1) VDC Proposal Outline Cover Letter Case Example Value Proposition Background Sponsor Objectives Specific Aims Baseline Models Creative Alternative Models

1a) Cover Letter Project: GSA HQ Energy and Productivity

Retrofit Big Idea: Develop process to determine best

retrofit additions for energy and best space/organizational orientations changes for productivity.

Team: I. Emily DamonII. Dimitris FarmakisIII. Adam PharrIV. Richard Tsai

Executive SummaryI. Energy RetrofitII. ProductivityIII. Space Change, Cost, Schedule RiskIV. Want to add value to building/GSA process

1b) Case Example

OrganizationOrganizatio

n Actors includ

e Owner GSAOrganizatio

n Actors includ

e HVAC sub HVAC sub Organizatio

n Actors includ

e Engineer EngineerOrganizatio

n Actors includ

e Architect ArchitectOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eGeneral

contractorGeneral

contractorOrganizatio

n Actors includ

e Chief Architect Chief ArchitectOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eBudget

AdministratorBudget

AdministratorOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eEnergy

EngineerEnergy

EngineerOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eTeleconferenci

ng SubTeleconferencin

g SubOrganizatio

n Actors includ

e Office Manager Office Manager

Process Process Pre planning Actor Engineer Pre planning

Process Conceptual Design ActorArchitect/Engineer

Conceptual Design

Process Schematic Design Actor Architect Schematic Design

ProcessDesign

Development Actor EngineerDesign

Development

ProcessContract

documents ActorBudget

AdministratorContract

documents

Process Site Analysis ActorGeneral

contractor Site Analysis

ProcessSpecify Design

Criteria Actor Energy EngineerSpecify Design

CriteriaProcess Specifications Actor Engineer SpecificationsProcess Draft EIR Actor Energy Engineer Draft EIR

ProcessReview Final

drawings & Specs Actor EngineerReview Final

drawings & Specs

ProcessReview models &

analyses ActorArchitect/Engineer

Review models & analyses

Process Final Submission Actor Chief Architect Final Submission

Product

ProductBuilding Spaces include

Offices @ 2,600 ft2

Offices x 7 @ 380 ft2


Meeting spaces @ 400 ft2

Meeting space x 1 @

380 ft2

ProductBuilding Systems include MEP MEP

ProductBuilding Systems include

HVAC - Furnace

HVAC - Furnace


HVAC - Central AC

HVAC - Central AC

Product

Building Physical Elements include

Interior Walls

Interior Walls

Product

Building Physical Elements include Roof Roof

ProductBuilding

Equipment include Boards Boards

Product

Building Physical Elements include Doors Doors

Physical scope Task list - schedule

OrganizationalStructure

1c) Value Proposition

Value

Identify causes

of latency

Improve organization design structure

Improve productiv

ity

Economic

benefits of

retrofit

1c) Value PropositionFor GSA senior executives and project

managerswho need to decide on pursuing new

construction/retrofit projects and want to improve productivity of their staff

VDC energy and organizational design modeling software and strategies

provide an energy, productivity, and economic analysis plan

that enables them to make informed decisions on how to organize their staff and which construction options to

pursue.Compared to traditional practices VDC offers a more efficient and

comprehensive method of analysis.

1d) Background Project Objectives:

Explore Energy Retrofit Options Explore Telecommuting Productivity Solidify Energy and Productivity Optimization

Iteration Process VDC Approach / Relevant VDC Tools

Energy – eQUEST Focus on mechanical systems

Productivity – SimVision Focus on functional risks

Cost – TEI Approach Schedule Risk – SimVision Space Change – Revit

Located in Washington D.C. Alternative Solution

Outsource to Building Energy Consultants Constraints – Square Footage and Workers

1e – i)Functional Project ObjectivesFunctional Project Objective

Objective Description

Cost Determine if energy retrofit of the GSA Headquarters outweighs the costs

Schedule Determine the effects of tele-commuting on project schedule risks

Productivity Determine the effects of tele-commuting on staff productivity

Energy Determine the effects of performing an retrofit on the energy usage of the GSA Headquarters building

Space Change Determine how changing the office layout affects the physical space change in the GSA Headquarters ‘Building

1e – ii) Specific Modeling/Analysis Objectives

Modeling/Analysis Objective

Objective Description

Cost Analysis Perform economic breakeven analysis of the energy retrofit

Schedule Model & Analysis

Determine project latency and its source using SimVision (metric for measuring schedule is rework)

Productivity Model & Analysis

Model the client’s organization in SimVision for a typical design project and analyze the coordination, decision wait, and project duration.

Energy Model & Analysis

Use eQuest to create and analyze the GSA Headquarters and the proposed retrofit to provide energy results for cost analyses

Space Change Analysis

Create a 3D Bim Model of the proposed office layout change to account for different occupancy levels in Autodesk Revit and calculate the space change (square footage of the two options)

1e – iii) Design Response to Functional Objectives

Functional Project Objective

Design Response

Cost Using energy analyses results, calculate the energy-cost usage of the GSA Headquarters Building

Schedule A organization model was created in SimVision to determine, project rework, which was used to analyze schedule risks

Productivity A organization model was created in SimVision and information exchange error, project error, and functional error probabilities were used as productivity inputs.

Energy The GSA Headquarters was modeled and analyzed using eQuest to determine energy usage with the proposed retrofits.

Space Change

A 3D Bim Model of the building was created using Autodesk Revit. The QTO and square footage calculation tool within the program was used to determine the space change.

1e – iv-vi) Organization Model for Productivity/Schedule Risk Analysis

OrganizationActors include GSAActors include HVAC sub Actors include EngineerActors include ArchitectActors include General contractorActors include Chief Architect

Actors includeBudget

AdministratorActors include Energy Engineer

Actors includeTeleconferencing

SubActors include Office Manager

POP - Organizat

ion

Model accounts for rework.

Project phases, players, and organization structure from the client.Thus, it increases the believability of the design response and analysis.

Model based on assumption of typical design submittal project of GSA.

1e – iv-vi) Schedule

Option 1 Option 212.6 Days 15.3 Days

Rework Volume

Option 1

Option 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Schedule risk

Schedule risk

Option 1 has less rework…

1e – iv-vi) Project Risks

TypeOption 1

Option 2

Communication Risk 0.16 0.06Meeting

Risk 0.36 0.37Coordination

Risk 0.14 0.2

Communi-cation Risk

Meeting Risk Coordination Risk

00.050.1

0.150.2

0.250.3

0.350.4

Risk Comparison

Option 1Option 2

Communication risk drops but… the increased requirements for coordination increase the coordination risk…

1e – iv-vi) Inputs for Productivity

Type MetricInformation Exchange

Prob.Occupanc

y Unit0.05 30-35+

# of people

0.08 25-300.11 20-250.14 15-200.16 10-150.18 5-100.2 0-5 Type Metric

Functional Error Prob.

Meeting Room/Offic

es Unit0.05 0.6 - 0.69

Ratio (number)

0.06 0.5-0.590.07 0.4-0.490.08 0.3-0.390.09 0.2-0.290.1 0.1-0.19

0.11 0 - 0.09

Type Metric

Project Error Prob.

# of subordina

tes Unit0.05 0-4

# of subordinat

es

0.08 4-80.11 8-120.14 12-140.17 14-160.2 16-18+

ASSUMPTIONS:• Teleconferencing isn’t effective.• Functional Risk was assumed

to be 0.01 for Option 1and 0.05 for Option 2.

• Physical & virtual occupants are split equally.

Productivity Metrics used to determine error probabilities

1e – iv-vi) Productivity

Metric Option 1

Option 2

Time Required for Completion

114 Days

75 Days

Position Backlog

0.9 Hours

0.45 Hours

Coordination Volume

15.8 Days

19.4 Days

Decision Wait

1.4 Days

3 Days

Meeting Risk

0.36 0.37

Reduced by 34%

More coordination is required for increased productivity…

1e – iv-vi) Space ChangeOption 1 Option 2

Option 1 Option 2 Change in sq. ft.Office sq. ft. 2650 1500 -1150

Meeting sq. ft. 375 1500 1125

1e – iv-vi) Energy Model – InputsEnergy Retrofit Install new

furnace- Improve efficiency from

<70% to 85%

Install central AC- Remove window air

conditioners!

GSA Headquarters – built 1917

GSA Headquarters – lots of window air conditioners

1e – iv-vi) Energy Model - Results

Energy Savings Option 1

$55,500/year

Option 2 $76,000/year

Design Alternative

Electricity (MWh/year)

Natural Gas

(Mbtu/year)

Energy Cost

($/year)

Electricity (MWh/perso

n)

Natural Gas

(Mbtu/person)

Energy Cost

($/person)

Baseline 10,350 31,340

$1,843,893

3.5 10.4 $614.63

Option 1 -3% -5% -3% -3% -5% -3%Option 2 +46% +22% +41% -27% -39% -30%

per year per person

$473,000

$648,000

Breakeven Retrofit Cost

1e – iv-vi) Total Economic Impact

option 2 costsoutweigh the savings because productivity “savings” are off the chart

Alternative

Net Benefit

Option 1 ≥ $50,000Option 2 < $0

$400,000 $410,000 $420,000 $430,000 $440,000 $450,000 $460,000 $470,000 $480,000

$425,000

$473,164

Total Economic Impact – Option 1

Energy Savings

Energy Retrofit

option 1 savings outweigh the costs

Retrofit Cost Option 1 Option 2

Telecommuting

Demolish interior walls $ 0 $ 665,000 Projectors $ 0 $ 6,000,000 Smart boards $ 0 $ 4,000,000 Installation $ 0 $ 1,333,333

Productivity savings $ 0 -$ 42,908,361

Energy retrofitHigher efficiency furnace, central AC

$ 425,000 $ 425,000

Energy savings $ 473,164 $ 647,856

Table. TEI Inputs

Table. TEI Outputs

1f) Specific Aims Deliverables – Energy and organizational

models and multiple analyses. Content – POP with FFB, PBS, OBS, and WBS. Predicted behaviors – Costs outweigh the

benefits of retrofit and shorter project duration with increased FTEs.

Required hardware and software - Autodesk Revit, eQuest, Microsoft Excel, and SimVision.

Exclusions – Level B Detail. Requires further comprehensive submittal and information.

Next Steps – Incorporate sponsor feedback into next round of project iterations.

1g) POP Model – Opt. 1


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ

eGeneral

contractorGeneral


n Actors includ


n Actors includ

eBudget

AdministratorBudget


n Actors includ

eEnergy

EngineerEnergy

EngineerOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eTeleconferenci


g SubOrganizatio

n Actors includ


Process Process Pre planning Actor Engineer Pre planning

Process Conceptual Design ActorArchitect/Engineer

Conceptual Design


ProcessDesign

Development Actor EngineerDesign

Development

ProcessContract


AdministratorContract

documents






ProcessReview Final

drawings & Specs Actor EngineerReview Final

drawings & Specs





Product


Offices @ 2,600 ft2




Meeting space x 1 @

380 ft2



HVAC - Furnace

HVAC - Furnace


HVAC - Central AC

HVAC - Central AC

Product


Interior Walls

Interior Walls

Product


ProductBuilding

Equipment include Boards Boards

Product


Annotated product objects, are linked to the respective actors and tasks with the respective color code…

1h) POP Model – Opt. 2Product


Offices @ 2,600 ft2




Meeting space x 1 @ 380 ft2



HVAC - Furnace HVAC - Furnace


HVAC - Central AC

HVAC - Central AC

ProductBuilding

Equipment include

Teleconf. Equip -

ProjectorsTeleconf. Equip

- Projectors

Product


Interior Walls Interior Walls

Product


ProductBuilding

Equipment include

Teleconf. Equip -

SmartboardsTeleconf. Equip - Smartboards

Product



n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ

eGeneral

contractorGeneral


n Actors includ


n Actors includ

eBudget

AdministratorBudget


n Actors includ

eEnergy

EngineerEnergy

EngineerOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eTeleconferenci


g SubOrganizatio

n Actors includ


Process

Process Pre planning Actor Engineer Pre planning

ProcessConceptual

Design ActorArchitect/Engineer Conceptual Design


ProcessDesign

Development Actor Engineer Design Development

ProcessContract


Administrator Contract documents






ProcessReview Final

drawings & Specs Actor EngineerReview Final drawings

& Specs





Process

Install Teleconferencing

Equipment Actor Teleconf. sub


EquipmentThe essential difference with Opt. 1 is the addition of Teleconferencing equipment to account for the virtual cooperation – telecommunication between the employees

2a) Work Breakdown Structure

WL1:GSA Headquarters retrofitWL2: Building Interior

- WL 3: All LevelsWL 4: Building spaces

WL 5: Redesign Bldg spaces all LvWL 6: Interior design development

- WL3: All Floors – Meeting Rooms

WL 4: Building ElementsWL 5: Install Teleconf. Eq in all Lv.

WL 6: Install SmartboardsWL6: Install Projectors

WL 4: Building SystemsWL 5: Redesign Building Systems in all Lv.

WL 6: HVAC System

WL 5: Install new Building Systems in all Lv.

WL 6: HVAC SystemWL6: Teleconferencing

Process

Process Pre planning Actor Engineer

ProcessConceptual

Design ActorArchitect/Engineer

Process Schematic Design Actor Architect

ProcessDesign

Development Actor Engineer

ProcessContract


Administrator


contractor


Criteria Actor Energy EngineerProcess Specifications Actor EngineerProcess Draft EIR Actor Energy Engineer

ProcessReview Final

drawings & Specs Actor Engineer



Process Final Submission Actor Chief Architect

Process


Equipment Actor Teleconf. sub• WBS highlights the schedule tasks included in the POP model• Each task is aligned to a particular actor (see OBS) to be held responsible for it’s fulfillment.

2b) Product Breakdown StructureGSA Building

Offices

Interior Walls

Meeting spaces

Interior Walls

Doors HVAC

HVAC – Cen-tral AC

HVAC - Fur-nace

Roof Teleconf. Equipment

Smart-boards

Projectors

MEP

Product


Offices @ 2,600 ft2



ProductBuilding Systems include MEP


HVAC - Furnace


HVAC - Central AC

ProductBuilding

Equipment include

Teleconf. Equip -

Projectors

Product


Interior Walls

Product

Building Physical Elements include Roof

ProductBuilding

Equipment include

Teleconf. Equip -

Smartboards

Product

Building Physical Elements include Doors

• PBS highlights the product objects and their breakdown according to the POP model

• Objects are linked to a specific process task (see WBS) that identifies the activity that entails that object.

2c) Organization Breakdown Structure OrganizationOrganizatio

n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ


n Actors includ

eGeneral

contractorGeneral


n Actors includ


n Actors includ

eBudget

AdministratorBudget


n Actors includ

eEnergy

EngineerEnergy

EngineerOrganizatio

n Actors includ

eTeleconferenci


g SubOrganizatio

n Actors includ


OL1: GSA

OL2: Chief Architect

- OL3: Engineer - OL3: General Contractor

-OL3: HVAC Sub- OL3: Architect- OL3: Energy Engineer- Ol3: Teleconferencing sub- OL3: Budget Administrator- OL3: Office Manager

• OBS highlights organizational actors highlighted in POP model• General contractor, interior space designer, and energy engineer report to the chief Architect & the Owner.• The actors included in the structure appear in the Process model with their respective tasks they have to undertake.

3) Rework Correlation w/ 3D Model

Rework required for project drawings, specifications, and BIM model

Coordination is more efficient in large meeting room

Coordination is less efficient with office barriers

6) Total Economic Impactoption 2 costsoutweigh the savings because productivity “savings” are off the chart

Alternative

Net Benefit

Option 1 ≥ $50,000Option 2 < $0

$400,000 $410,000 $420,000 $430,000 $440,000 $450,000 $460,000 $470,000 $480,000

$425,000

$473,164

Total Economic Impact – Option 1

Energy Savings

Energy Retrofit

option 1 savings outweigh the costs

Retrofit Cost Option 1 Option 2

Telecommuting

Demolish interior walls $ 0 $ 665,000 Projectors $ 0 $ 6,000,000 Smart boards $ 0 $ 4,000,000 Installation $ 0 $ 1,333,333

Productivity savings $ 0 -$ 42,908,361

Energy retrofitHigher efficiency furnace, central AC

$ 425,000 $ 425,000

Energy savings $ 473,164 $ 647,856

Table. TEI Inputs

Table. TEI Outputs

8) PIP ModelProductivity Assessment - SimVision

3D BIM – Revit 2010

Energy Analysis – e-Quest

Energy Results Assessment - Excel

PoP Model – Product scope, Organizational actors, Task outline

Cost Estimation - Excel

050

100150200250300 Evaluated

GoodnessOption 1: POP - 3000Option 2: POP - 6000Meets all ob-jectives

Design Versions

Conformance to product objectivesUseable area (ft2)

Energy Retrofit Cost ($ Thousand)

Energy (KWhr/sq-ft)

Coordination Volume (Days)

Decision Wait (FTEs)Position Backlog (hours)

Safety: near-risk incidents / week

Rework volume - retrofit phase (Days)

Communication Risk

Coordination Risk

-1

1

3

MACDADI Evaluation of Relative Design Option Goodness

Option 1: POP - 3000Option 2: POP - 6000Meets all objectives

9) MACDADI Analysis

Alternative

Net Benefit

Goodness

Option 1 $50,000 230Option 2 < $0 175Meets all objective

s

240

06

12

Objective Weights

10. Believability of Predictions

Energy

Analysi

sCo

st

Schedu

le

Produc

tivity

Space

chang

e0

0.20.40.60.8

1

Confidence score

Confidence score

AnalysisConfidence

scoreEnergy

Analysis 0.7Cost 0.4

Schedule 0.6Productivity 0.4

Space change 1

I. Energy Analysis based on our

simplified BIM

II. Cost Estimation Project specific cost data were

not at our disposal

III. Schedule Risk Software issues

IV. Productivity Based completely on input

values of our own judgment and assumptions.

V. Space change Suggestion of plausible

changes

11a) Business Recommendations for Project Problem

Energy Retrofit should be performed Tele-commuting will result in lower

productivity and higher schedule risks An office layout with large meeting

rooms is more beneficial for productivity purposes

11b) Recommendations for VDC

Improve consistency with frequent use Account for data sharing with different

programs (ex. BIM Model and e-Quest) Implement use of new technology for

analyses. E-Quest is using a 1980s engine Offer VDC training to project teams

(especially managers) Track performance metrics throughout

various project phases

11c) General Suggestions – Executive Audience

Baseline for VDC Use Involves: Creation of checklist detailing step by step VDC

procedure for each project Identify analyses goals Identify VDC strategies and software to achieve

these goals Create templates for performing the analyses Save templates and perform future iterations of the

analyses Use tools such as PIP to account for the analyses

and various software files

11d) General Suggestions – Executive Audience

Recommendation for VDC Use on Future Iterations: Provide more detail to project team if

analyses are sub-contracted out Use VDC to create analyses with higher

levels of detail Incorporate client feedback into future

iterations. Modify the templates and identify VDC

tools to make project iterations more accurate

12a) VDC Modeling Guidelines Energy Retrofit Iteration Focus

Compare iteration to older onesDoes the new energy retrofit strategy reduce building

energy use? Does the energy retrofit increase the NPV of the building?

Update TEI w/ new first costs and future costsDoes this energy retrofit result in an increase or decrease in TEI?

Update eQUEST with respective changesDoes the model allow you to implement the retrofit strategy with a reasonable degree of realism?

Check BIM to make sure changes can fit/work in orientationIs there space in the building to accommodate the energy retrofit equipment?

Will the retrofit cause significant disruption of the building’s intended functions?

Suggest changes based on most important categoriesIs there an energy retrofit strategy to reduce these specific categories?

Do these retrofit strategies commonly have savings greater than initial costs?

From last iteration, determine most important categories to improve uponAre there major energy uses that haven’t been addressed?

12b) VDC Modeling Guidelines Productivity Iteration Focus

Compare iteration to older onesDoes this iteration represent the best one yet?

Update TEI w/ new information on overall productivityDoes the new configuration reduce man-hours for the modeled project, achieving cost savings through increased productivity?

Update SimVision w/ new functional probabilities, organizational structure, and list of project activitiesDo the probability inputs match the space and occupancy for this iteration?

Does this organizational structure represent typical GSA employee hierarchy?

Do these activities accurately reflect projects that occur in GSA HQ?

Update eQUEST w/ appropriate space and occupancy informationSqFt of meeting, open, and closed office space match BIM?

Are there changes to the energy usage / occupancy within those spaces?

Update space change and occupancy from BIM room scheduleDo the changes in BIM meet the office to meeting space ratio?

Do you feel that this is an appropriate occupancy for the space square footage?

Design orientation from ratio in BIMDoes this orientation comply with spatial constraints within the building?

Determine office to meeting space ratio What is the required amount of office space to accommodate employees present daily? Is this significantly different than other iterations?

ORID Analysis Objectives: What facts did you see, hear?

We observed how to effectively use VDC to address real world problems. We also learned how to adapt VDC to different areas of interests such as energy analysis and cost analysis.

Reflective Positive: What surprised or encouraged you positively? We were surprised at how we were able to learn different VDC software and applications that seemed complex to us in the beginning of the class. By the end of the quarter, we felt we had a stronger grasp on the material.

Reflective Negative: What surprised or encouraged you negatively? We were surprised at the brief amount of correspondence with our client and how the term project proposal was modified by the client on a weekly basis.

Interpretive: What patterns and insights did you get; what are some limits of what you saw? We noticed that with every passing week, our ability to perform the queries and subsequent analyses was more efficient due to the opportunities presented to us in the class.

Decisional: Identify your next steps.We intend to continue using VDC tools to maintain our skill-set. For the term project, we suggested to our client that they can use the templates for future iterations of their proposed problem. We would be happy to assist with any questions they may have.

Comments How much time did you spend doing the homework? We

spent about 10 hours doing the homework (Query #8 only, doesn’t include the bulk of the work).

What was one thing you learned in doing the homework? We learned how to use VDC for future projects similar to the ones our client proposed.

What is one thing you found confusing or irritating in doing the homework? We felt our lack of information from the client was lacking in doing the homework. However, we were satisfied with our assumptions and results.

Identify any RFIs you would like resolved by the time you do the final project submission.It would have been ideal if the client had given us a better understanding of what type of result they were looking for in the energy analysis. This could have made our proposal more accurate and fitting for the client’s needs.

gsa – energy and productivity retrofit

Documents