the value of commissioning: market and building data surveys value of...learning objectives 1....

Tom Poeling, BCxA President-ElectDirector of Energy SolutionsU.S. Engineering CompanyEliot CroweProgram ManagerLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The Value of Commissioning:Market and Building Data Surveys

AIA Quality Assurance

The Building Commissioning Association is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES). Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of the Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 2


2016 BCxA Leadership Conference


2009 LBNL Study – Cost Effectiveness of Commercial Building Commissioning

Learning Objectives

1. Present the results of a joint BCxA/LBNL

study that provides updated metrics on the

value of commissioning.

2. Provide data that can be used by

commissioning stakeholders to promote the

industry.

3. Understand market opportunities to improve

the commissioning industry.

4. Strengthen your membership and advocate

for the BCxA.


• Refresh the LBNL 2009 survey • Maintain consistency in the dataset• Reflect changes to the industry due to maturity• Define effects of changes to Cx approach (such as Ongoing Cx)• Include economics for Cx of additional systems• Expand database for different building types, markets

• Establish new baseline for Cx metrics• Identify appropriate level of data to gather• Create an iterative process for data gathering• Engage membership to provide feedback on project level

and market level trends

6

Value of Commissioning Database - Goals


Value of Commissioning Study

Data Survey (NCCx, EBCx, OCx)• Project Specific

Description• Reason for Cx• Deficiencies & Measures• Cx Cost Data• Scope of Cx• Baseline Energy Use &

Savings• Non-Energy Impacts

Market Survey • Company information• Certification• NCCx Market Factors• NCCx SOW Tasks• EBCx Market Factors• EBCx Economics• EBCx SOW Tasks• OCx Economics• OCx SOW Tasks


BCxA / LBNL Roles

LBNL

BCxAReview Market Survey

Research Market Databases

Created Market Survey

PLA

NN

ING

Provide Data Survey

Coordinated scope/grant with DOE

Reviewed Data Survey

DA

TAA

CQU

ISIT

ION

AN

ALY

SIS

"Gimme Five" CampaignBCxA MembersUtility Providers

Data Survey Form sent toUtility Providers

Market Survey sent toBCxA Members

Organize/QC Data Survey

Create Data Graphs

Create Preliminary Presentation


Data Survey StatisticsNew Construction Cx 2009 Study 2018 Study

# of Buildings 82 101# of Projects (w/cost data) 74 67Floor Area (SF) 8,813,925 22,217,059Construction Cost $2.2B $10.1B# of States Represented 10 18

Existing Building Cx 2009 Study 2018 Study# of Buildings (total) 562 738# of Projects (w/energysavings data)

300 604

Floor Area (SF) 90,410,884 274,159,847# of States Represented 21 18

Discussion Topics


• Building data: Preliminary narratives regarding CxValue metrics

1. NCCx – Commoditization Concerns2. NCCx – Market Demand Factors 3. EBCx – Savings and ROI

• Review Data Survey Results

§ What’s Changed? § Check Calibration§ Market Drivers & Issues

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

New Construction Commissioning Cost ($2018/sq.ft.) (n=67)

25th Percentile $0.40 Median $0.82

75th Percentile $1.36 Mean $1.06

#1‒NCCx Cost per Square Foot

2009$0.59$1.16 $2.14$1.94

0.40

0.82

1.36

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

NCCx Cost/SF Comparison (2009 to 2018)

2018

Building Size (Thousand sq.ft.)

[ - , 50 ] ( 50 , 100 ] ( 100 , 150 ] ( 150 , 200 ] ( 200 , 250 ] ( 250 , 300 ] ( 300 , 350 ] ( 350 , 400 ] ( 400 , 450 ] ( 450 , 500 ] > 500

Num

ber

of B

uild

ings

in D

atas

et

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NCCx Building Size Distribution - 2018 (n=71)

#1‒Building Size Distribution: NCCx

Min 2,700

Median 115,908

Mean 232,409

Max 3,500,000

Num

ber

of B

uild

ings

in 25

30

NCCx Project Size Distribution – 2009 (n=77)

Min 1,227

Median 69,500

Mean 114,467

Max 685,000

13

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

R HE O HI K12 PA I L LOD W HO W FSA POS

Per

cent

of t

otal

pro

ject

s w

ith c

ost d

ata

Market Segment Breakdown (Projects with Cost Data)

2009 2017

#1‒NCCx Cost by Building Type

14

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

R HE O HI K12 PA I L LOD W HO W FSA POS

Per

cent

of t

otal

pro

ject

s w

ith c

ost d

ata

Market Segment Breakdown (Projects with Cost Data)

2009 2017



HE HI K12 O$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

New Construction Commissioning Cost 2009 2018

Building Types n= % total # of projects

Avg $/sq.ft n= % total # of projects

Avg $/sq.ft

Higher Education 3 4% $ 7.59 15 22% $ 1.44Office 10 14% $ 0.57 20 30% $ 0.82Healthcare – Inpatient 9 12% $ 3.08 8 12% $ 0.96K12 Schools 7 10% $ 0.82 15 22% $ 0.85Laboratory 16 22% $ 2.87 2 3% $ 0.79

xx

17

#1‒NCCx Cost: Qualifications vs. Price Based Selections

29%

17%

25%

21%

8%

Less than 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 60% 60 to 80% Greater than 80%

projects are chosen on qualifications vs. price?

18

#1‒NCCx Cost: Cx is increasingly profitable?

3%

15%

47%

31%

4%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

increasingly profitable?

1. Overall NCCx costs/SF are lower, but…..2. 2018 data field contains 2X more SF per building3. Building type mix is different. Less data for Public

Assembly, Laboratories, and Public Safety (higher $/SF in 2009).

4. NCCx fee ranges for higher education and healthcare are less volatile than 2009. NCCx fee ranges for office and schools are more stable (and increasing).

5. Over 40% of NCCx work is selected based on qualifications vs. price

6. Cx firms are reporting stable/increased project profitability7. Be very careful to qualify NCCx costs using other

metrics than just overall $/SF8. Use a range to report NCCx costs19

#1‒NCCx Commoditization Concerns

20

#2 – Reasons for Executing NCCx

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

VoluntaryRating

Programs

OwnerAwareness

UtilityPrograms

TradeAssociations

Public Policies Building Codes Other

Not Important Slightly Neutral Important Very Important

Factors that Drive Cx? (Out of 5.0)Owner Awareness 3.82Building Codes 3.74Voluntary Rating Programs 3.65Public Policies 3.54Utility Programs 3.11Other 2.92Trade Associations 2.75

3%

0%

0%

3%

5%

6%

11%

32%

34%

34%

48%

50%

53%

55%

65%

79%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Other

Comply with existing buildings ordinance

Research/demonstration/pilot

Participation in utility program

Qualify for rebate, financing, or other services

Reduce liability

Increase occupant productivity

Obtain energy savings

Extended equipment life

Ensure adequate indoor air quality

Comply with organizational mandate/policy

Train and increase awareness of building operators or…

Ensure or improve thermal comfort

Smoother process and turnover (new construction)

Comply with LEED or other sustainability rating system

Ensure system performance (energy and non-energy-…

Fraction of reporting projects with reason (New Construction)

#2 – Reasons for Implementing NCCx


Reasons that Increased (2009 to 2018)Fraction of reasons to embark on NCCx 2009 2018 Difference

Comply with LEED or other sustainability rating system 15% 65% 50%

Comply with organizational mandate/policy 0% 48% 48%

Smoother process and turnover (new construction) 26% 55% 29%


Reasons that Decreased (2009 to 2018)Fraction of reasons to embark on NCCx 2009 2018 DifferenceEnsure adequate indoor air quality 75% 34% -41%

Participation in utility program 42% 3% -39%

Obtain energy savings 65% 32% -33%

Ensure or improve thermal comfort 72% 53% -19%

Train and increase awareness of building operators or occupants 61% 50% -11%

90%

79%

77%

74%

62%

56%

18%

95%

90%

87%

87%

72%

69%

21%

13%

10%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FIRST COST SAVINGS

Project on schedule, problems detected and corrected earlier

Occupied on schedule

Improvements to system design, equipment sized correctly

Improve construction team coordination, reduce disagreements

Building occupied sooner, call-backs reduced, TAB costs reduced

Fewer change orders; warranty claims

Other or unspecified first-cost

ONGOING (RECURRING) IMPROVEMENTS

Thermal Comfort

Maintenance

Improved O&M

Training; education

Indoor Air Quality

Equipment Life

Liability

Tenant retention; turnover

Productivity/Safety

Other (or combination of above)

(n=39)

#2 – NCCx: Projects Reporting Non-Energy Benefits

43%

76%

98%

23%

90%

98%

97%

98%

87%

90%

79%

75%

55%

6%

98%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Commissioning provider development of design intent…

Write specifications

Develop commissioning plan

Develop sequences of operation (if not well-developed by…

Review submittals

Construction observation

Verification checks/prefunctional testing

Functional testing; use of diagnostic tools

Commissioning provider significantly involved in issue…

Oversee training

Review O&M manuals

Develop systems manual/recommissioning manual

Perform trend analysis, modeling, or benchmarking

Evaluate energy cost savings

Final report

Ongoing commissioning, or other ongoing related…

Activities included in New Construction Commissioning Scope (n=62)

1. Owner awareness – highest driving factor2. NCCx demand driven by regulation and codes3. Several non-energy benefits obtained thru NCCx

a) Schedule improvementb) Smooth turnoverc) Training

4. Building performance metrics (energy, IAQ) has lost some emphasis

5. Core Cx scope of work is performed on each project

6. Opportunity to improve frequency of scope items:

a) OPR/Design Intent document b) Controls sequence developmentc) Energy cost calculationsd) Post-occupancy tasks

#2‒NCCx Market Factors


EBCx Percent Savings

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2018

Median 6%

#3 – EBCx Percent Savings

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

201825th percentile 3%

Median 6%


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

201825th percentile 3%

Median 6%75th percentile 10%


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2018 20092009

(adjusted)

Median 6% 16% 10%


HE Higher Ed. 112HI Hospital (Inpatient) 115R Retail 30O Office 194I Industrial 10

OTH Other 42DC Data Center 15K12 K-12 School 42LOD Lodging 17W Warehouse 6

RW Religious Worship 6FS Food Service 6L Lab 1

PA Public Assembly 2POS Public Order & Safety 2HO Hospital (Outpatient) 4

604

Sample Size

HI O OTH K12 W FS PA HO0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%EBCx Percent Savings by Market Segment (n=604)

#3 – EBCx Savings by Market Segment

HE Higher Ed. 112HI Hospital (Inpatient) 115R Retail 30O Office 194I Industrial 10

OTH Other 42DC Data Center 15K12 K-12 School 42LOD Lodging 17

Sample Size

#3 – EBCx Savings by Market Segment

HI O OTH K12 W FS PA HO0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

EBCx Percent Savings by Market Segment (n=604)

#3 – EBCx Percent Savings – Building Size

35

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

- 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

EBCx Percent Savings vs. Building Size

#3 – EBCx Percent Savings – Building Size

36

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

- 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000

EBCx Percent Savings vs. Building Size

Median nUtility_1 5% 411Utility_2 7% 156

#3 – EBCx Percent Savings by Project Type

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%EBCx Percent Savings by Project Type

Utility_1 Utility_2 Utility_MBCx Other_EBCx


Utility_MBCx 8% 17


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%




Utility_MBCx 8% 17Other_EBCx 19% 13


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%



Median nUtility_EBCx 4% 47Utility_MBCx 11% 21Other_EBCx 12% 54Other_MBCx 18% 40

#3 – EBCx Percent Savings by Project Type (2009 Data)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

EBCx Percent Savings by Project Type (2009 data)(n=162)


EBCx Simple Payback

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sim

ple

Payb

ack

(Yre

ars)

(n=356 bldgs.)

201825th Percentile 1.3

Median 2.275th Percentile 4.2

#3 – EBCx Simple Payback (Years)

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sim

ple

Payb

ack

(Yre

ars)

(n=356 bldgs.)

#3 – EBCx Simple Payback (Years)

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Simple Payback (Years), 2009 vs. 2018

2.2

1.1

201825th Percentile 1.3

Median 2.275th Percentile 4.2

#3 – EBCx Simple Payback by Project Type

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

EBCx Simple Payback (years) by Data Source (Adjusted to 2017, using Standard Energy Prices)(n=355)

1.3

3.9

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


1.3

3.9

0.6


-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


1.3

3.9

0.6

4.0


#3 – EBCx Cost per Square Foot

Utility_MBCx Utility_1 Utility_2 Non-Utility

Proj

ect C

ost p

er s

q.ft.

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

EBCx Costs per Sq.Ft. by Data Source ($2017)(n=660)

N = MedianUtility_1 414 $0.17

Non-Utility 36 $0.24Utility_2 156 $0.42

Utility_MBCx 54 $1.61

$0.25 Median overall

#3 – Reasons for Implementing EBCx

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Reduce liability






Comply with LEED or other rating system


Train/increase awareness of operators or occupants




Ensure system performance


Fraction of reporting projects with reason (EBCx), 2009 vs. 2018

2009 2018

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Reduce liability






Comply with LEED or other rating system


Train/increase awareness of operators or occupants




Ensure system performance


Fraction of reporting projects with reason (EBCx), 2009 vs. 2018

2009 2018

#3 – Reasons for Implementing EBCx

35.1%

16.4%

19.6%

11.9%

13.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Co

ntr

ibu

tion

to

Ove

rall

Pro

gra

m S

avi

ng

s (%

)

Utility Program EBCx Measure Types (n = 3,695 measures, 503 projects)

Loop Tuning

Calibration

Maintenance - Other

Mechanical Fix

Modify Sequence of Operations

Modify Setpoint

Implement Advanced Reset

Operations & Control - Other

Scheduling

#3 – Measure Mix

1. Energy Savingsa. Median 6%, typical range 3%-10%b. MBCx or EBCx outside utility programs could hit 10%-20% range

(but data is limited)c. 2018 median down from 2009, though looking at project type

suggests no major market shift

2. Simple Paybacka. Median 2.2 years. Range generally 1 and 4 years paybackb. Median $0.25 project cost per sq.ft., with a typical range $0.13-

$0.48c. Projects at lower percent savings can still be highly cost-effective

52

#3‒EBCx Economics

1. Closing Session @ 3:30 pm – Cx Study Workshop• Data Available for Your Review• Gather in small groups• Spend 15 minutes reviewing data for 3 stories• Each small group will report out on initial findings• Group notes will be turned in to committee

2. Committees will review data and create technical articles, presentations, and social media blogs.

• Marketing Committee• Value of Cx Task Force

53

Next Steps

3. Look for monthly updates in the Checklist

4. Deliverables will be posted to website,https://www.bcxa.org/knowledge-center/ • Technical Narratives• Blogs• Presentations• Data, Research• Related Surveys

54

Next Steps

Questions?

Tom Poeling, P.E. CCP, CEMBuilding Commissioning [email protected]

Eliot CroweLawrence Berkeley National [email protected]


EBCx Payback - Glean from this data


What is the average simple payback achieved by EBCx projects?Answer Choices Responses

Less than 6 months 4.71%7 to 11 months 11.76%1 to 2 years 42.35%3 to 5 years 37.65%Over 5 years 3.53%

What is the average simple payback achieved by OCx projects?Less than 6 months 13.24%6 to 11 months 14.71%1 to 2 years 36.76%3 to 5 years 27.94%Over 5 years 7.35%

When issues were discovered during OCx investigation, what percent of issues were addressed with:

Less than 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 40% 40 - 60% 60 - 80%Greater than

80%2 years or less payback 9% 10% 13% 30% 18% 19%3 - 4 years payback 23% 18% 35% 18% 5% 2%5 year payback 48% 25% 16% 9% 2% 0%Greater than 50% 66% 19% 6% 9% 0% 0%

When issues were discovered during EBCx investigation, what percent of issues were addressed with:

less than 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 40 % 40 - 60% 60 - 80%Greater than

80%2 years or less payback 5% 8% 16% 20% 34% 17%3 to 4 years payback 8% 19% 40% 26% 6% 1%5 year payback 41% 29% 19% 9% 1% 1%

61

R² = 0.0695

$-

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Com

mis

sion

ing

Cos

t per

sq.

ft.

Area served by Project (sq.ft.)

($2017/sq.ft.)(n=67 bldgs)

#1‒NCCx Cost vs. Project Size (2017)

the value of commissioning: market and building data surveys value of...learning objectives 1....

Documents