BIM For Facility Managment – FM

First and foremost “BIM” is the life-cycle management of the built environment supported by digital technology. 3D visualization tools, such as Revit, Archicad, Bentley, etc. represent only one of several technologies and business processes/competencies required for efficient life-cycle management of the built environment.

There are far more important considerations, such as CPMS, efficient project delivery methods such as IPD and JOC, CMMS, BAS, CAFM, Portfolio Management, Property Management, life-cycle costing,  etc. etc.

Leveraging a robust ontology and quantitatively measuring physical and functional building levels and actively managing capital reinvestment over time.. with a focus upon life-cycle costs and impacts vs. first costs are the most important considerations to a successful strategy.
Image

Construction Cost Estimators, BIM, and Efficient Project Delivery

Are Construction Cost Estimators an Obstacle to Efficient Project Delivery and BIM?

Even today, most construction cost estimators continue to rely exclusively upon spreadsheets, despite well documented issues with the practice.

Are you a cost estimator, a software developer, or a cost estimator that develops software for others to use?   Good dedicated cost estimating software programs are successful for a reason. They improve one or more of the following; productivity, consistency, transparency, and/or collaboration.  They do NOT limit creativity, but simply provide a more robust environment.

That is not to say that both a spreadsheet approach – Excel, Excel with a database (Access, etc.) Google Spreedsheets, et a –  and dedicated cost estimating/project management software do not have limitations. Any objective comparison can easily reveal associated pros and cons. One solution is NOT better than the other, and associated arguments in this realm are for novices.                                       

A one were to analyze the market, it not surprising that most estimators use spreadsheets (w or w/o database support). That said, it’s a statistical result, as most estimators also work independently and/or on smaller jobs, and/or do a limited number of estimates, and/or work in relatively specialized areas.  Thus, while most good  cost estimating software applications share many of the characteristics/features found within spreadsheets, yet add higher levels of security, error detection/correction/prevention, collaboration, information updating and reuse… they are simply not needed by estimators in the above noted categories.

However, what about the folks who clearly should NOT be working in spreadsheets?  The ones that do a high number of estimates, and/or need to collaborate, and/or who need to perform rapid estimate comparision, and/or easily update and/or reuse cost estimates etc.  A significant percentage of cost estimators continue to exclusively use spreadsheets, and/or develop their own software when this is contrary to their benefit and/or their organizations and/or clients benefit. 

Why? Is it because they are afraid and/or unwilling to share information?  Are they afraid of advanced technologies?   Are they simply from a generation incapable of change?

My thought is that many construction cost estimators, just like many architects, engineers, contractors, and owners are “victims” of their environment.   That environment is shaped by impractical, inefficient, and antagonistic construction delivery methods such as design-bid-build, and even the somewhat improved design-build.

Until Integrated Project Delivery – IPD, Job Order Contracting – JOC, and similar collaborative construction delivery methods are recognized for their true value, little positive change will occur within the AEC or AECOO community.

Thus BIM, the life-cycle management of the built environment, with also be stalled until collaborative construction delivery methods become mainstream.    In this regard, we all must shift from our current   “first cost mentality”  to decision support systems based upon total cost of ownership and life-cycle costs.

 

 

 

 

Sustainability and Federal Government Facilties – A Candid Survey of Federal Executives – GBC and Deloitte – September 2010

Federal agencies and public companies share sustainability challenges, however, JOC / Job Order Contracting provides an efficient Construction Delivery Method to deploy associated renovation, renovation projects for existing buildings.

Unfortunately…

Many respondents believe the level of  effort and resources put towards sustainability by their agency is lacking.  Over half  of  them call the sustainability effort “inadequate.” 

Many of  the roadblocks to sustainability are strategic or cultural.”

A majority (54 percent) of  respondents anticipate the level of  effort put towards sustainability will remain constant.”

www.4clicks.com

 

Executive Summary

 
 Federal executives surveyed have taken significant steps to “go green” in their personal lives.  A strong majority (81percent) say they now turn off  lights when not in use.  Almost as many print less, turn off  electronics, use more energy efficient products, or recycle. 
 Federal executives believe they have a responsibility to promote sustainability in their agency as well.  Nine in ten of  those surveyed agree with the idea that they have such a responsibility.  Nearly as many of  them say that they have personally taken action to promote sustainability. 
 Respondents almost universally agree that it is important that their agency implements sustainable practices.  Over 95 percent call it very or somewhat important.  When presented with a list of  three elements of  sustainability and asked to rank their importance, most viewed all three as critical.
 While a “sense of  obligation” is the top reason for going green on a personal level, it ranks fourth among reasons agencies make changes.  Agencies’ moves towards sustainability tend to result from different motivators including fulfilling a mandate or reducing costs.
 Almost all respondents believe it is important to increase sustainability, but most report their agency has taken few actions
to do so.  In fact, on average, those surveyed know of  less than three things their agency has done
Many respondents believe the level of  effort and resources put towards sustainability by their agency is lacking.  Over half 
of  them call the sustainability effort “inadequate.”
  In contrast, four percent say the effort has been “excessive.”  
 Many of  the roadblocks to sustainability are strategic or cultural.  Over a quarter say that sustainability is not an agency
priority, or that there is a lack of  coordination.  Almost as many claim there is a lack of  involvement, enthusiasm, and engagement in “going green” among agency employees.
 Respondents recognize ways in which their agencies could become more sustainable.  Almost 60 percent say that better
education, training, and engagement can help their agency implement more sustainable practices.
A majority (54 percent) of  respondents anticipate the level of  effort put towards sustainability will remain constant.  A significant portion (39 percent) anticipate their agency will be more dedicated to sustainability in the future, while almost
none expect that their agency will be less committed to it.  
 Almost all federal executives (86 percent) say that a primary force driving them to be more sustainable is a sense of 
obligation.  Many also behave more sustainably to save money, while far fewer do so to follow a trend, or because of  social
pressure.

REPORT

Reasons for Agency Action to Increase Sustainability

Executive Order 13514

Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans

Most Important Sustainability Related Goals

AEC Myth #147 – Construction Estimating is More Art than Science

Efficient, accurate construction cost estimating is a very detailed profession that is highly dependent upon robust process, definitions, cost databases, terminology / taxonomy, technology, collaboration, and experience.

Granted the AEC industry in the US suffers from cultural issues and lags other sectors in the efficient adoption and deployment of technology, but this will change due to the altered worldwide environmental and economic landscape.

The evolution and convergence of Building Information Modeling (BIM), more efficient construction delivery methods such as Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Job Order Contracting (JOC), Capital Planning and Management Systems (CPMS), Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS), and Computer-aid Facility Management (CAFM), will drive a more collaborative, productive,Architecuture, Engineering, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance industry.

BIM Deployment Plan from Revit / Autodesk

BIM Strategy

The Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan – tools and guidance for building industry professionals interested in implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM) – is a reasonable framework for those beginning to investigate BIM, however, it lacks requisite depth relative to 4d, 5d BIM as well as contruction delivery methodology.  

A comprehensive BIM strategy from an owner perspective (and, in my opinion contractor and A/E’s as well as other stakeholders), should include capital planning and management (lifecycle costing, capital renewal, physical/functional conditions management), operations and maintenance (repair, maintenance, minor renovations-preventive, routine, maintenace), space planning/management, and integration of efficient construction devlivery methodsy (JOC – Job Order Contracting for facility repair/maintenance, IPD – Integrated Project Delivery for new construction, etc.), and associated reference cost data, standard definitions/metrics/taxonomy, ….

Tools offered in the Autodesk BIM deploym,ent plan are intended to provide a practical framework for AEC stakeholders, and can be used by individual organizations on specific projects. The BIM Deployment Plan includes:

  • BIM support materials for owners, architects, engineers, and contractors
  • Templates to streamline multi-discipline communications
  • Recommendations for roles and responsibilities
  • Best business process examples
  • Software suggestions for an effective BIM environment

BIM_Deployment_Plan_Final

Definitions of Terms Used in This Document
 

As-Built Model Model

—The final model that shows how a building was actually delivered and assembled. Sometimes referred to as the Record Model.

Building Information Modeling (BIM)—An integrated process aimed at providing coordinated, reliable information about a building project throughout different project phases—from design through construction and into operations.  BIM gives architects, engineers, builders, and owners a clear overall vision of the project—to help them make better decisions faster, improve quality, and increase profitability of the project. 
 
Clash Detection — The process of checking for clashes and interferences in the design of one or more BIM models.

 

Collaborative Project Management — A software solution that enables effective management of and collaboration on all project related communication, information, and business processes across the plan, build, and operate phases of the building lifecycle. The most common processes include collaborative documentation, design, bid, construction, cost, and operations management.  (Examples of software include www.4clicks.com Project Estimator for JOC construction delivery).     Coordination Model—A model created from two or more models, used to show the relationship of multiple building disciplines such as architectural, civil, structural, and MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing).

Core Collaboration Team —The group of people – which should include someone from each party working on the project, such as the owner, architect, contractor, subconsultants, suppliers, and trade contractors—responsible for completing a BIM Deployment Plan, creating the document management file folder structure and permission levels in the collaborative project management system, and enforcing the action plan set out in that document throughout design and construction of the project.
Design Intent Model —The model used to communicate the design intent of a building.
Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) —A neutral and open file format structure developed by the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) to enable interoperability between modeling software systems.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)—A project delivery process (similar to JOC for facility repair, renovation, and sustainabilty)  that integrates people, systems, business structures, and practices to collaboratively harness the talents and insights of all participants in order to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency throughout all phases of design, fabrication, and construction (AIA,  Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide , 2007, available at http://www.aia.org/ipdg).
Model Integrator—A tool used to combine and/or link design files from different software platforms.
Model Manager(s)—The project team member(s) responsible for managing the collaboration and sharing of electronic files during the project. Model managers are also responsible for maintaining the integrity of BIM models, which can include gathering, linking, and uploading updated models.
Parametric —The relationships among and between all elements of a model that enable coordination and change management. These relationships are created either automatically by the software or manually by users as they work.
Project System Administrator (PSA) —The person who administers, and sets up folders for, the collaborative project management system. Responsible for managing and creating new user accounts, as well as contact and company information. 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS

US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PROGRAM PLAN
OFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS
US GSA
via http://www.4clicks.com – construction cost estimating and project management software for JOC – SABER – SATOC – MATOC – MACC – BOA – POCA – IDIQ
Page 1 of 6
a. Objectives: Program Purpose: The Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings provides high-performance green building information and disseminates practices, technologies and research results through outreach, education, and the provision of technical assistance government-wide. The Office was established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”, Public Law 110-140) to:
(1) coordinate the activities of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings with the activities of the DOE Office of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings;
(2) ensure full coordination of high-performance green building information and activities within the General Services Administration and all relevant agencies;
(3) establish a senior-level Federal Green Building Advisory Committee, which shall provide advice and recommendations for high-performance green buildings;
(4) identify and reassess improved or higher rating standards recommended by the Advisory Committee;
(5) ensure full coordination, dissemination of information regarding, and promotion of the results of research and development information relating to Federal high-performance green building initiatives;
(6) identify and develop Federal high-performance green building standards for all types of Federal facilities;
(7) establish green practices that can be used throughout the life of a Federal facility;
(8) review and analyze current Federal budget practices and life-cycle costing issues, and make recommendations to support high-performance green buildings; and
(9) identify opportunities to demonstrate innovative and emerging green building technologies and concepts.
“High-Performance Green Buildings” are defined as buildings that, as compared to similar buildings: (1) Reduce energy, water, and material resource use;
Page 2 of 6
(2) Improve indoor environmental quality, including reducing indoor pollution, improving thermal comfort, and improving lighting and acoustic environments that affect occupant health and productivity; (3) Reduce negative impacts on the environment throughout the life-cycle of the building, including air and water pollution and waste generation;
(4) Increase the use of environmentally preferable products, including bio-based, recycled content and nontoxic products with lower life-cycle impacts;
(5) Increase reuse and recycling opportunities;
(6) Integrate systems in the building;
(7) Reduce the environmental and energy impacts of transportation through building location and site design that support a full range of transportation choices for users of the building; and
(8) Consider indoor and outdoor effects of the building on human health and the environment, including—
(i) Improvements in worker productivity;
(ii) The life-cycle impacts of building materials and operations; and
(iii) Other, appropriate factors.
Public Benefit: This Office supports the stated goals of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act by providing technical standards, measurement tools, and government-wide leadership necessary to support the agencies charged with delivering high-performance green Federal buildings under the Act.
The government-wide infrastructure investments supported by the standards and activities of the Office will benefit the public by reducing carbon emissions, reducing consumption of energy and water, increasing reliance on renewable energy in Federal buildings and minimizing related impacts on human health and the environment.
b. Activities: The Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings: (1) promotes and coordinates high-performance green building information and activities throughout the Federal government,
(2) serves as the Federal government’s green building advocate, and (3) develops standards and green practices for all types of Federal facilities.
\
Current activities of the Office include: • Coordinating activities with the Department of Energy Office of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings; • Coordinating with the Interagency Sustainability Working Group on the development of a tracking system for compliance with the Guiding Principles for High-Performance and Sustainable Buildings; • Forming the Federal Green Building Advisory Committee; • Reviewing the latest green building rating standards; • Developing of a research plan for high-performance green building research initiatives and integration with NIST activities; •
Development, review, and analysis of ASHRAE Standard 189.1 and similar high-performance green building standards; • Identifying best practices in operations and maintenance; • Reviewing Federal budget practices impacting green building performance; and • Identifying a demonstration project in a Federal building to promote innovative and emerging green capabilities.
c. Characteristics: The funds provided by the Recovery Act are for the salaries and expenses of the Office. Recovery funds provide for a staff and additional support costs, including travel, training, and supplies. Funds have already been obligated for a contract award to develop a sustainable facilities decision tool for small projects; other funds will be obligated for contracts with academic, research, non-profit, and professional firms that provide services related to high-performance green buildings.
All contracts will be competitively awarded and, to the maximum practicable extent, fixed-price. GSA will follow its standard procurement guidelines and processes including all Government procurement preferences.
d. Delivery Schedule:
(1) Selection of the permanent director for the Office: Complete
(2) Staff selection and hiring: As of May 14, 2010, five employees had been hired into the Office, including a permanent Director; the Office is expected to be fully staffed by August 2010
(3) Review of LEED 2009 – Complete
(4) Select and formalize non-government members of the Federal Green Building Advisory Committee – August 2010
(5) Identification of a demonstration project – Complete
(6) Tracking system for compliance with the Guiding Principles for High-Performance and Sustainable Buildings – Complete
(7) Develop and issue guidance on use of ASHRAE Standard 189.1 in Federal facilities – August 2010
(8) Development of research plan – 3rd quarter 2010
(9) Review and analysis of Federal budget practices impacting green building performance – 2nd quarter 2011
(10) Prepare and submit EISA-mandated biennial report to Congress – June 30, 2010. EISA requires that the report: • Describe the status of compliance with the High-Performance Federal Buildings provisions of EISA and other, related statutes and regulations; • Identify Federal facility procedures that may affect green building certification; • Identify inconsistencies in Federal law that may serve as barriers to implementation of the relevant provisions of EISA; • Recommend language for uniform standards for environmentally responsible acquisition by Federal agencies; • Review the Federal budget process, to identify alternative treatments of energy and environmental costs and benefits; • Identify green, self-sustaining technologies for use in natural disasters and other emergencies; • Summarize and highlight development of high-performance green building initiatives, standards, and laws in State and local governments; and • Make recommendations to address the issues identified in the report, as well as implementation plans for the recommendations.
Page 5 of 6
e. Environmental Review Compliance: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Categorical Exclusion The Recovery Act provides $4 million for salaries and expenses, the collection, analysis and development of standards and practices, coordination and dissemination of information, and program management. GSA does not find this program to be major or significant for the purposes of NEPA reporting.
f. Measures: Following are several quantifiable measures that the office will deliver by the end of 2011. As the Office completes staffing and organizational development, the Director will identify additional performance measures. • Number of agencies with applicable buildings who have been trained on the use of ASHRAE Standard 189.1 for the design of High-Performance Green Buildings: 15 agencies by the end of 2011. • Number of Technology Demonstration Project research reports published: 1 per year, starting June 2011. g. Monitoring/Evaluation: The Recovery Act does not establish any new projects or activities for the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings. Recovery funds are provided to the Office to carry out the responsibilities established in EISA. As such, the primary process for periodic performance reviews and risk assessments for this program is through the GSA Performance Management Process (PMP). All GSA programs participate in this annual process of developing long- and near-term strategies, allocating resources, managing program performance, and appraising and recognizing individual employee performance. The PMP process is well-designed to identify and mitigate risks and to continuously assess and evaluate the performance of operating programs. h. Transparency: All Federal regulations prepared by the Office will be made available for public comment on http://www.regulations.gov prior to final publication.
Page 6 of 6
i. Accountability: The Federal Director will submit the EISA-mandated, biennial report to Congress on June 30, 2010. The report will assess the status of compliance with the Federal High-Performance Green Buildings provisions of EISA, including those that establish the responsibilities of the Federal Director. j. Barriers to Effective Implementation: There are no statutory or regulatory requirements that impede effective implementation. k. Federal Infrastructure Investments: No funds were authorized for infrastructure investments.

US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICEAMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PROGRAM PLANOFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGSUS GSA Page 1 of 6a. Objectives: Program Purpose: The Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings provides high-performance green building information and disseminates practices, technologies and research results through outreach, education, and the provision of technical assistance government-wide. The Office was established by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”, Public Law 110-140) to: (1) coordinate the activities of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings with the activities of the DOE Office of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings; (2) ensure full coordination of high-performance green building information and activities within the General Services Administration and all relevant agencies; (3) establish a senior-level Federal Green Building Advisory Committee, which shall provide advice and recommendations for high-performance green buildings; (4) identify and reassess improved or higher rating standards recommended by the Advisory Committee; (5) ensure full coordination, dissemination of information regarding, and promotion of the results of research and development information relating to Federal high-performance green building initiatives; (6) identify and develop Federal high-performance green building standards for all types of Federal facilities; (7) establish green practices that can be used throughout the life of a Federal facility; (8) review and analyze current Federal budget practices and life-cycle costing issues, and make recommendations to support high-performance green buildings; and (9) identify opportunities to demonstrate innovative and emerging green building technologies and concepts. “High-Performance Green Buildings” are defined as buildings that, as compared to similar buildings: (1) Reduce energy, water, and material resource use;US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICEAMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PROGRAM PLANOFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGSUS GSA Page 2 of 6(2) Improve indoor environmental quality, including reducing indoor pollution, improving thermal comfort, and improving lighting and acoustic environments that affect occupant health and productivity; (3) Reduce negative impacts on the environment throughout the life-cycle of the building, including air and water pollution and waste generation; (4) Increase the use of environmentally preferable products, including bio-based, recycled content and nontoxic products with lower life-cycle impacts; (5) Increase reuse and recycling opportunities; (6) Integrate systems in the building; (7) Reduce the environmental and energy impacts of transportation through building location and site design that support a full range of transportation choices for users of the building; and (8) Consider indoor and outdoor effects of the building on human health and the environment, including— (i) Improvements in worker productivity; (ii) The life-cycle impacts of building materials and operations; and (iii) Other, appropriate factors. Public Benefit: This Office supports the stated goals of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act by providing technical standards, measurement tools, and government-wide leadership necessary to support the agencies charged with delivering high-performance green Federal buildings under the Act. The government-wide infrastructure investments supported by the standards and activities of the Office will benefit the public by reducing carbon emissions, reducing consumption of energy and water, increasing reliance on renewable energy in Federal buildings and minimizing related impacts on human health and the environment. b. Activities: The Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings: (1) promotes and coordinates high-performance green building information and activities throughout the Federal government, (2) serves as the Federal government’s green building advocate, and (3) develops standards and green practices for all types of Federal facilities.US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICEAMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PROGRAM PLANOFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGSUS GSA Page 3 of 6Current activities of the Office include: • Coordinating activities with the Department of Energy Office of Commercial High-Performance Green Buildings; • Coordinating with the Interagency Sustainability Working Group on the development of a tracking system for compliance with the Guiding Principles for High-Performance and Sustainable Buildings; • Forming the Federal Green Building Advisory Committee; • Reviewing the latest green building rating standards; • Developing of a research plan for high-performance green building research initiatives and integration with NIST activities; • Development, review, and analysis of ASHRAE Standard 189.1 and similar high-performance green building standards; • Identifying best practices in operations and maintenance; • Reviewing Federal budget practices impacting green building performance; and • Identifying a demonstration project in a Federal building to promote innovative and emerging green capabilities. c. Characteristics: The funds provided by the Recovery Act are for the salaries and expenses of the Office. Recovery funds provide for a staff and additional support costs, including travel, training, and supplies. Funds have already been obligated for a contract award to develop a sustainable facilities decision tool for small projects; other funds will be obligated for contracts with academic, research, non-profit, and professional firms that provide services related to high-performance green buildings. All contracts will be competitively awarded and, to the maximum practicable extent, fixed-price. GSA will follow its standard procurement guidelines and processes including all Government procurement preferences.US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICEAMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PROGRAM PLANOFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGSUS GSA Page 4 of 6d. Delivery Schedule: (1) Selection of the permanent director for the Office: Complete (2) Staff selection and hiring: As of May 14, 2010, five employees had been hired into the Office, including a permanent Director; the Office is expected to be fully staffed by August 2010 (3) Review of LEED 2009 – Complete (4) Select and formalize non-government members of the Federal Green Building Advisory Committee – August 2010 (5) Identification of a demonstration project – Complete (6) Tracking system for compliance with the Guiding Principles for High-Performance and Sustainable Buildings – Complete (7) Develop and issue guidance on use of ASHRAE Standard 189.1 in Federal facilities – August 2010 (8) Development of research plan – 3rd quarter 2010 (9) Review and analysis of Federal budget practices impacting green building performance – 2nd quarter 2011 (10) Prepare and submit EISA-mandated biennial report to Congress – June 30, 2010. EISA requires that the report: • Describe the status of compliance with the High-Performance Federal Buildings provisions of EISA and other, related statutes and regulations; • Identify Federal facility procedures that may affect green building certification; • Identify inconsistencies in Federal law that may serve as barriers to implementation of the relevant provisions of EISA; • Recommend language for uniform standards for environmentally responsible acquisition by Federal agencies; • Review the Federal budget process, to identify alternative treatments of energy and environmental costs and benefits; • Identify green, self-sustaining technologies for use in natural disasters and other emergencies; • Summarize and highlight development of high-performance green building initiatives, standards, and laws in State and local governments; and • Make recommendations to address the issues identified in the report, as well as implementation plans for the recommendations.US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION—PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICEAMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT PROGRAM PLANOFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGSUS GSA Page 5 of 6e. Environmental Review Compliance: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Categorical Exclusion The Recovery Act provides $4 million for salaries and expenses, the collection, analysis and development of standards and practices, coordination and dissemination of information, and program management. GSA does not find this program to be major or significant for the purposes of NEPA reporting. f. Measures: Following are several quantifiable measures that the office will deliver by the end of 2011. As the Office completes staffing and organizational development, the Director will identify additional performance measures. • Number of agencies with applicable buildings who have been trained on the use of ASHRAE Standard 189.1 for the design of High-Performance Green Buildings: 15 agencies by the end of 2011. • Number of Technology Demonstration Project research reports published: 1 per year, starting June 2011. g. Monitoring/Evaluation: The Recovery Act does not establish any new projects or activities for the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings. Recovery funds are provided to the Office to carry out the responsibilities established in EISA. As such, the primary process for periodic performance reviews and risk assessments for this program is through the GSA Performance Management Process (PMP). All GSA programs participate in this annual process of developing long- and near-term strategies, allocating resources, managing program performance, and appraising and recognizing individual employee performance. The PMP process is well-designed to identify and mitigate risks and to continuously assess and evaluate the performance of operating programs. h. Transparency: All Federal regulations prepared by the Office will be made available for public comment on http://www.regulations.gov prior to final publication.

Page 6 of 6i.

Accountability: The Federal Director will submit the EISA-mandated, biennial report to Congress on June 30, 2010. The report will assess the status of compliance with the Federal High-Performance Green Buildings provisions of EISA, including those that establish the responsibilities of the Federal Director. j. Barriers to Effective Implementation: There are no statutory or regulatory requirements that impede effective implementation. k. Federal Infrastructure Investments: No funds were authorized for infrastructure investments.

High Performance Building Week June 13th through June 19th, 2010 HRES 1407 IH

IV
111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. RES. 1407
Supporting the goals and ideals of High-Performance Building Week.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 27, 2010
Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. CARNAHAN, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr.
SCHOCK, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. BAIRD, and Ms. SCHWARTZ) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science and
Technology
RESOLUTION
Supporting the goals and ideals of High-Performance Building Week.
Whereas the High-Performance Building Congressional Caucus Coalition has declared the week of June 13 through June 19, 2010, as ‘‘High-Performance Building Week’’;
Whereas the House of Representatives has recognized the importance of high-performance buildings through the inclusion of a definition of high-performance buildings in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007;
Whereas our homes, offices, schools, and other buildings consume
40 percent of the primary energy and 70 percent
of the electricity in the United States annually;
Whereas buildings consume about 12 percent of the potable
water in this country;
Whereas the construction of buildings and their related infrastructure consumes approximately 60 percent of all raw materials used in the United States economy;
Whereas buildings account for 39 percent of United States carbon dioxide emissions a year, approximately equaling the combined carbon emissions of Japan, France, and the United Kingdom;
Whereas Americans spend about 90 percent of their time indoors;
Whereas the value of all United States construction alone represents more than 13 percent of the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product and the value of the Nation’s structures is estimated at over $28 trillion;
Whereas poor indoor environmental quality is detrimental to the health of all Americans, especially our children and the elderly;
Whereas high-performance buildings promote higher student achievement by providing better lighting, a more comfortable indoor environment, and improved ventilation and indoor air quality;
Whereas high-performance residential and commercial building design and construction should effectively guard against natural and human-caused events and disasters, including fire, water, wind, noise, crime, and terrorism;
Whereas high-performance buildings, which address human, environmental, economic, and total societal impact, result from the application of the highest level of design, construction, operation, and maintenance principles—a paradigm change for the built environment;
Whereas nearly 7,500,000 Americans are employed in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance sectors and require education and training to achieve and maintain high performance; and
Whereas the United States should continue to improve the features of new buildings and adapt and maintain existing buildings to changing balances in our needs and responsibilities for health, safety, energy and water efficiency, and usability by all segments of society:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) supports the goals and ideals of High-Performance Building Week;
(2) recognizes and reaffirms our Nation’s commitment to high-performance buildings by promoting awareness about their benefits and by promoting new education programs, supporting research, and expanding access to information;
(3) recognizes the unique role that the Department of Energy plays through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Building Technologies Program, which works closely with the building industry and manufacturers to conduct research and development on technologies and practices for building energy efficiency;
(4) recognizes the important role that the National Institute of Standards and Technology plays in developing the measurement science needed to develop, test, integrate, and demonstrate the new building technologies; and
(5) encourages further research and development of high-performance building standards, research, and development.

4d 5d BIM and COBIE – What you should know?

Some government agencies, such as the Veterans Administration (VA) now require the use of COBIE.

VA has adopted COBIE as the methodology to electronically transfer building information after construction is complete for facilities management. The COBIE spreadsheet (see COBIE2 Template) is part of the U.S. National Building Information Model Standard (NBIMS).

Third-party utilities facilitate the automatic creation and transfer of some data between BIM and a COBIE spreadsheet via IFC files as an intermediate stage, and some BIM software may include creation of and data transfer to the spreadsheet directly without making use of intermediate IFC files.

Where possible, automatic means should be used to create and fill in the COBIE spreadsheet.

The Design/Construction Team shall consult their BIM software vendor(s) for the most current COBIE utilities. However, the completed COBIE worksheets will also contain some information that is entered manually into the electric file, either because the information currently cannot be conveniently extracted from the BIM or because it does not reside in the BIM.

The Design/Construction Team is encouraged to provide as much information in COBIE as is known at the time of the deliverable. The required worksheets in COBIE will be filled out in step with the LoD and Design Phases (see Object Element Matrix).

The Design/Construction Team(s) shall submit the most current version of the COBIE spreadsheet with other required deliverables at each Project Phase.

With CD deliverables, the COBIE-4- Type and Component worksheets are required. These fields provide component Name, Description, and Creation Date. The medical equipment listed in the VA-SEPS-PFD export shall be noted on the COBIE spreadsheet.

VA also requires sustainability related testing.

Virtual Testing and Balancing

The VA requires virtual testing and balancing of the architectural model to support sustainable building systems design and analysis. Room data can be read from the linked architectural model to create mechanical spaces (each space is the same as the room in the architectural model). Multiple spaces are joined to create zones. This data can used to calculate native heating and cooling analysis that is built into the MEP software or exported using gbXML to an external analysis application such as eQuest, Trane/Trace, or DOE based analysis programs. AEs can then bring this data back within the model to check their work. One of the methods is to create a Space/Room schedule that will show calculated air flow vs actual air flow. See figure below. All air flows can be checked for load balance to the terminal box and all the way back to the air handling units. Check with MEP modeling software companies for additional information.

Space Airflow Schedule

-1- Additional space engineering criteria will be added over time.

-2- With the exception of “Army_Cat,” “Navy_Cat,” and “USAF_Cat,” which can be removed.

-3- Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire protection (MEPF)

-4- www.wbdg.org/pdfs/cobie_spreadsheet.pdf

-5- Generally this is weekly

-6- Fixtures, Furniture, & Equipment (FFE)

BIM Applications

At a minimum, BIM shall be used for the following applications:

7.1 Space and Medical Equipment Validation

VA-SEPS Data Required in BIM: VA uses the Space and Equipment Planning System (VA-SEPS), which is a data based planning tool shared by the VA, U.S. Navy, Army, and Air Force to create a Program for Design (PFD). Information regarding medical need requirements is entered to generate the space requirements and medical equipment associated with that space for a particular project. The output of VA-SEPS is a PFD containing a list of rooms (spaces) and medical equipment, with their identifying computer codes used to associate and track this information through design and construction.-1- Some of these codes will ultimately be imported into the facility management software to provide VA with the ability to manage, track, and report on VA’s spatial inventory, medical equipment, and building equipment. In addition, the BIM software will automatically assign a unique GUID to spaces which will identify each individual space.

The BIM is required to capture this space and equipment data in the BIM model. All BIM modeling must preserve the field name designations and text values found in the VA-SEPS BIM export files.-2- To do this, the final PFD for each project must be electronically exported from the VA-SEPS database for import and reuse in BIM. A spreadsheet export can be obtained in VA-SEPS by going to the Selection Tree and clicking on Select a Project, then choosing the proper project. Then on the sub-menu, select Export Project Data to BIM. This will create a MS Excel file with the associated data codes, which can then be imported into the BIM software’s “space” tool and equipment data into “elements” or “objects” tools appropriate to the particular BIM software, or the data can be linked in a database external to the BIM software. Medical spaces and medical equipment shall be derived from the model and validated against the PFD electronically at each submittal stage.

Note that if the original PFD was not developed using VA-SEPS or if new spaces are added during the design process, then a new VA-SEPS-PFD export must be created to obtain the proper codes.

7.2 Architecture—Spatial and Material Design Models

The timing of the Level of Development (LoD) required for elements(s) or systems(s) will be dependent entirely upon the project execution strategy used for the project, as the deliverables and their timing will be different for DBB than for DB or IDP.

The Object Element Matrix shows the evolution of the architectural spatial model as it is refined during the design process as the project progresses toward construction. As materials and components are selected, generic assemblies shall be assigned material properties, sizes, sustainability credits tracked, and other specific component information defined to clearly identify building features such as walls, floors, roofs, doors, and windows. The program space requirements shall be modeled in the spatial model and validated electronically against the PFD at each stage of the project and submitted with the required deliverables.

7.3 Energy Analysis

Energy simulation and life-cycle cost calculations shall be based on information extracted directly from BIM and validated by energy modeling. The models shall be created to a Level of Development (LoD) and quality as required to perform an energy analysis appropriate for the phase and decision requirements of the project. When internal spaces are defined, they shall be modeled with internal environment parameters for early MEP design.

Design Teams shall utilize energy modeling and sustainable design software that extracts BIM data to the appropriate file format for the analysis tool.

7.4 Design Visualization for Communication, Functional Analysis, and Constructability

BIM provides the opportunity to build a virtual building and to virtually test that building for functionality during design. This allows project stakeholders to see and understand design solutions that represents reality so they can work towards improving the building design before construction starts. VA is open to innovation and encourages the Design Team to find efficiencies and uses for BIM to enhance communication for the project. At a minimum, the model shall be integrated into design reviews, review submittals, and 3D construction documentation views. Areas that would benefit from the use of 3D imagery and fly-throughs during the design process and during construction shall be identifed and noted in the BMP(s).

Visualization tools refer to animations, fly-throughs, static 3D renderings, 4D process sequencing, and other techniques to assist decisionmaking and comprehension. It should be noted that even though the BIMs contain most of the source information needed for visualization, they may require further refinement in specific animation and visualization software to accomplish the intended results.

During design, special consideration must be given to medical staff and maintenance issues. At a minimum, BIM shall be used to validate:

  • Nurses’ walking distances
  • Nurse-station sightlines
  • Process areas where timing and volume may be problemmatic (such as patient queuing for waiting rooms and pharmacy, pharmacy delivery routes/timing
  • Supply, Processing, & Distribution (SPD)
  • Animations/graphics showing major building equipment and medical equipment space clearance reservations for operations, repair, maintenance, replacement
  • Color coding of floorplates for determining medical room/department locations and square footages, and circulation
  • Constructability

The Design and ConstructionTeams are encouraged to explore options to use the BIM and other electronic tools to enhance the project quality and delivery times, including quantity take-offs, cost estimating, overall project scheduling, subcontractor coordination and manpower loading, off-site fabrication, and other widely discussed BIM benefits.

7.5 Building System Models—Structural, MEPF,-3- and Interiors

Structural, MEPF, and interior design information is required to be developed in BIM.

7.6 Masterplan Space Scheduling and Sequencing—4D

For design work that includes sequencing of renovation swing space or masterplanning for long-term build-out, BIM 4D shall be used to illustrate the phasing plan to interact, communicate, and get approval of the final design and spatial sequencing with the medical staff.

7.7 Communication of Construction Scheduling and Sequencing—4D

The Contractor shall link BIM to the project schedule as a communication method to coordinate with the Medical Center and the VA Resident Engineer logistics that affect medical center operations or require shutdown of any affected facilities and utilities. The animated phasing plan shall address such issues as swing space during construction, parking interruptions, and re-routing of pedestrian/vehicular traffic, or any other construction work that could affect Medical Center operations.

It is recommended that the Contractor also use BIM – 4D in schedule planning and communication with the subcontractors and to understand the impact to the construction schedule of other changes during the duration of the project.

7.8 COBIE/Commissioning

VA has adopted COBIE as the methodology to electronically transfer building information after construction is complete for facilities management. The COBIE spreadsheet (see COBIE2 Template) is part of the U.S. National Building Information Model Standard (NBIMS). Third-party utilities facilitate the automatic creation and transfer of some data between BIM and a COBIE spreadsheet via IFC files as an intermediate stage, and some BIM software may include creation of and data transfer to the spreadsheet directly without making use of intermediate IFC files. Where possible, automatic means should be used to create and fill in the COBIE spreadsheet.

The Design/Construction Team shall consult their BIM software vendor(s) for the most current COBIE utilities. However, the completed COBIE worksheets will also contain some information that is entered manually into the electric file, either because the information currently cannot be conveniently extracted from the BIM or because it does not reside in the BIM.

The Design/Construction Team is encouraged to provide as much information in COBIE as is known at the time of the deliverable. The required worksheets in COBIE will be filled out in step with the LoD and Design Phases (see Object Element Matrix).

  • The Design/Construction Team(s) shall submit the most current version of the COBIE spreadsheet with other required deliverables at each Project Phase.
  • With CD deliverables, the COBIE-4- Type and Component worksheets are required. These fields provide component Name, Description, and Creation Date. The medical equipment listed in the VA-SEPS-PFD export shall be noted on the COBIE spreadsheet.

7.9 Clash Detection/Coordination

General

  • It is the Design/Construction Team’s responsibility to conduct and manage an adequate and thorough Clash Detection process so that all major interferences between building components will have been detected and resolved before construction. It shall the goal of the Design/Construction Teams to reduce the number of changes during construction due to major building interferences to zero.
  • The BIM Manager shall assemble a composite model from all of the model parts of each design discipline for the purpose of performing a visual check of the building design for spatial and system coordination. Vertical shafts should also be reviewed to ensure that adequate space has been allocated for all of the vertical mechanical systems and that all of the shafts line up floor to floor. Prior to each scheduled coordination meeting, an updated clash report will be issued by the BIM Manager to the technical discipline consultants.
  • On a multistory project, the models may need to be split on a level-by-level basis for MEPF coordination. If a floor is particularly large, it may also need to be split by zones to reduce file size. Typically, 3D clash detection/coordination continues on a single floor until building systems are fully coordinated, and then continues on the next floor up.
  • Coordination software shall be used for assembling the various design models to electronically identify, collectively coordinate resolutions, and track and publish interference reports between all disciplines. The technical disciplines shall be responsible for updating their models to reflect the coordinated resolution.
  • The team shall review the model and the Clash Reports in coordination meetings on a regular as-needed-5- basis throughout the design phases until all spatial and system coordination issues have been resolved.
  • During the construction phase, the accuracy of fabrication models shall be verified. Prior to each fabrication submittal for approval, fabrication contractors shall submit their models to the Contractor’s BIM Manager for integration and clash detection/coordination and resolution.
  • Internal Clash Resolution – Design Consultants and Subcontractors who are responsible for multiple scopes of work are expected to coordinate the clashes between those scopes prior to providing those models to the BIM Manager for spatial and system coordination.
  • Spatial Coordination Verification: Verification and tracking of resolved conflicts of all trade coordination issues which could result in change orders or field conflicts shall be provided to VA during project milestone dates, and should be fully resolved before bidding.
  • For ease of identification during the 3D Clash Detection/Coordination process, it is recommended that the following trades be represented in these assigned colors:

Trade colors for Clash Detection

Architecture: White
Structural Steel: Maroon
Concrete: Gray
HVAC Equipment: Gold
HVAC Supply Duct/Diffuser: Blue
HVAC Return Duct/Diffuser: Magenta
HVAC Pipe: Gold
Electrical Equipment: Dark Yellow
Electrical Conduits: Light Yellow
Communication Conduit: Light Blue
Electrical Cable Tray: Dark Orange
Electrical Lighting: Yellow
Plumbing Water: Cyan
Plumbing Sewer: Magenta
Plumbing Storm Drain: Green
Fire Protection: Red
Pneumatic Tube: Dark Green
Equipment (Medical): Light Green
Medical Gas: Light Green
Security Systems: Orange
Fire Alarm: Fuchsia.

Minimum Requirements for Spatial Coordination and Clash Detection

  1. Architecture + Structural: Below-grade spaces, proposed floor plates with major penetrations, floor-to-floor heights, beam clearances, heavy utilities locations, floor loads, core, and vertical shafts, beam depths and required clearances, patient lift mechanisms, slab thickness, columns, column caps, and seismic bracing. Provide adequate space for construction and maintenance access to structural elements, building equipment, and distribution systems.
  2. Architecture + MEPF: Structural and space elements, flow and isolation requirements, proposed functional area configurations, floor-to-floor heights, fire containment, vertical and horizontal transportation. Possible future expansions shall be considered and shall be clash-free.
  3. MEPF/HVAC + Architecture, Structure, and Telecommunications: Main distribution and collection systems, configurations and sizes for piping, duct, conduit, power wiring, blowers; diffusers; intakes, large compressors. Clearance reservations for equipment maintenance filter removal, and equipment removal and replacement shall be modeled with the equipment, and sign-off on the adequacy of the space reservations shall be obtained from the facility Chief Engineer.
  4. Architecture + Life Safety Fire Protection: Safe zone and fire suppression pipe location, egress paths and exit distance requirements, equipment, and pipe penetrations.
  5. Medical Equipment + Architecture, MEPF, HVAC, Structural: Medical major equipment positioning and location requirements, medical gases distribution and waste collection, cryogen supply piping for MRI and labs, and cryogen cooling compressors, nurse call systems, public communications, and building controls. This includes major medical equipment adjacencies and shielding barriers, pipes, and venting and air intake locations and other limitations.
  6. Architecture/HVAC + Interiors: Merges shall include ductwork and piping + ceilings and FF&E-6- + HVAC.
  7. Space Validation: There shall be no space gaps. Bounding boxes used to represent room and zone spaces shall match with architectural requirements and data values, and all shall be coordinated with values given in the PFD.
  8. General Model Quality Checking: All walls shall be properly joined to prevent “space leaks” in areas defined by enclosing walls. Bounding boxes shall not conflict.
  9. Security: Security setbacks + structure + site.
  10. Accessibility Compliance: Wheelchair pathways and clearances + structure. (If using Solibri Model Checker or other rules-based model checking software, accessibility compliance can be checked automatically.)

7.10 Virtual Testing and Balancing

The VA requires virtual testing and balancing of the architectural model to support sustainable building systems design and analysis. Room data can be read from the linked architectural model to create mechanical spaces (each space is the same as the room in the architectural model). Multiple spaces are joined to create zones. This data can used to calculate native heating and cooling analysis that is built into the MEP software or exported using gbXML to an external analysis application such as eQuest, Trane/Trace, or DOE based analysis programs. AEs can then bring this data back within the model to check their work. One of the methods is to create a Space/Room schedule that will show calculated air flow vs actual air flow. See figure below. All air flows can be checked for load balance to the terminal box and all the way back to the air handling units. Check with MEP modeling software companies for additional information.

Space Airflow Schedule

-1- Additional space engineering criteria will be added over time.

-2- With the exception of “Army_Cat,” “Navy_Cat,” and “USAF_Cat,” which can be removed.

-3- Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire protection (MEPF)

-4- www.wbdg.org/pdfs/cobie_spreadsheet.pdf

-5- Generally this is weekly

-6- Fixtures, Furniture, & Equipment (FFE)

in this section:

Facility Operations and Maintenance Audits

Is your organization following industry “best practices”?    A operations and maintenance audit my save your firm 15% in energy related costs, and improve  both systems reliablity and “client” satisfaction.

 

Faclities Stewardship
Faclities Stewardship

High Performance Buildings Research and Analytics for Competitive Advantage in HEALTHCARE  

Sustainability and High Building Performance for Existing Hospitals – Hospitals account for a disproportionate percentage of energy consumption, representing a significant opportunity to lower operating costs and minimize carbon footprint.   Drawing upon our nationwide databases and decades of experience, RS Means engineers and analysts off a perspective driven by the power of data mining, predictive analytics, and decades of real world experience.

 

RS Means Operations & Maintenance Audits – Recognizing the disparate needs of healthcare institutions, we offer multiple service levels to help focus resources upon facility operation best practices and projects to optimize building performance and reduce energy impacts.  Our experienced teams can help to identify underperforming structures within your portfolio, and/or building systems within a single hospital.  Traditional approaches have not leveraged standardized cost databases, nationwide data mining, and research analytics to normalize varied content and enforce quality standards, thus lacking the ability to inventory and benchmark, conduct year-over-year analysis, create prioritized project lists, and predict ongoing system requirements.                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Level I—Our collaborative, customized process begins by gathering critical building, system and equipment level information via a “smart survey” questionnaire-based approach. Service efficiency is directly related to highly organized and focused maintenance activities.  By comparing the survey to our knowledge of industry best practices the Level I analysis provide a relative benchmark and associated score on an overall basis and within specifically defined subcategories.                                                                                                                                                                                            

Level II—In addition to a smart survey, Level II involved a site visit by RS Means team members.  During the visit, we will have an opportunity to review on-site documentation as well as view major building systems.  The Level II analysis yields specific, prioritized recommendations for cost savings opportunities.   Deliverables include a critical equipment inventory with associated recommendations spanning operational changes, automated controls, and engineered changes.                                                                                                                                    

Level III— Level III delivers all aspects of the prior stages, plus implementation assistance in the form of a document noting prioritized projects, associated cost and scheduling estimates.  Recommendations are targeted to move existing facilities toward reaching and maintaining a lower carbon diet.

 

  • Critical equipment list
  • Operational changes
  • Automated controls
  • Engineered systems changes

 

Additional Services:

Life Cycle Cost Studies—Our data shows that in 2007, green products entered the construction specifications market at a 22% adoption rate. Life-cycle cost savings are a distinct market advantage for green building products. RSMeans engineers conduct studies can that benchmark present net values and ROI for existing hospitals; multi-year capital renewal, maintenance, and janitorial costs. Customized, robust building cost models, built from RSMeans Square Foot, and Assemblies (Uniformat II) databases, are used for the analysis.

Market Segmentation Analysis—Analysis from actual hospital construction projects as well as geographic market segment (e.g., national, state, MSA).  Market penetrations for building product markets, such as “green products” are calculated for micro market analyses.  Material usage, a significant metric for the analysis, is determined from the “percent of spend” of CSI divisions regarding building materials represented in RSMeans square foot models.

Statistical analysis of Reed Connect “plans and specifications” database identifies architectural influences within contract documents. Studies analyze product adoption for trends as well as competitive analysis. The analysis is available as an executive summary report (e.g. regions, states and vertical markets) or as web-based decision support dashboard.

Market Size & Market Opportunity Dashboards—Multiple drill down layers of analyses provide a quantitative market overview. Dashboard data feeds and analyses include RCD/Means proprietary data, client data, and publicly available data to address questions about market size and growth potential of healthcare construction as well as renovation markets.

 

 

For more information contact RSMeans Business Solutions at 781-422-5101
or email consulting@rsmeans.com