Using the design build approach to meet energy reduction goals
Download
1 / 8

Using the Design-Build Approach to Meet Energy Reduction Goals - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 68 Views
  • Uploaded on

Using the Design-Build Approach to Meet Energy Reduction Goals. March 2012. University of California, Irvine. 457 Buildings comprising 5,480,000 ASF 1,478 acres main campus $16M annual utilities budget Lab buildings consume 2/3 of campus energy. Statewide Energy Partnership.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Using the Design-Build Approach to Meet Energy Reduction Goals' - knox


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

University of california irvine
University of California, Irvine Goals

457 Buildings comprising 5,480,000 ASF

1,478 acres main campus

$16M annual utilities budget

Lab buildings consume 2/3 of campus energy


Statewide energy partnership
Statewide Energy Partnership Goals

  • 3-year agreement between CPUC, IOU’s, UC, CSU

  • Annual reduction and incentive goals

  • $40M project cost over 3-years

  • Year one goal – 16,097,345 kWh & 434,844 Therms

  • Organization couldn’t meet year one goals

  • Utilize ESCO-like best value design-build contract

  • Performance guarantee

    • Annual kWh and therm reduction

    • Maximum acceptance cost (MAC)


Design build contracting
Design – Build Contracting Goals

  • Design-Build performance

    Goal Actual

    • kWh 11,087,623 11,857,975

    • Therms 236,055 371,361

    • MAC $7,800,000 $8,292,910

  • Types of projects completed

    kWh/yr. therms/yr.

    • Lighting 5,719,306 (48%) 0

    • MBCX 2,774,175 (23%) 323,449 (87%)

    • AC Controls 1,804,871 (15%) 47,912 (13%)

    • ESDVR 1,559,623 (13%)


Design build best value contracting
Design-Build Best Value Contracting Goals

  • Pro’s

    • Large quantity of projects completed quickly; achieved year-1 goals

    • Contractor managed numerous groups

    • Performance guarantee

  • Con’s

    • Owner accepts risk that cost savings will be achieved

    • Need in house expertise to verify and monitor

  • Lessons Learned

    • Contractor not used to dealing with Owner technical expertise & involvement

    • Contractor not familiar with SEP approval process

    • Separate contracts by type of work


Energy projects going forward
Energy Projects Going Forward Goals

  • Evaluate your organization

  • Design-build with specialized contractors

    • Less control over design

    • Constant Air Volume to Variable Air Volume

  • Unit price contract

    • Lighting

  • Design – bid – build

    • Retain engineering and design control

    • Exhaust Stack Discharge Velocity Reduction / Wind Response

    • Heavy interaction with end-users

      • CDCV in Vivaria

  • MBCx



Questions
Questions? Goals


ad