Using the Design-Build Approach to Meet Energy Reduction Goals

1. Using the Design-Build Approach to Meet Energy Reduction Goals March 2012

2. 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

3. Statewide Energy Partnership • 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)

4. Design – Build Contracting • 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%)

5. Design-Build Best Value Contracting • 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

6. Energy Projects Going Forward • 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

7. Statewide Energy Partnership

8. Questions?