CREJ

March 2020 — Office Properties Quarterly — Page 19 www.crej.com Regulatory I f you’ve permitted a project in the city of Denver over the past few years, you’ve prob- ably noticed a new require- ment: building commissioning. Included as part of the 2016 amend- ment to the International Energy Conservation Code and enforced by the Permitting Department, projects now are required to provide a letter along with their permit submission to verify that a qualified commission- ing provider has been hired. Denver isn’t the only municipal- ity requiring commissioning. In fact, the state of Colorado and many local jurisdictions have required building commissioning for some time now, but its role and return on investment have remained understated and often misunderstood. n Closing the gap point 1: Operating efficiency. OK, so commissioning is now an energy code requirement, but why? What value does commission- ing bring to the building design and construction process? The intent of the building commis- sioning process is to verify that the building’s energy consuming systems are functioning and operating accord- ing to the owner’s requirements and the design intent. By doing so, signifi- cant energy savings can be realized, as well as reductions in nonenergy- related operating costs. In fact, there’s a substantial gap in operating efficiency between buildings that are commissioned and those that are not, about 15% on average. n Getting in on the (third) party: The role of your commissioning provider. It’s important to understand the role that the commissioning provider plays within the project team. The commissioning provider drives the commissioning process, defines the team member roles and responsibili- ties, and acts as an owner’s advocate throughout the entire design and construction pro- cess. The goal of any reputable commissioning provider is to give the building owners an unbiased verification that their build- ing is performing as expected by the design. To this end, it’s highly prefer- able to utilize an independent, third- party commissioning provider, so as to reduce any conflicts of interest. It’s further preferable that the owner execute a service contract directly with a third-party commissioning provider to further insulate the com- missioning provider from any bias. In the same way that a building inspector is a direct representative of the local jurisdiction, so should a commissioning provider be a direct representative of the owner. n Payback time: The ROI on com- missioning. Building owners may wonder: What return can I expect to see on my investment? After all, many of us have good intentions about reducing our energy waste and carbon footprint, but at what cost? Why invest in commissioning instead of other energy conserva- tion measures like LED lighting, solar or more efficient heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems? It turns out that building commis- sioning has one of the lowest pay- back periods of any energy conserva- tion measures, at about two years on average, according to a study performed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. This is in line with LED lighting payback periods, at about 1½ years average. For perspective, solar panels and solar hot water payback periods come in around six and four years, respectively. The capital costs to implement commissioning are relatively low as well, at around 0.4% of total construc- tion costs on average, which includes the commissioning provider’s fee as well as the additional time required by other members of the construc- tion team. Because commissioning is a quality control process, there are no additional infrastructure or equip- ment costs. The cost of commission- ing comes in the form of additional labor hours on the part of project team members. The nonenergy-related benefits of commissioning are an added bonus that can offset the cost of commis- sioning on their own. These include reduced hot/cold calls, organization of operations and maintenance and training materials, reduced frustra- tion and learning time on the part of facility engineers, identification and documentation of warranty issues, and reduction in post-warranty equipment failures. Many building owners rely heavily on commis- sioning providers to be their eyes, ears and advocate on site during the building turnover process. n Closing the gap point 2: Opera- tional scope. For office construction projects, whether core and shell, tenant improvement or complete new build, the importance of a properly commissioned building cannot be overstated. Commission- ing is especially critical for systems that interact across both core and shell and tenant improvement por- tions of a project. The classic example of this sys- tem division is a central air-han- dling unit with downstream vari- able air volume terminal units. Spec office buildings typically are built without being fully leased, leav- ing empty floors for future tenant improvements. These separations between core systems and tenant equipment can leave large gaps in operational scope. A seasoned com- missioning provider will ensure that these scope gaps are closed, that adjustments are made to the exist- ing core systems, and that the new TI equipment doesn’t negatively affect existing floors or tenants. Given the continual trends and push toward a more energy-effi- cient state, including the city of Denver’s goal for all new build- ings to be net zero energy by 2035, building commissioning is here to stay in Colorado. With this in mind, building project teams are encour- aged to embrace commissioning as a process that can add value for all project team members. The more we collectively understand about the commissioning process, the better the outcomes will be for all stakeholders. s Building commissioning in Denver is here to stay Francis McGarey Senior engineering manager, stok SOLVE. BUILD. DELIVER. 12789 Emerson Street Thornton, CO 80241 303.813.0035 info@allianceconstruction.com allianceconstruction.com