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
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 3
2016 BCxA Leadership Conference
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 4
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.
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 5
• 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
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 7
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 Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 8
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
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 9
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
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 10
• 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
$4.50
NCCx Cost/SF Comparison (2009 to 2018)
2018
Building Size (Thousand sq.ft.)
[ - , 50 ] ( 50 , 100 ] ( 100 , 150 ] ( 150 , 200 ] ( 200 , 250 ] ( 250 , 300 ] ( 300 , 350 ] ( 350 , 400 ] ( 400 , 450 ] ( 450 , 500 ] > 500
Num
ber
of B
uild
ings
in D
atas
et
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NCCx Building Size Distribution - 2018 (n=71)
#1‒Building Size Distribution: NCCx
Min 2,700
Median 115,908
Mean 232,409
Max 3,500,000
Num
ber
of B
uild
ings
in 25
30
NCCx Project Size Distribution – 2009 (n=77)
Min 1,227
Median 69,500
Mean 114,467
Max 685,000
13
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
R HE O HI K12 PA I L LOD W HO W FSA POS
Per
cent
of t
otal
pro
ject
s w
ith c
ost d
ata
Market Segment Breakdown (Projects with Cost Data)
2009 2017
#1‒NCCx Cost by Building Type
14
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
R HE O HI K12 PA I L LOD W HO W FSA POS
Per
cent
of t
otal
pro
ject
s w
ith c
ost d
ata
Market Segment Breakdown (Projects with Cost Data)
2009 2017
#1‒NCCx Cost by Building Type
#1‒NCCx Cost by Building Type
HE HI K12 O$-
$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
#1‒NCCx Cost by Building Type
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
#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%
#2 – Reasons for Implementing NCCx
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)
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
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 28
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%
#3 – EBCx Percent Savings
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
201825th percentile 3%
Median 6%75th percentile 10%
#3 – EBCx Percent Savings
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2018 20092009
(adjusted)
Median 6% 16% 10%
#3 – EBCx Percent Savings
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
Median nUtility_1 5% 411Utility_2 7% 156
Utility_MBCx 8% 17
#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
Median nUtility_1 5% 411Utility_2 7% 156
Utility_MBCx 8% 17Other_EBCx 19% 13
#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
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)
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)
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 42
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
EBCx Simple Payback (years) by Data Source (Adjusted to 2017, using Standard Energy Prices)(n=355)
1.3
3.9
0.6
#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
0.6
4.0
#3 – EBCx Simple Payback by Project Type
#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
Research/demonstration/pilot
Comply with existing buildings ordinance
Increase occupant productivity
Extended equipment life
Comply with organizational mandate/policy
Comply with LEED or other rating system
Participation in utility program
Train/increase awareness of operators or occupants
Qualify for rebate, financing, or other services
Ensure adequate indoor air quality
Ensure or improve thermal comfort
Ensure system performance
Obtain energy savings
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
Research/demonstration/pilot
Comply with existing buildings ordinance
Increase occupant productivity
Extended equipment life
Comply with organizational mandate/policy
Comply with LEED or other rating system
Participation in utility program
Train/increase awareness of operators or occupants
Qualify for rebate, financing, or other services
Ensure adequate indoor air quality
Ensure or improve thermal comfort
Ensure system performance
Obtain energy savings
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]
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 55
EBCx Payback - Glean from this data
BCxA Conference – Nashville, TN – October 2018 56
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)