Tom Anderson's presentation at the ASHRAE Winter 2012 Conference in Chicago, IL. Discover how the Design Review (DR) process can provide the building owner with significant value. Done well, a commissioning DR can help the team control construction costs while ensuring that building systems and equipment are optimized to meet the owner's needs. This presentation teaches viewers how to conduct meaningful design reviews to help the design team meet the Owner's Project Requirements. The presentation also addresses the financial benefits of DR, scheduling design review for maximum benefit, the mechanisms of the DR process, and presentation and communication strategies that enable the design team and owner to fully consider alternative approaches proposed in the DR process. This presentation was given by Tom Anderson, CCP, Principal of Cx Associates, LLC, on January 23, 2012 at the ASHRAE Winter 2012 Conference.

1. STRATEGIES FOR A MEANINGFUL
DESIGN REVIEW
THOMAS ANDERSON, CCP
Burlington, Vermont
cx-associates.com
tom@cx-associates.com

2. I. Learning Objectives for this Session
• Understand the methodology and process of
meaningful design reviews
• Learn presentation strategies to enable the designer
and owner to seriously consider suggestions
• Know how to support optimized system performance
through design review
ASHRAE is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems. Credit earned on
completion of this program will be reported to ASHRAE Records for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for non-AIA
members are available on request.
This program is registered with the AIA/ASHRAE 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.
2

3. Design Review Presentation Overview
I. Learning Objectives
II. Benefits
III. Process
IV. Presentation Strategies
V. Conclusion
3

4. Presentation Acronyms
• DR: Design Review
• Cx: Commissioning
• CxA: Commissioning Authority
• OPR: Owners Project Requirements
• BoD: Basis of Design
4

5. II. Design Review Benefits
Owner asks:
• “Why Design Review?”
• “I hire the best architects & engineers.”
5

6. Design Review Benefits
• CxA Provider Offers:
– Independent set of eyes
– Perspective from installations and
operations
– Known areas of concern
• We all have individual, unique blind spots
6

7. Financial Benefits of Design Review
• Can reduce construction costs
– Examples:
• Avoidance of system oversizing
• Chilled Water Design Delta T:
• Initial 10°F Delta T
• DR: Use 15°F Delta T or greater
• Reduced initial cost
• Permanent reduced operating cost
7

8. Financial Benefits
• Real world example:
Burlington International Airport (BTV)
Central Cooling Plant (240 ton)
An Energy Efficiency Upgrade Project
• DR alone increased savings by:
• 150 MWh/yr 75 kW Peak ($7,500./yr)
• DR Cost: $8,000.
8

9. III. Design Review Process
When should DR occur?
IDEALLY:
Schematic Design
Design Development
95% CD (With controls 100% complete)
9

10. III. Design Review Process
DR Verifies Compliance with
• Owners Project Requirements (OPR)
• Basis of Design (BoD)
10

11. DR Process
• DR must be in Cx scope
– Required for LEED Enhanced Cx
• Will not accept project without DR
– (Our company policy)
11

12. DR Process Schedule
• CxA DR: 2 weeks
• Designer Response: 1 week
• CxA reviews response & closes items
with no further action required
• DR Meeting: ASAP
• CxA Updates: 2 days
12

13. DR Meeting
• Face to Face meeting best
• Owner presence is critical
• Discuss solutions and next steps
13

14. Sample DR Table
14

15. Back-check
• Have items been implemented?
• Check at each new DR phase
• Designer follow-through is a frequent
problem
15

16. Back-check
• Required for LEED Enhanced Cx
• Document Back-check Results
• Back-check: include in CxA fee
16

17. IV. Presentation Strategies
• DR Comment Fundamentals:
– Maintain a respectful/positive tone
– Avoid authoritarian tone
– Never ever make Designer look bad
• State the Issue
• State the Solution/Opportunity
17

18. “In Our Experience”
• CxA experience is viable basis
• Relate Cx problems from other projects
• CxA experience will be accepted
– most designers have minimal startup
experience
• “Experience” is objective
18

19. “In Our Experience Example”
A Question Format is
• Highly Effective
• Non Threatening
“Paddle type piping flow switches always
pose a startup problem in our experience
because they require field trimming based
on specific flow.”
“Previous project experience has shown DP
type flow switches are far less problematic.
Could DP switches be specified?”
19

20. Reference Local Codes
Example:
“The control spec calls for mercury type
piping thermometers. Recent State of
Vermont legislation prohibits mercury.”
“Can alcohol type thermometers be used?”
Designer will appreciate being informed
20

21. Design Conflicts
Example:
“Reheat coil detail conflicts with the control
schematic diagram.”
“…reconcile conflicts during final checking.”
“… as the design progresses.”
“… as the design is finalized.”
• Non-threatening
• No one expects error free progress design
21

22. Energy Cost Opportunities
• Identify Opportunity Clearly
• Estimate Annual Savings
• Estimate cost impacts
• Include spreadsheet (.pdf)
22

23. Energy Cost Reduction
Example:
• “Applying a VFD to the constant speed 10
HP HW pump will save 31,000 kWh and
4.5 kW and save $3,800./ Yr.”
• “Installation cost about $1,300.”
23

24. Energy Cost Reduction
CxA’s Need To:
• Have a clear understanding of efficiency
opportunities
• Develop tools to quickly analyze
opportunities
24

25. “Evolving Practice”
Be careful using “Good Practice” in comment:
• Can appear subjective
• Reference “newly available information”
• New approaches have been proven effective
25

26. Evolving Practice Example
• “VAV main supply duct calls for extractors and
splitters. The recently published “Advanced
VAV System Design Guide, California Energy
Commission” suggests avoiding these.
Reference: Advanced VAV System Design Guide, California Energy Commission
26

27. Code/Standard Compliance
Reference a Code or Standard:
• A powerful method
HVAC: ASHRAE, SMACNA, etc.
Plumbing: ASPE, etc.
Lighting: IESNA
27

28. Code/Standard Compliance
Example:
• “Heating HW Control Diagram: VFD pump
DP sensor shown very close to pump sets.”
• “ASHRAE Standard 90.1 – 2007, 6.5.4.1
states, ‘Differential pressure shall be
measured at or near the most remote heat
exchanger or the heat exchanger requiring
the greatest differential pressure.’”
28

29. Design Review Mindset
A Frustratingly Poor Design
• Avoid commenting when frustrated
• Imagine designer is close friend
• Be tactful while working towards Owner’s
best interests
29

30. Design Review Mindset
Recognize:
• Team working to meet Owners‘ interests
• Designers face time & financial pressures
• Share knowledge & experience while being
respectful
(They have knowledge too!)
30

31. Could I Be Wrong?
• Always listen to Designer Response
• Always Possible You Could be Wrong
• Every New Project:
– We Always Learn New Things
31

32. Technical Resources
• California Commissioning Collaborative
• Cx Assistant™
• cacx.org
32

33. Technical Resources
California Commissioning Collaborative:
Design Review Tool Module
Master Reference Guide
http://resources.cacx.org/library/holdings/DesignReview Tool Master Reference Document.pdf
33

34. DR Conclusion
• DR is Most Valuable part of Cx Process
• It’s Really HOW You Say It
• Never Ever Make the Designer Look Bad,
but:
• Be Diligent Looking Out for Owners Interests
34

35. Design Review Conclusion
Thomas Anderson, CCP
tom@cx-associates.com
35