bid specification, life cycle costing and intelligent buildings rawlson o’neil king communications...

Bid Specification, Life Cycle Costing and Intelligent Buildings

Rawlson O’Neil KingCommunications DirectorContinental Automated Buildings Association

International not-for-profit industry association

Dedicated to the advancement of intelligent home and intelligent

building technologies

Membership driven

Provides members with networking and market research opportunities

Celebrating 25th anniversary in 2013

About CABA

www.CABA.org

Prepared by:

Intelligent Buildings and the Bid-Specification Process

Project Objectives

Key Research Objectives:

The key objectives of this research are as follows:

• Evaluate the main aspects of the bid specification process• Understand how decisions are made in the process and the role of key influencers in

such decisions• Determine the optimal way of working with various stakeholders involved in the

process• Create the right customer and partner awareness approaches to achieve better

technology adoption• Understand common goals and objectives that can be established for various

participants to work cohesively for success• Understand the changing dynamics of the industry and the impact on intelligent

building solutions and services• Create the right business approach to respond to changing demand• Define opportunities and prospects for market participants

4


Methodology

The approach and methodology combined primary and secondary research. The primary research sample categorization included the following:

Fulfillment Partners include Consulting Spec Engineers/Design Build Firms/Architects/ESCOs

Others include CIOs, Associations, etc.

Total sample size: N=60

5


Key Takeaways

The key takeaways of this research are as follows:

•Intelligent building owners consider technology integration to be important. However, the

investment and perceived value derived from it are not well aligned. Lack of product knowledge is a

common issue among most owners and operators.•The demand potential for intelligent building solutions is further impacted by the perceived price-

performance ratio of these products. Building owners do not have a clear idea of the actual benefits

of buying these products and solutions.•Bid specification (also referred to as bid and spec, hereafter) is considered an integral part of the

technology procurement processes in the intelligent building industry.•However, present bid and spec processes followed in the industry lack transparency, are price

driven, and do not offer adequate impetus to the incorporation of intelligent technologies.•The issue lies in the fact that technology suppliers do not have a good grasp of spec practices,

and likewise, spec providers lack a thorough understanding of technology advancements.•There is a greater need for vendors and service providers to collaborate and create joint bid and

spec business models to service the intelligent building market.•The immediate need for industry participants is to organize initiatives to work together, and create

structural frameworks for joint collaboration in developing building technology and spec

development practices.

6


State of the Industry

Industry Transition• A gradual state of transition from

conventional to intelligent buildings• Consensus on fundamental principles:

• Definition of intelligence• A buildings’ intrinsic

relationships with energy• Critical importance of energy

efficiency, operational cost savings, and return on investment (ROI)

• Policy impetus and energy mandates

New Challenges• Incorporating non-conventional project

partners• Price Pressures• Notion of single supplier• Differentiating buyer from installer• Technology silos

Megatrends

S hift to IP F eature -R ich P roducts

Interoperability

C onvergence

Improved S torage

P rice/ P erformance

R O I

E nergy Mandates

G reen E conomy

S mart G rid

C onvergence

Advanced Analytics

R O I

S ys tem Integration

Megatrends

S hift to IP F eature -R ich P roducts

Interoperability

C onvergence

Improved S torage

P rice/ P erformance

R O I

E nergy Mandates

G reen E conomy

S mart G rid

C onvergence

Advanced Analytics

R O I

S ys tem Integration

Key Trends and Dynamics

7


Major Participant Groups

Participant Roles and Responsibilities

Owner/Real Estate Developer

Defines the project requirements for the design and/or contracting/ construction team

Consulting Engineer (CE)/ Designer/ Design Build (DB) Firm

Responsible for completing a final project design and providing detailed construction drawings, technology specifications, and supporting documents

Contractors and System Integrators (SI)

Responds to requests for bids by submitting proposals; Procures systems to meet consultants’ design and fulfills the installation process

Distributors Coordinates shipment of the equipment to the job site or the contractor’s shop

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) and Information Technology (IT) Vendors

Works closely with manufacturer representatives to assist in the equipment delivery process

Energy Service Company (ESCO)

Works with the owner to establish the measures that will be adopted and determines a baseline energy performance for the purpose of comparing energy savings and ensuring delivery of guarantees

8


Bid-Specification Methods

Design-bid-build•Starts with the owner contracting the design process to a fulfillment partner•No overlap of tasks•Contracts with separate parties for design and construction

Design-build and Performance Contracts•Single party for both the design and construction•Overlap of tasks reduces delivery time•Better adherence to specs

Construction Management (CM)*•CM firm acts as overall advisor•CM contracts third parties•Guaranteed maximum price

• The end-user community considers these methods to be part of a well accepted structure.

• Methods allow them to maximize the value on what they spend.• Methods also ensure that the involvement of right partners in execution and

implementation is done in a justifiable manner.

*Also referred to as Project Management (PM)

9


Challenges with the Present Methods

Design-bid-build•Takes longer to deliver, and increases the likelihood of change orders and delay claims

•Building owner/operator’s limited visibility to actual construction/installation costs

•Accountability issues, owing to no single point of responsibility for project delivery

Design-build and Performance Contracts•Leads to conflict of interest, with DB/CE and contractor being on the same team

•Although owner/operator is guaranteed construction/installation cost, these are non-competitive

•Involvement of owner/operator is only at the early stages of the process, with no impartial agent to

represent owners’ interests

Construction Management•Leads to added costs to owner for hiring the CM/PM, paper work, and administrative time

•May lead to cheaper products and services to offset risks and additional costs

•Can cause conflict of interest, with one entity assuming multiple roles

10


Process Optimization

The following aspects need to be incorporated in the present bid and spec methods:

•Opting for Objective Points Criteria - An objective evaluation criterion is required to ensure that product and

technology selection is based on some quantification of actual benefits to the project/building.

•Role of Quality Surveyor/Advisor - Given the disconnect among various delivery partners in the bid spec

processes, there is a critical need for autonomous supervision to ensure that processes are followed transparently

and the correct choices are made in selection of products, technology and services.

•Create Scope for New Vendors - Creating scope for the inclusion of these smaller players is necessary, as it

allows the building owner to take advantage of new innovative technology – at pricing that may not be available

from larger vendors.

•Avoid Cost Thresholds - Removing this component could potentially help optimize the process and allow for

the inclusion of more vendors and suppliers into the selection process.

•Mandate a Feedback Loop - Including this as a prescriptive requirement into the contractual process can offer

valuable insights into technology performance, cost-benefit evaluation and establish their importance in intelligent

building projects.

•Integrated Value Chain and Delivery Approaches - This will prompt suppliers and service providers to

collaborate and offer the most optimal solution, while capitalizing on collective bargaining capabilities to influence

selection.

11


Project Cases

Project/Arranger Details

Chandler Regional Medical Center, Chandler, Arizona, United States

Arranged by Dignity Health Org. and Siemens Industry, Inc.

• Healthcare facility, Arizona• Demand flow optimization process• Pre-construction services for integrated design

delivery

Bell Trinity Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Arranged by Northam Realty Advisors

• Bell Trinity Tower, Toronto• Commercial multi-tenant facility• Design build bid spec process• Chilled water plant replacement

Ardo Food Storage and Distribution, Kent, United Kingdom

Arranged by Digital Lumens, Titchfield Group, and Ardo

• Food cold storage warehouse and distribution facility - renovation and retrofit project, U.K.

• Lighting systems replacements with LED systems• Design build bid and spec approach

Kwantlen University, Cloverdale, British Columbia, Canada

Arranged by Kwantlen Group, Delta Controls and ESC Automation

• Institutional facility – combination of new and renovation projects

• Integrated design delivery approach via adherence to performance specs

12


Conclusions

• The distinctively disjointed and transactional model leads to low technology adoption• Collaboration is required between fulfillment partners, vendors and suppliers

13

LIFE CYCLE COSTING AND INTELLIGENT BUILDINGS

LANDMARK RESEARCH STUDY

www.CABA.org

Prepared by:


Technology Transitions in Buildings

Technology Transitions in Buildings


Typical Lifecyle of Buildings and Associated Costs


Life Cycle Costs Approaches Adopted in Buildings


Life Cycle Costing Adoption Influencers


Market Approach to Life Cycle Costing Implementation


Key Findings

• Concerted initatives adopted by institutional bodies and technical organizations over the last two decades have brought the life cycle costing concept to theforefront of pre-project evaluations in many industries, including intelligent buildings and construction.

• Despite gaining early focus, LCC has remained largely confined to project evaluations in the federal government sector, with very limited frequency of usewitnessed in other vertical segments. This is attributed to a variety of factors including inconsistent methodologies, lack of valid data, irreconcilable values,and apathy of building owners, vendors and service providers to voluntarily incorporate LCC into the early phases of a project.


Key Findings

• Nevertheless, the need to logically approve capital investments and validate ROI and equity, cost assessment tools have come a necessary part of the project flow,even though a full-fledged LCC approach may not be pursued.

• LCC is often substituted by simple payback analysis and other capital costjustification methods to meet the same objective. They offer the minimum requiredincentive to bridge the gap between having to accommodate untendered costs as opposed to allowing paramterically justified investment.

• Intelligent buildings essentially fall within two major categories: partially-integratedand fully-integrated. The true value of effective O&M, progressive asset management and cost savings via predictive energy management are onlyachieveable with a fully integrated approach. This, in turn, is reliant on the buildingindustry’s motivation to adopt open standards and integrated systems, selected onthe basis of their ability to offer lowest lifecycle costs.


Key Findings

• Intelligent building industry participants are showing gradual signs of movingaway from putting undue emphasis on initial costs and simple payback, towardsa more holistic approach where recurring costs, incentives and lifecycleassessments are taken into consideration, albeit slowly.

• A major drawback in the presently used LCC methods is that these are characterized by the absence of a consistent methodology for deriving LCC. But perhaps more hindering than this issue is the fact that the majority of these tools and calculation techniques cannot be easily comprehended by buildingowners and their operations staff.

• A fragmented delivery chain and transactional interactions among value chainpartners further act as restraining factors in LCC adoption.


Key Findings

• It is encouraging to witness a growing breed of building owners and assetmanagers that lay emphasis on superimposing cost-benefit analysis over an extended project life span, whereby better visibility into recurring costs andincentives can be obtained.

• Among prevalent LCC tools, the NIST-BLCC tool is by far the mostwidely accepted, and forms the basis of various customized LCC techniques.

• There is a greater need for consultants, owners, vendors and serviceproviders to collaborate and create a market approach to promote inclusive decision making so that integrated design and delivery approaches are supported.

• The immediate need for industry participants is to organize initiatives to worktogether and create structural frameworks for joint collaboration in technologydeployment as well as propagating LCC adoption.

1173 Cyrville Road, Suite 210Ottawa, ON K1J 7S6

613.686.1814Toll free: 888.798.CABA (2222) Fax: 613.744.7833

[email protected]

http://www.twitter.com/caba_newshttp://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2121884

http://www.CABA.org

Your Information Source for Home & Building Automation

bid specification, life cycle costing and intelligent buildings rawlson o’neil king communications...

Documents

intelligent building

intelligent building

intelligent building

intelligent building

joint bid

bidspecification processstate

present bid

developing building