The ASHRAE Design Build Survival Guide was first published in 2004. Maybe it was a little bit ahead of its time, but you won't see many areas of the country or project types where design build has not been discussed if not actively pursued as a delivery process. This seminar will take the input gathered from ASHRAE members in Atlanta and present a draft of the new, updated Guide for the membership.

The ASHRAE Design Build Survival Guide was first published in 2004. Maybe it was a little bit ahead of its time, but you won't see many areas of the country or project types where design build has not been discussed if not actively pursued as a delivery process. This seminar will take the input gathered from  ASHRAE members in Atlanta and present a draft of the new, updated Guide providing persepctive from the construction\contractor point of view too.

Design of HVAC&R systems for seismic and wind compliance is required by code.  At least 38 states have seismic requirements and all 50 have wind requirements.  The cost and headaches often associated with implementing the requirements needed to be in compliance has earned seismic/wind design a “necessary evil” label on many jobs.  This session will discuss how early planning can make compliance more cost effective and less hassle.

No matter how advanced the design, mechanical equipment will contribute to objectionable vibration and noise in buildings. Building owners’ and tenants’ increasing demand for a comfortable and productive workspace, and the increased presence of sensitive, high-tech equipment requires vibration and noise control issues be considered. Implementing sound design from the start provides better results and is very cost effective.  Trying to patchwork noise problems late in the project can be very expensive.  This session will examine if, why, or when noise and vibration from HVAC&R equipment causes a problem in buildings, and some practical guidelines to prevent costly errors.

Design-Build is the preferred method for the majority of direct digital control (DDC) contracts. The contractors’ expertise is such that they can deliver the latest, cutting-edge technology faster and more economically. Design-Bid-Build projects may require months or even years to develop construction documents to release for bid, and the DDC systems specified may be outdated before the project is bid. Since the general contractors are in control of the subcontractors, it gives the general contractors the ability to manage the DDC costs and keep the project within budget. The contractors are developing budgets instead of designers; therefore, the likelihood of cost increases and budget delays are reduced. Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build projects are both commissioned in the same way to ensure that the Owner Project Requirements (OPR) are met. The contractor is responsible for developing the most cost-effective solution to meet the project needs which relieves this burden from the owner. For these reasons, it is imperative that DDC contracts be delivered in the Design-Build manner.

When it comes to direct digital control (DDC) contracts, Design-Build is not the preferred method. A Design-Build-Bid method is preferable because of the level of collaboration that must take place in the development of the DDC system between the owner, end users and the designer. Each organization is unique; and so are the requirements for the DDC system. DDC systems are sophisticated and cannot be treated as a commodity, such as drywall or steel. The Design-Build delivery method lends itself to a "one-size-fits-all” approach in which the significance of the DDC system is diminished. If a Design-Build contract does not have clearly defined owner project requirements (OPR) then the owner may not get a DDC system that fits the need of the building. Since the upfront requirements may not be clearly defined for DDC systems in Design-Build contracts, this opens the door for DDC contractor change orders during construction. For these reasons, it is imperative that DDC contracts be delivered in the traditional Design-Bid-Build manner.

For an effective and complete project, it is the role of the criterion engineer to not only provide the basis of design and program requirements such that a “qualified” DB contractor can bid, design and construct the project, also, the criterion engineer must review and verify the contractors design to assure that it meets the basis of design and program requirements.  In addition the responsibility of the criterion engineer is to confirm by review items, in order to assure that the owner has received the quality and type of project as contracted, by the engineer providing construction observation and administration.

What is the contractor to quote if the criterion engineer requests an incomplete system that may not be correctly sized for the project? The contractor is at risk to deliver a complete system, with all operational components from abridging documents that are purposely incomplete. This contractor is responsible to hire the design build engineer of record, responsible for a complete functional system after he has quoted a fixed cost for the system. In this example, relationships clouded best practice.

The relationship between criterion engineer and design build engineer is a critical link on a design build project. The role of owner’s advocate will shift from criterion engineer to design build engineer during the project’s timeline. This presentation will discuss how factors such as communication between the criterion engineer and design build engineer, the criterion engineer’s project involvement after bridging documents have been issued, liability and risk levels, relationships with the building’s owner, and changes in the building’s design influence the design build engineer’s decision making process.