Read more: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/real-estate/2013/03/ut-geology-school-remodel-revolves.html

Project Description

Our industry is also trending towards the “more for less” mentality. In construction, it goes kind of like this. More: spend a little more time and money early to better get things done right the first time (e.g., 3D modeling and coordination). Less: when you provide More, you will spend Less in labor, waste materials, change orders, RFIs, etc. As a living testament, some of our teams/clients have indicated up to 10-15% overall labor savings when this approach was used. (Tune into our next newsletter for observations about this More for Less trend in the design industry.)
We have consolidated and dubbed construction related services as our Construction Support Services (TGCE CSS). These services include, but are not limited to: project management (as an Owner’s representative); BIM integration (navisworks coordination); enhanced construction administration; commissioning (Cx); shop drawings preparation and their conflicts resolution; systems troubleshooting; and aiding in preparing/reviewing contractor qualification packages.
From concept to completion, whether our design or not, our firm merges experienced judgment, current and emerging technologies, and old fashioned hard work to create a path for success. What separates us from the others? Industry colleagues have told us we just seem to “care more”. So perhaps what is routine for us is viewed as going the extra mile in an effort to provide an innovative yet functional result, in both design and construction.
~ Greg Maxwell, LEED AP – Designer/Technologist

Too often we tend to keep our head down and ignore one of the delights of life…interaction. Communicating on more of a personal level is key to everyone, as individuals…as humans. Our original purpose in creating The Innovator was to try and regain some ground in the communication realm.

Our goals have been not only to highlight the projects on which we have worked, but also to recognize those who worked on the projects along side us. The entire team is what makes TGCE strive for excellence every time.

We’re honored to have received the SMPS Austin Chapter 2011 Communications Award for the Best External Newsletter. Here’s what some of the judges had to say:

With an average of a 51% read rate and continued compliments from our clients, colleagues, family and friends, it is safe to say that we will keep on keeping on. Thank you all for your contributions. YOU have made The Innovator the success it has become. If you’re unfamiliar with our media outlet, please subscribe here.

Rarely can a student be pushed into engineering. The attrition rate of engineering schools is indicative of that. For an individual to be successful in engineering, he or she must be inspired. It is that inspiration that enables engineering students to dredge through the rigors of engineering school. It is that inspiration that keeps young engineers at the office well into the night as they search for solutions to complex problems. It is that inspiration that allows seasoned engineers to change their communities, their industries, and the world. But where does this inspiration come from?

Every generation of engineers has found their inspiration from a combination of the works of the generations before them and world events. At the turn of the century, mankind was introduced to new technologies ranging from electricity to the automobile to manned flight. Each of these technologies was created to meet the needs of a society transitioning to the modern world. These scientific and engineering marvels, paired with two world wars, provided inspiration and motivation for the next generation of engineers to pioneer Hoover Dam, mobile infantry, and naval aviation. Inspiration from these feats, in addition to the political influence of the Cold War, led the next generation of engineers to develop satellites and technologies required for human space flight that ultimately led to human lunar exploration. The list goes on…

Fast forward a few generations and the question becomes: What past engineering accomplishments and what present world events can we tout as the inspiration for the next generation of engineers? This question can be difficult to answer when broadly comparing our situations today with those of the generations listed above. After all, this generation hasn’t been tasked with landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade. However, a closer look does provide clear opportunities for inspiring the next generation of engineers.

1. Limited resources in the midst of growing population and consumption: It’s no secret we live on a planet with finite resources. How could it be? Copious sums of money have been spent on increasing awareness of our finite resources and the need to reduce our consumption. These conditions make the issue of renewable energy a topic of which all students should be aware. Students simply need to be made aware of the opportunities that exist for engineers in the renewable industry. Plant the seed for inspiration and the marketing and advertising campaigns should take care of the rest.
2. Smart phones and the mobile revolution: Similar to the example above, large sums of money have been spent on informing people of advances in mobile computing technology (smartphones, tablets, etc.). Furthermore, tech companies that create these devices have developed a corporate culture that appeals to the younger generations. Once again, showing students the opportunities that exist for engineers in the tech industry is about all that needs to be done. Let them know they can design the newest, greatest iWhatever, and they very well might.
3. Austin skyline and local population growth: The Austonian really is a beautiful building. So are a lot of the buildings surrounding it. It’s a good thing too, since these buildings are often a visitor’s first impression of the city (and they’ve also been cited as a reason many people return). Growing the Austin skyline presents an appealing challenge to architects and engineers, and it’s a challenge that will remain for the foreseeable future given the current rate of population growth in central Texas. A building and the opportunity surrounding it can be very inspirational to students, especially in the current job market.

If these examples seem very formulaic, it’s because they are. To inspire the next generation of engineers, key on engineering accomplishments and current events they can relate to, and give them the whole picture. Share with them what opportunities exist in the different engineering fields and show them paths to get there. The problem of a shrinking engineering population falls at the feet of those who’ve already found their inspiration. The engineering community must become more involved in schools, engineering education, and mentoring programs to ensure further generations of engineers emerge to replenish the ranks. ~ Jay Young, E.I.T., LEED AP

What can be done? Certainly replacing the old internally lined ductwork with new externally insulated ductwork is an option. However, the duct replacement process can be very costly and disruptive to building operations. In most cases, replacing the ductwork is not feasible due to cost and/or disruption. Owners end up having the ductwork cleaned…and then cleaned again…and again.

TGCE has successfully implemented an alternative solution.

While the process described below is not necessarily new, it has been improved over the years. And as with any other job, the experience and care brought to it by the individuals performing it greatly affect the results.

The solution includes gently but effectively cleaning the inside surface of the duct liner, “fogging” inside the ductwork with disinfectant, and then applying an anti-microbial coating to the surface of the duct liner. The coating serves two purposes: it encapsulates any leftover contaminants residing within the insulation (i.e. not on the surface), and it prohibits mold growth in the insulation and on its surface.

The pictures below represent before vacuum cleaning, after vacuum cleaning, and after coating conditions of internally lined ductwork. It’s all a little different than what the movies portray, huh?

When considering this solution, it’s important to note that holes must be cut at strategic locations in the ductwork. In addition to allowing the cleaning, fogging, and coating processes to occur, these holes are used to visually inspect the inside of the ductwork after each step. As a rule of thumb, holes are needed upstream and downstream of fittings (elbows, offsets, etc.) and can serve up to 25 ft. of straight ductwork. ~ Greg Canter, P.E., LEED AP – Senior Engineer

A successful program will allow the design phase to begin with the owner’s goals and requirements documented/understood and with a preliminary construction budget aligned with the project scope and requirements.

What is programming?

Programming is the process of obtaining and analyzing an owner’s requirements for a project, guiding the owner’s prioritization of his requirements and producing documentation of these requirements. The basic information needed to design the project should be in the resulting programming document.

Programming will provide a platform for stakeholder input on what should be in the project, allow for options to be developed and considered, distinguish “needs” from “wants”, and develop consensus on decisions in an organized, logical sequence.

While many public entities require programming for all of their larger projects, some public organizations and many private sector  owners/clients are not on board with the concept of programming and do not understand the reasons and benefits of going through this pre-design process. Thus, it becomes incumbent on A/E’s to present the value of the programming process to their clients. While programming will have a “relatively” small up-front cost to the owner/client, there is research available (Construction Industry Institute for one) that a well conducted programming effort will likely appreciably reduce overall project costs, decrease the uncertainty in final project cost and schedule and better meet the Client’s requirements/goals.

The figure below depicts the underlying premise of programming: You can influenence/affect the outcome of a project the most during pre-project planning and for the smallest expenditure. Conversely, exerting a small influence on a project during construction (read change order) has a high relative associated expenditure.

From the A/E perspective, the absence of a formal programming process for a larger, loosely defined project puts the A/E in the position of trying to program during schematic and design development stages of a project. For many reasons, this situation is undesirable for both the Client and the A/E. Instead of beginning to structure and develop the design as is the intent of these early phases, design tasks become interwoven with programming tasks leading to a one-step forward and two-steps back scenario frustrating all involved. The result is often that all stakeholder requirements are not fully vetted and the A/E spends double the time their fee allotted for these stages without fully satisfying their Client. Scope and budget alignment is also difficult with this scenario because you have a continuously moving target.

So when the project size and type can justify a programming effort, it is in the best interest of all involved for the A/E to pro-actively present a sound, logical case for programming to their clients. – Tod Thompson , P.E., LEED AP – Principal Engineer.

The current norm as expressed by industry-recognized contracts is for the construction team to perform its work consistently with the construction documents. There is a reasonable process within those contractual norms to review the construction performed by the contractors; that is, what I call the static elements of the work. However, there is little process in these contractual norms to review and verify proper operation of the dynamic systems built by the construction team.

Why is that? I believe there are a couple of primary reasons. First, historically, the systems were generally straightforward, and their operation was limited and reasonably well understood by building operators. Secondly, the above mentioned contractual industry norms evolved with a general focus on low first cost, including that for the design professionals.

The problem with this model is that as dynamic building systems (e.g. M, E, P) became more sophisticated, the operational verifications and fine tuning that were necessary didn’t occur, and buildings were delivered incomplete.  The industry contractual norms stayed with the low first cost model, so this thing called “Commissioning” moved into the building industry to fill the gap.

And how is that gap being filled today? In many cases, it is not. Owners’ positions can state “why should I have to pay for extra work to get the constructed product I am supposed to be getting anyway?” A fair question, no doubt. The answer lies in some mix of the model of low first cost in construction and professional services contracts no longer being compatible with the sophisticated dynamic systems needed to meet today’s expectations of safety, comfort, air quality and efficiency.

In those cases where the gap is being filled, to one degree or another, it is most often being done with a new set of service providers known as the commissioning authority (CxA). This third party (not on the construction team, not on the professional A/E team) is retained by the owner in a support role intended to verify the project is delivered complete and ready for occupancy. The CxA, however, generally has little authority to tune and adapt engineered systems and little contractual responsibility (liability) in the performance result. In addition, there is considerable redundancy in the CxA’s services with those provided by the professional design team. And while an overlap is not a bad thing, neither is it an inexpensive thing.

Even with the CxA on the project, however, an important gap remains: the sophisticated systems are not all verified and tuned together to get the operation (efficiency, safety, reliability, air quality, etc.) intended by the design and deliverable by the systems. What, you say? Not all verified and not tuned? Correct.

The role of the CxA is generally limited to installation and control details prescribed in the documents. It does not include verifying all the engineered systems work together and are properly adjusted and tuned. Doing that would be engineering, and that role is limited to the engineers, but it is not contracted to the engineer. Why, you say? Reasons most likely vary. My experience suggests it is some mix of not wanting to pay additionally for these services which are not in the base engineering contract, and the (mis)impression that the CxA is able to direct this adjusting and tuning.

The solution? In the immediate term, owners, the A/E community, and the CxA community need to recognize the current model delivers neither the owners’ expectations of readiness nor the engineer’s intent on performance. Owners need to be open to the reality that their design engineers should be tasked with and paid for performing integrated systems verifications and for directing construction forces to provide proper adjustments and tuning.

In the near term, it is believed the current third party CxA will evolve to including this responsibility in the design engineer’s scope and compensation, at least for those firms experienced and adept  in providing those services. The reasons for this forecasted evolution are simple- the redundancy/overlap between the CxA and the A/E is removed; hence, the costs are reduced, and the construction and design lines of responsibility (liability) are not muddied with the insertion of a third party. Both of these reasons benefit the owner.

It is true that currently some engineering firms are not as qualified to perform this CxA role as others, but then neither were many of the CxAs when they first began. As with any project, the engineer’s selection should be a proper fit for that project, including Cx where it is included. As engineers more routinely provide commissioning and commissioning verification services, their qualifications will grow just as has occurred with the CxA community. And in the process, the overall costs to the Owner will shrink.

So, there you have it. A summary on Cx from one who has seen it developing, all the way to where its “full circle” will (I predict) take it. Your thoughts and questions will be welcomed. Best to all. – Tom Green, P.E., LEED AP – Principal Engineer

First, just what is “Commissioning”? Colleague Mike Green, P.E., of MEP Engineering has answered, “It depends.” I would agree. Yes, it depends, for Commissioning can range from Cx “Lite” to Cx with full documentation and engineering verifications. And the whole range can be, and often is, called Commissioning.

One reported origin relates Cx back to the Navy (circa 1863) as a way to confirm that ships and submarines were seaworthy and ready for battle. It was performed by those who built the vessel, with guidance, direction and verification provided by those who designed the vessel AND by those who would operate it. This was a pretty important process, as there was no room for failure.

This basic model was, over time, adapted to land-based enterprises, mostly for all kinds of industrial facilities such as refineries, power plants, manufacturing and the like. In the 1980’s, a few specific owners and projects began to include Cx, ASHRAE formed its Cx Guidelines Committee, and in the latter ‘80’s published its first HVAC Commissioning Guideline.

In the 1990’s, the benefits of Cx began to be recognized for the increasingly sophisticated building systems, particularly those in the HVAC realm. Accordingly, Cx began to emerge in the institutional and commercial building sectors, seamingly focused in the public sector. Since circa 2000, Cx has spread to fairly completely encompass larger scale public and private sector building projects. Market penetration into smaller projects, whether public or private sectors, remains spotty but with growth. But what is “it” that has spread in the last decade? Again, “it depends.”

Currently, the reality is that there is no industry practice or uniform definition for Cx. True, there are some written standards by recognized authorities such as ASHRAE, but there is no uniform application of them. Even the large public sector institutions, which have been the main proponents for Cx in the building industry have typically developed their own Cx expectations, specifications and procedures.

As for me, I think the variety is a good thing. There should be no attempt at a “one size fits all” metric for the building industry. Doing so, quite literally stifles thought, imagination and innovation and increases costs. Robots are great in many applications. They should gain no toehold, however, in the individual artistry and ingenuity of the building industry.

Look for Part II in the next newsletter. It will present arguments for customized levels of Cx which are tuned for the needs of an owner and a project type. It will also discuss the Engineering aspects of Cx, and who should be candidates for doing what in the undefined world of Commissioning. – Tom Green, P.E., LEED AP – Principal Engineer