Value Statement
Project Economic Value Summary
Introduction
1. ICE�s participation in the commissioning / functional performance testing of mechanical systems has spanned a time period of approximately 34 months (July 1999 through April 2002) with the final commissioning fieldwork / performance verification being completed on 1/30/02. As previously stated, the commissioning procedures utilized by ICE followed the general format of ASHRAE Guideline 1-1996, The HVAC Commissioning Process, and every attempt was made to ensure that the functional performance checks implemented would enable the State to receive mechanical systems that performed in accordance with the original project documents and the design intent.
2. In executing commissioning procedures, it is ICE�s goal to facilitate the systematic identifying, documenting, reporting and correcting of any and all deficiencies and / or other problem issues that could prevent a facility from performing as designed, thereby ensuring that the owner receives full value for his investment. ICE includes a �value statement� / economic evaluation with its final commissioning reports in order to provide the owner a realistic assessment of the value he has actually received.
3. The �value statement� serves to demonstrate why including commissioning on a project, more than any other means, truly enables an owner to receive full value for his investment. The value statement accomplishes this by placing a �dollar� value on the more significant deficiencies and / or omissions described in the final commissioning report.
4. It is ICE�s intent that this report will assist the State in evaluating the economic impact that identified deficiencies have had on capital investment costs and will continue to have on owning and operating costs, especially if left unaddressed. It has been ICE�s frequent experience that the dollars saved through the commissioning process, exceed the actual cost of the commissioning services purchased.
B. Economic Impact Categories
1. LOSS OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Items that have already been bought and paid for by the owner to perform at a specified design capacity level, but which are performing at a level significantly below that which was purchased. Stated another way, this category represents installed cooling capacity, which the owner had paid full price for but due to system / equipment deficiencies, manufacturing defects and / or the manner in which the equipment has been set up, has not been realized. Consequently, the owner has incurred a loss on his capital investment. This item constitutes a one time economic loss.
2. INCREMENTAL ENERGY PENALTY: Because of the reduced available cooling capacity described in Item #1, the central refrigeration equipment (chillers, cooling tower, air handlers) will normally experience extended operating time to satisfy space cooling loads. The extended refrigeration equipment operating time produces an incremental energy penalty, which represents an increase in the annual operating cost of the facility. This item constitutes an annual economic loss.
3. DUCT AIR LEAKAGE: When duct air leakage is present, the air handling unit supply air fan (or system exhaust fan) must deliver increased airflow to offset the leakage rate, while still supplying the specified designed airflow to the space. Stated another way, the owner is forced to pay for more airflow and brake horsepower than he contracted for, just to get the specified design airflow at the use point, because of the presence of duct air leakage. A 10% duct air leakage rate means that the air handler will have to develop 33% more horsepower to get design airflow to the use-point. The leakage rate is calculated by subtracting the summation of airflows measured at the individual supply air (SA) outlets or exhaust air inlets from the airflow obtained by traverse at the air handler or exhaust fan. The increased brake horsepower required to obtain the specified design airflow in the space represents an increase in the annual operating cost of the facility�s HVAC systems. This item constitutes an annual economic loss.
4. EXCESS MOTOR HORSEPOWER: Improper or incomplete installation work, improper equipment start-up / checkout or improper maintenance that has resulted in increased system static pressure loss. Items in this category include improper air handling unit discharge connections; wrong size fan or motor sheaves; improper, high DP ductwork fittings; missing square turn elbow turning vanes; misapplied duct liner; dirty filters; and dirty or iced-over cooling coils. The increased system static pressure loss has increased fan system brake horsepower unnecessarily, and represents an increase in the annual operating cost of the facility�s HVAC system. This item constitutes an annual economic loss.
5. IMPROPER CONTROLS SET-UP: Improper or incomplete control systems installation and checkout and / or failure to implement proper point-to-point checkout procedures on all system control points that has resulted in inefficient operation of HVAC systems / equipment. Items in this category include improperly set up control valve and / or damper actuators and pilot positioners, improperly set up laboratory airflow control systems (i.e. terminal box / exhaust air valve / fume hood exhaust fan combinations), improperly set up variable air volume (VAV) and fan powered terminal boxes and uncalibrated control system hardware including flow, temperature and pressure sensors. Inefficient control system operation can lead to scenarios where systems / equipment are simultaneously heating and cooling, operating at system pressures in excess of what is needed, or operating at higher or lower airflow / waterflow values then is required. Any of these items will result in increased system energy utilization, which represents an increase in the annual operating cost of the facility�s HVAC system. This item constitutes an annual economic loss.
6. MISCELLANEOUS / TANGIBLE: Defective equipment from the manufacturer and items that were omitted by the installing contractor(s), but were required by the project design documents and paid for by the owner, and for which no permission to delete or modify was ever issued. Items in this category include equipment items with manufacturing defects, missing manual volume dampers (MVDs); lesser quality dampers installed than that specified; missing duct insulation; missing square turn elbow turning vanes; installed lesser quality short radius rectangular elbows; missing piping specialties such as manual air vents, pete�s plugs and drain valves; missing smoke detectors; missing air distribution items; missing fire dampers; and lesser quality duct joint connections installed than that specified. The net result of the defective equipment and omitted and / or lesser-quality-substituted items summarized above is that the owner has incurred a loss on his capital investment. This item constitutes a one time economic loss.
7. EXCESS OUTSIDE AIR (OA) ENERGY PENALTY: Because all of the administration side AHU return air fans are low on airflow the amount and percentage of OA being handled by these AHUs has been significantly increased. Not only does this tend to over pressurize the administration side of the facility, but it also imposes additional cooling load on the central refrigeration equipment. This would normally result in the refrigeration equipment having to operate longer to satisfy both space design setpoint temperature as well as offset the additional OA load. This item constitutes an annual economic loss.
8. MISCELLANEOUS / INTANGIBLE: Occasionally, it has been ICE�s experience that a meaningful dollar value cannot be placed on a particular item, or a suitable value ascribed to it. The item�s value may be intangible, but its impact is real, whether it is economic or otherwise. In this scenario it can be accurately stated that if the item had not been identified, and the appropriate corrective action taken, that the long term impact would have been disastrous and / or the economic impact incalculable. Intangibles in this category might include: items that could shutdown facility operations for a period of time; items that could result in lost production; items that could result in lost strategic value or lost opportunity to achieve a desired goal; or items that result in reduced employee morale or efficiency. Depending upon the nature of the item, this category can either be constituted as a one time economic loss, or an ongoing issue.
9. DESIGN RELATED ITEM: Some identified deficiency items were not related to the construction / installation process, but rather were traceable back to the original design documents. Items in this category were typically corrected and paid for by the State via the request for proposal (RFP) process. There were several instances where ICE identified an item early enough in the construction phase to either prevent, or significantly minimize, the cost impact of any change order. However, due to ICE�s limited advisory role, or extended deliberation by the design team, no action was taken and the window of opportunity for implementing a lower cost change order was lost. Items in this category can be eliminated if the commissioning agent is brought �on board� soon enough, with sufficient authority to initiate the appropriate action.
C. Loss of Capital Investment
1. AHU Cooling capacity:
a. The combined specified design cooling capacity of the twelve (12) AHUs installed at , at the time the units were purchased was 201,615 cfm (See summary below) and 783 tons of refrigeration (≈ 260 cfm / ton). Even though the total cooling capacity required from AHU #s 6-10 was reduced when the fume hood sash heights were permanently changed from 18� to 14�, thereby reducing the required laboratory exhaust airflow, the total airflow amount achieved by these AHUs at the completion of ICE�s functional performance testing was 171,698 cfm (≈ 660 tons).
b. The state paid for the purchase and installation of these air handlers and their specified design cooling capacities. The estimated furnished and installed price per ton for this equipment including chillers, chilled water pumps, cooling tower, condenser water pumps, utility piping, controls and ductwork, etc. is approximately $4,000/ton. These values are based upon data obtained from RSMeans MECHANICAL COST DATA. The price is derived by dividing the total furnished and installed price for the HVAC equipment item or items, by their rated cooling tonnage. If the actual performance of this equipment does not match the specified design cooling capacities, then the owner has paid for capacity for which he has not derived any benefit. Based upon item �a� above the net cooling deficit is 783 tons � 666 tons, or 117 tons. It should be noted that even though the design team has accepted the AHUs as is, the fact remains that the units are only capable of producing 666 tons of cooling with their existing drive packages, and the owner purchased the capability for the AHUs to deliver at least 783 tons of cooling.
c. ICE estimates that the total loss on capital investment for AHUs to be $468,000.
d. ICE�s calculation for this item is as follows:
117 tons x $4,000/ton = $468,000.
D. Incremental Energy Penalty
1. Because of the loss of initial investment described in item �C� above (i.e. air handlers not producing specified design cooling capacity), the refrigeration equipment is penalized with extended operating time to compensate for the lost initial capacity. The extended operating time is necessary to handle the specified design space cooling loads. This extended operating time is an incremental energy penalty, which increases the annual operating costs.
2. ICE estimates the incremental energy penalty for the lost AHU cooling capacity as follows:
a. 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
b. 8760 hrs/yr x 0.42* x 0.75** = 2759 hrs/yr
(*= cooling season diversity factor, **= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
c. 2759 hrs/yr x 0.64 kw/ton x $0.10/kw-hr = $177/ton-yr
d. 117 tons x $177/ton-yr = $20,710/yr
E. Duct Air Leakage
1. ICE emphasized enforcement of project duct sealing requirements during its field inspections, and in some instances it was discovered that proper duct sealing procedures were not being followed. As a result of ICE�s field inspection report, and the fact that the improper duct sealing was identified early, the installing contractors were directed to go back and properly seal the ductwork. Industry wide duct air leakage rates typically range between 10-15%. However, the final duct leakage rates, based upon the final TAB agency readings were only 5%. Thus early identification of the duct leakage issue resulted in an annual energy savings to the State because the duct air leakage rate and the associated brake horsepower penalty, were reduced.
2. ICE estimates the annual energy savings for the reduced AHU duct air leakage as follows (VAV units only):
a. Laboratory AHUs
� 10% leakage BHP penalty = (1.10)3 = 1.33
� 5% leakage BHP penalty = (1.05)3 = 1.16
� Net Penalty Reduction = 1.33 � 1.16 = 0.17
� Total Lab AHU BHP = 106.1
� Net BHP reduction = 106.1 x 0.17 = 18.0
b. Administration AHUs
� 10% leakage BHP penalty = (1.10)3 = 1.33
� 5% leakage BHP penalty = (1.05)3 = 1.16
� Net Penalty Reduction = 1.33 � 1.16 = 0.17
� Total Administration AHU BHP = 70.7
� Net BHP reduction = 70.7 x 0.17 = 12.0
c. Total Net BHP Reduction = 18.0 + 12.0 = 30.0
d. 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
e. 8760 hrs/yr x 0.75* = 6570 hrs/yr
(*= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
f. 30 BHP x 6570 hrs/yr x 0.746 kw/HP x $0.10 / kw-hr = $14,705/yr
F. Excess Motor Horsepower
1. Mechanical Room Excess Negative Pressurization: Because ICE highlighted the excess pressurization of the AHU mechanical room as a safety issue on numerous occasions, additional louver area was eventually added to lessen the safety hazard. The added louver area decreased the negative pressurization in the mechanical room from -0.5 in. wg. to -0.2 in. wg. for a net improvement of 0.3 in. wg.. The reduction in mechanical room static pressure resulted in an annual energy savings to the State.
a. ICE estimates the annual energy savings for the reduced static pressure in the AHU mechanical room as follows:
b. Total airflow entering the mechanical room = 158,113 cfm (summation of actual test airflows).
c. 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
d. 8760 hrs/yr x 0.75* = 6570 hrs/yr
(*= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
e. BHP = (158,113 cfm x 0.3 in. wg.) / [(6356 x 0.74(fan efficiency)] = 10.0
f. 10 BHP x 6570 hrs/yr x 0.746 kw/HP x $0.10 / kw-hr = $4,900/yr
2. The atrium duct riser column cap modifications instigated by ICE decreased the noise and vibration in the training lab to acceptable levels, and reduced the measured static pressure loss across the lab side columns from 3.1 in. wg. to 1.37 in. wg, for an improvement of 1.73 in. wg. (56% decrease). The reduced static pressure loss across the administration side columns was 0.75 in. wg.. The reduction in duct static pressure decreased the AHU brake horsepower significantly, and resulted in an annual energy savings to the State.
a. ICE estimates the annual energy savings for the reduced static pressure loss realized from the modified atrium duct riser column caps on the lab side AHUs as follows:
� Total lab AHU airflow = 106,075 cfm (AHU #s 6-10)
� 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
� 8760 hrs/yr x 0.75* = 6570 hrs/yr
(*= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
� BHP = (106,075 cfm x 1.73 in. wg.) / [(6356 x 0.74(fan efficiency)] = 39.0
� 39 BHP x 6570 hrs/yr x 0.746 kw/HP x $0.10 / kw-hr = $19,115/yr
b. ICE estimates the annual energy savings for the reduced static pressure loss realized from the modified atrium duct riser column caps on the administration side AHUs as follows:
� Total administration AHU airflow = 54,515 cfm (AHU #s 2-5)
� 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
� 8760 hrs/yr x 0.75* = 6570 hrs/yr
(*= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
� BHP = (54,515 cfm x 0.75 in. wg.) / [(6356 x 0.74(fan efficiency)] = 8.7
� 8.7 BHP x 6570 hrs/yr x 0.746 kw/HP x $0.10 / kw-hr = $4,265/yr
c. Net Total Savings = $19,115 + $4,265 = $23,380/yr
3. ICE noted on numerous occasions that the installing contractor had omitted every other turning vane from the vane rail on square turn duct elbows, and recommended that he be instructed to install a duct elbow that complied with SMACNA standards. Though ICE�s recommendation was declined, it was noted during the functional performance testing that the static pressure loss across the main AHU discharge elbows ranged between 0.5 and 0.6 in. wg.. The published ΔP for an elbow with the correct number of turning vanes is approximately 0.1 in. wg.. This means that net increase in static pressure loss for a typical discharge elbow with missing turning vanes = 0.4 in. wg.. Had the design team accepted ICE�s recommendation to install a proper elbow just on the AHU discharge connections, an annual energy savings to the State would have been realized.
a. ICE estimates the annual energy penalty for the excess static pressure loss caused by the main AHU discharge elbows (except AHU-2) as follows:
b. Total AHU airflow (except AHU-2) = 189,395 cfm
c. 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
d. 8760 hrs/yr x 0.75* = 6570 hrs/yr
(*= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
e. BHP = (189,395 cfm x 0.4 in. wg.) / [(6356 x 0.74(fan efficiency)] = 16.1
f. 16.1 BHP x 6570 hrs/yr x 0.746 kw/HP x $0.10 / kw-hr = $7,890/yr
4. Net Savings / Penalty from excess motor horsepower = $36,170/yr
G. Improper Equipment / Controls Set-Up (Annual Penalties)
1. ICE noted that the chemical fume hoods were not shipped with the specified sash height of 18�. The average sash height was 14� . The owner was consulted and agreed that the height was adequate for their operations. ICE recommended that the air valve quantities be revised to provide the proper face velocity of 100fpm. The design team concurred and issued a change order reducing the required exhaust airflows for the lab AHU systems in general. The net result was an annual energy savings to the State comprised of three (3) components: reduced exhaust fan BHP; reduced cooling tonnage on the lab side AHUs; and reduced heating requirement for the mechanical room preheat coils.
a. ICE estimates the annual energy savings from for the reduced exhaust fan BHP excess as follows:
� Total reduction in exhaust fan airflow = 20,990 cfm
� 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
� 8760 hrs/yr x 0.67* x 0.5** = 2935 hrs/yr
(*= % of hours lab hoods could be in use, **= % of hours with hoods @ maximum airflow)
� BHP = [(20,990 cfm x 2.0 in. wg.(EF SP)] / [(6356 x 0.65(fan efficiency)] = 10.2
� 10.2 BHP x 2935 hrs/yr x 0.746 kw/HP x $0.10 / kw-hr = $2,235/yr
b. ICE estimates the annual energy savings from the reduced AHU cooling capacity as follows:
� AHU entering conditions = 92�F db, 69�F wb, 33.25 BTU/#.
� AHU leaving conditions = 55�F db, 54�F wb, 22.62 BTU/#
� Δ Total Heat = 10.63 BTU/#
� Tons = (4.5 x 20,990 cfm x 10.63)/12,000 = 83.7
� 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
� 8760 hrs/yr x 0.42* x 0.75** = 2759 hrs/yr
(*= cooling season diversity factor, **= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
� 2759 hrs/yr x 0.64 kw/ton x $0.10/kw-hr = $177/ton-yr
� 83.7 tons x $177/ton-yr = $14,815/yr
c. ICE estimates the annual energy savings from the reduced AHU heating capacity as follows:
� Preheat coil entering conditions = 0�F db
� Preheat coil leaving conditions = 53�F db
� Δ T = 53�F
� BTUH = 1.085 x 20,990 cfm x 53�F = 1,207,030 (12 Therms)
� 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
� 8760 hrs/yr x 0.25* x 0.75** = 1643 hrs/yr
(*= heating season diversity factor, **= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
� 1643 hrs/yr x $0.60/Therms x 12 Therms = $11,830/yr
d. Net total savings = $28,880/yr
2. During ICE�s commissioning attempt #4 it was discovered that the terminal box hot water (HW) reheat coil control valves were leaking, and not shutting off properly. As a result the AHUs were cooling, and then inadvertently reheating the air being supplied to the facility. ICE�s functional performance testing helped identify this problem, which was eventually resolved, and the net result was an annual energy savings to the State.
a. ICE estimates the annual energy savings from eliminating the simultaneous cooling / heating caused by the leaking HW valves as follows:
b. On AHU-3, ICE discovered that approximately 80% of the HW valves were leaking. However, to err on the conservative side ICE estimates that approximately 50% of the HW valves were leaking at the time of commissioning attempt #4, and that they were leaking approximately 33%. In addition, we estimate that the water ΔT was 30�F.
c. HW gpm = 0.5 x 440 gpm (reheat pump waterflow) x 0.33 = 73.3
d. Tons = (500 x 73.3 x 30�F) / 12,000 = 91.67
e. 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
� 8760 hrs/yr x 0.42* x 0.50** = 1840 hrs/yr
(*= cooling season diversity factor, **= % hours of operation terminal box is @ maximum airflow)
� 1840 hrs/yr x 0.64 kw/ton x $0.10/kw-hr = $118/ton-yr
� 91.67 tons x $118/ton-yr = $10,815/yr
3. The TAB fieldwork and subsequent functional performance testing clearly indicated that all the RAFs were low on airflow, and as a result ICE recommended sheave changes for the RAFs on several occasions. This did not have significant impact on the lab side AHUs since they are 100% OA units, but it impacted the administration side AHUs significantly. The deficient RAF airflows caused the administration AHUs to have to handle more OA cfm, increasing the percent OA on the unit. The net result of the increased OA cfm was increased cooling load, and as a result, the State incurred an annual energy penalty. Had the design team accepted ICE�s recommendation to change the RAF sheaves, this energy penalty could have been avoided.
a. ICE estimates the annual energy penalty for the excess OA cooling load caused by the deficient RAF airflows on the administration AHUs as follows:
b. Design Data
� AHU SA airflow = 95,540 cfm
� RAF airflow = 72,375 cfm
� OA airflow = 23,165 cfm
� % OA = 24
c. Test Data
� AHU SA airflow = 85,978 cfm
� RAF airflow = 54,847 cfm
� OA airflow = 31,131 cfm
� % OA = 36
d. Net OA airflow = 7,966 cfm
e. AHU entering conditions = 92�F db, 69�F wb, 33.25 BTU/#
f. AHU leaving conditions = 55�F db, 54�F wb, 22.62 BTU/#
g. Δ Total Heat = 10.63 BTU/#
h. Tons = (4.5 x 7,966 cfm x 10.63)/12,000 = 31.8
i. 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr = 8760 hrs/yr
j. 8760 hrs/yr x 0.42* x 0.75** = 2759 hrs/yr
(*= cooling season diversity factor, **= % hours of operation @ maximum airflow)
k. 2759 hrs/yr x 0.64 kw/ton x $0.10/kw-hr = $177/ton-yr
l. 31.8 tons x $177/ton-yr = $5,630/yr
4. Net Annual Savings / Penalty from improper equipment / controls set-up = $45,325/yr
H. Annual Energy Savings / Penalty Summary
1. The following table summarizes ICE�s estimates of annual energy savings / penalties realized / incurred at the facility.
1. Throughout each of ICE�s five (5) commissioning attempts it was very evident that the HVAC controls system point-to-point verification had never been completed. It was also evident that the HVAC and control systems were incomplete, and that they had excessive deficiencies in system performance, control operation, calibration and / or equipment operation. Because ICE was able to keep this issue highlighted throughout the functional performance testing, the various installing contractors were required to utilize their own labor at their own expense, to troubleshoot the various systems, and eventually get the systems to operate in accordance with the design intent. As a result, the State received a direct one-time economic benefit because it did not have to finance the �de-bugging� of the control systems.
2. ICE estimates the cost of this one-time economic benefit (i.e. installing contractor labor costs) as follows:
a. Six (6) month time period following ICE�s commissioning attempt #3 (10/-4-5/00).
� 2 men x 2 weeks x 40 hrs/wk x $65/hr = $10,400
b. Time period immediately following ICE�s commissioning attempt #4 (4/30-5/2/01) when the problem with the leaking terminal box HW reheat coil control valves was identified.
� 2 men x 2 weeks x 40 hrs/wk x $65/hr = $10,400
c. ICE�s commissioning attempt #5 (9/15-16/01, 10/1-5/01, 10/9-12/01)
� Controls Contractor
1 man x 4 weeks x 40 hrs/wk x $65/hr = $10,400
2 men x 3 weeks x 40 hrs/wk x $90/hr = $21,600
� TAB agency
1 man x 3 weeks x 40 hrs/wk x $65/hr = $7,800
1 man x 1 week x 40 hrs/wk x $90/hr = $3,600
� ICE (time back-charged to installing contractors) = $32,000
� Net = $75,400
d. Net total one-time benefit = $96,200
J. Miscellaneous / Tangible Items (One-Time Losses)
1. Cooling Tower: The potential problems with the cooling tower were first addressed by ICE via its 9/9/99 HVAC field inspection #2. The cooling tower problems have been well documented by ICE throughout the commissioning process, and as a result, the need for the construction team to provide the State with a cooling tower that is both new, free from defects, and functionally and thermally performs in accordance with the design intent has been kept �front and center.� As of the date of the issue of this final commissioning report, the cooling tower issue remains unresolved. However, because of ICE�s documentation, all of the attempted repairs to date have been borne by others. Consequently, the State has received a direct one-time economic benefit because it has not had to finance the resolution of the non-performing cooling tower. It would be difficult to estimate how much labor has been expended by the construction team trying to get this issue resolved, but it has been stated during this project that the cost of a replacement tower would be $85,000. Consequently, ICE estimates the cost of this one-time economic benefit to be at least $85,000.
2. Duct Cleaning: ICE issued repeated warnings throughout the project concerning the amount of construction dirt and debris present inside the supply and RA ductwork distribution systems, AHUs, mechanical room preheat coil entrance plenum, HW pumps, RA fans, airflow monitors, etc. even as late as a few weeks prior to client occupancy of the facility. Because of ICE�s efforts at keeping this issue highlighted, mechanical and ductwork systems were finally professionally cleaned, and the expense was born by the installing contractor(s). Consequently, the State has received a direct one-time economic benefit because it has not had to finance the thorough cleaning of mechanical and ductwork systems.
a. ICE estimates the cost of this one-time economic benefit (i.e. HVAC system / duct cleaning costs) at $48,000, based upon information ICE received from the mechanical contractor.
3. Miscellaneous: The following miscellaneous items are items that were all replaced at the instigation of various ICE field inspection / commissioning reports, by the applicable installing contractor. Consequently, the State has received a direct one-time economic benefit from each of these items because it has not had to underwrite the cost of any of them.
a. Defective Damper Actuators: The purchase cost is $200 per valve or actuator, and thus far 13 have been replaced. The installation time is about one hour per unit at $70/hr. Total cost = (13 x $200) + (13 x $70) = $3,510.
b. Repair / Replace Internal Ductwork Insulation: Approximately 4000 square feet of lined duct was installed on this project, and approximately of 25% of that quantity has been repaired or replaced.
Material cost: $2,500
Labor cost $4,700
Total Cost $7,200
c. Install Pump Pressure Gauges: Relocation of pump pressure gauge taps for proper measurement and pump setting.
Piping Labor and Material = $200
d. Ductwork Accessories & General Ductwork Repairs: Various ductwork items, including correct sheet metal gauge damper blades, fire damper installation, ductwork elbow construction, etc.
Repair / Replace incorrect spin-in type dampers,
50 @ $60 (labor and material) = $3000
General repairs to sheet metal installation = $5000
Total Cost = $8000
e. Pump Flexible Connectors: Piping flexible connectors were not installed properly and due to the fact that they were supporting unnecessary weight they experienced
early failure.
2 pipe-fitters x 8 hrs/day x $50/hr = $800
f. Net total one-time benefit for above items = $19,710
4. Net total one-time benefit for miscellaneous tangible items = $152,710
K. One � Time Economic Savings Summary
ONE – TIME ECONOMIC SAVINGS NET, $
A. Improper equipment / controls set-up. 96,200
1. Time period following commissioning attempt #3 (10/4-5/00) 10,400
2. Time period following commissioning attempt #4 (4/30-5/2/01) 10,400
3. Commissioning attempt #5 (9/15-16/01, 10/1-5/01, 10/9-12/01) 75,400
B. Miscellaneous / tangible items 152,710
1. Ongoing cooling tower issues. 85,000
2. Duct Cleaning 48,000
3. Miscellaneous 19,710
a. Defective damper actuators. 3,510
b. Repair / replace internal ductwork insulation. 7,200
c. Install pump pressure gauges. 200
d. Ductwork accessories and general ductwork repairs. 8,000
e. Pump flexible connectors. 800
C. Net Total One-Time Economic Savings 248,910
L. Miscellaneous / Intangible Items
1. ICE had noted that preheat coil and reheat coil boilers lacked a bypass arrangement during its 11/99 field inspection. This meant that if either boiler failed, the system served by the failed boiler would not have a source of hot water. ICE discussed this issue with the State�s operations staff and it was their feeling that a manual bypass piping loop needed to be added, so that if a boiler failed, the remaining boiler could be set-up to serve both systems. Based on this discussion ICE recommended that a manual bypass be installed via a 1/6/00 controls sequence of operation review letter, in order to provide a means for supplying HW to either the preheat or reheat HW system in the event of a boiler failure. The design team issued a design sketch in 12/99 to add the bypass arrangement. An RFP was issued to install the manual bypass at a cost, to the State, of $14,183. However, the intangible benefit / savings for having this bypass installed cannot be calculated. If the facility were to experience a boiler failure during very cold weather, then odds are that portions of the facility would have to be shut down. However, since the commissioning process helped identify this potential need, the State has derived an intangible benefit from the installation of the boiler bypass.
M. Design Related Items
1. AS previously stated, some identified deficiency items on this project were not related to the construction / installation process, but rather were traceable back to the original design documents. Items in this category were eventually corrected, but in most cases paid for by the State via the request for proposal (RFP) process. However, had ICE been brought �on board� earlier in the project, or had more than the limited advisory role we were allowed, and then we might have been able to save the State additional monies. On the following issues, ICE either highlighted the issue, or made recommendations as to how to correct the problem, but extended deliberation by the project team resulted in no action being taken while the window of opportunity for implementing a lower cost change order was available, and the opportunity for savings was lost.
a. The addition of extra louver opening in the mechanical room to reduce the excess negative pressurization (RFP #95) = $2,559
b. The stratification problem in the mechanical room was addressed by another RFP, which resulted in the addition of a transfer fan to the mechanical room.
Total Cost of RFP = $24,000
c. Two other pending RFPs related to the above RFPs were as priced as follows:
� Add reheat coil to AHU-11 to lower humidity in atrium = $11,000
� Revise BAS software to prevent backdraft to AHUs = $14,675
2. ICE highlighted both of the above referenced items in earlier field inspection reports, and if action had been taken at the time of our recommendation, then the State could have realized an additional savings of $52,234.
N. CONCLUDING REMARKS
1. It needs to be pointed out for the record that ICE has attempted to be as conservative as possible in estimating the economic impact of the identified deficiencies so as to err on the low side. It is not ICE�s intent to show every dollar lost, but to demonstrate the �order of magnitude� impact of the identified deficiencies.
2. ICE strongly recommends that the owner utilize the results obtained herein to assist him in implementing necessary corrections for reducing his annual operating costs, and for justifying the expenditures necessary for initiating capital improvements. As clearly demonstrated in this report, the potential for preventing loss of capital investment and significant long term operating cost increases are both real and substantial. Utilizing full commissioning services from the inception of a project could help eliminate capital investment losses altogether and significantly reduce incremental owning and operating costs.