Typical scenarios and outcomes

Successful efforts in including integrated façade systems in a building always require a driving force in the decision making process. Such forces can be occupant driven (to reach higher level of comfort, for example), or occupant driven as perceived by the owner. The owner may feel obligated to be “green” or may strive for a specific LEED rating for the building. Stricter energy codes may also be a driving force.

Chances of success increase if the owner and the architect understand the benefits of integrated façade systems to the extent that they are willing to put these systems “off limits” during project value engineering. If change and cost cutting is unavoidable, they may still find a way for the remaining solution to work within the needed performance boundaries.

Given the many different possible circumstances, conditions and decision-making issues one can face in considering and proposing an integrated façade system for a building, the decision-making body or group may reach any of the following conclusions:

Approval – the benefits of the proposed façade system exceed its cost, and the projected value of the system overshadows any known drawbacks. The approval may be outright or conditional, pending the availability of additional or new information.

Rejection: Estimated first cost of the proposed façade system is too high – the cost of the façade system is higher than its foreseen benefits. If both the cost and benefits are fairly estimated, it is hard to argue for the proposed system, unless its value is not tangible and its goals and merits are not quantifiable.

Rejection: No additional budget is available – the cost of the proposed façade system is higher than the base alternative, and no additional funding is available to meet the excess cost, regardless of the expected benefits from the proposed system. As a rule of thumb, one must include the cost of any integrated façade system in the original building budget; one should not ever expect the owner to approve the incremental cost.

Deferred decision – final agreement cannot be reached. While the proposed façade system has merit, complete assessment cannot be made because critical information or a decision making party are not available at the time. While a deferred decision delays the design process and may adversely affect the project schedule, it also provides an opportunity to develop the integrated façade system proposal further and provide better or more complete information for the next decision making event.

Indirect approval: “Piggy-backing” on other approved issues or systems - the proposed integrated façade system is an integral part of a larger building system that is approved. It is accepted regardless of possible identifiable drawbacks because the larger system cannot function without it. Cost and other considerations of the integrated façade system are judged as part of the cost and benefits of the larger system.

Question/Information: eslee@lbl.gov