Solar shading, Berlin

Round table at Southern California Edison

Fashion or trend? | Convincing the client | Critical needs

Convincing the Client

Premise

There are two types of clients (based on type and level of information needed to make a decision): a) the visionary client, who requires minimal information, and b) the pragmatic client, who requires substantial information to decide whether to proceed with innovation.

• What type of information is needed by the client to make decisions at each phase of design?
• For a single building project, is the client willing to invest in the types of engineering studies needed to obtain high performance?
• What is the degree of interest in the buildings industry to deliver a high performance product? Here, “interest” is measured by investment in design, engineering, commissioning, diagnostics, and maintenance toward high performance.
• What is the expectation that high-performance will be delivered? 

Please click HERE to view the questionnaire (MS Word - 79 KB)

Survey results

A single-page survey form was given to attendees to fill out after the discussion of this topic. The form listed various information sources that may be used to make decisions to use or continue to implement advanced facades at each phase of A/E design. The survey asked respondents to 1) check a box if they tended to use this information source for making decisions, 2) circle the single most commonly used information source, and 3) put a star next the single most desired information source, if available.

Several options were given for each design phase (see Figure). The options of citing and rating other reasons were also given. Of the total responses (n=17), the following was determined:

• 41% (n=7) thought that well-established references (third-party assessments, monitored data, surveys) were the single most desired information source, if available, in the conceptual design phase. ·
• 29-35% (n=5-6) thought that intuition/vision or building case studies were the single most commonly used information source for making decisions in the conceptual design phase.
• 65% (n=11) tended to use intuition/vision or well-established references (third-party assessments, monitored data, surveys) for making decisions in the conceptual design phase.
• 59-76% (n=10-13) tended to use rough calculations and estimated costs to make decisions, with 29% (n=5) citing that this was the single most desired information source for making decisions in the schematic design phase.
• 88% (n=15) used sources of information to validate judgment or educate all parties involved in the schematic design phase.
• 24% (n=4) cited rough estimates of capital and long-term operating costs using whole building annual performance calculations as the single most desired source of information needed to make decisions in the design development phase.
• 24% (n=4) cited rough calculations for energy codes and comfort standards or tuning the façade system design as the single most commonly used information source to make decisions in the design development phase.
• 88% (n=15) tended to use specifications of exact products to make decisions, 35% (n=6) cited this as the single most commonly used information source, and 6% (n=1) cited this as the single most desired information source for making decisions in the construction documents phase.
• 70% (n=12) tended to use ratings of exact products to pass energy codes or to obtain financial incentives, 24% (n=4) cited this as the single most commonly used information source, and 12% (n=2) cited this as the single most desired information source for making decisions in the construction documents phase.
• 59% (n=10) tended to information sources that allowed one to re-evaluate the basis for the facade system and interdependent impacts if eliminated to make decisions, 29% (n=5) cited this as the single most commonly used information source, and 12% (n=2) cited this as the single most desired information source for making decisions in the bid/value-engineering/construction phase.
• 47% (n=8) tended to use monitored data to tune the system, 12% (n=2) tended to use this as the single most commonly used information source, and 23% (n=4) cited this as the single most desired information source for making decisions in the commissioning and troubleshooting phase.

Overall, individual responses indicated that all categories of information given in the survey form tended to be used to make decisions. In the early conceptual design phase, individuals relied most strongly on intuition/vision or building case studies to make the decision to proceed with advanced façade concepts, but many cited well-established performance data as the single most desired source of information. In the schematic design phase, rough estimated costs stood out as the single most desired source of information. In the design development phase, rough estimates of operating costs using whole building performance calculations were the single most desired information source. In the remaining construction documents phase, bid and value-engineering phase, and post-occupancy phase, very specific information about exact product ratings, risk/liability data, and monitored data were cited as the single most desired information source.

There was some ambiguity in the way the survey was constructed and interpreted. Respondents may have projected what sources of information they would tend to use if they had to make decisions about advanced facades. Many opted not to specify the single most desired information source, so the response between various reasons in this category may not be deemed significant (n<3-4 typically).

Note: Please click on the picture for a printable version of this graph

Renovation of a historical façade, Berlin

Individual Responses

The focus of this round table discussion was less about what types of informa-tion are used to convince the client to proceed with advanced facades and more about how to cover the costs of following through on the design of advanced facades. The presumption of most respondents was that the added costs were for the added engineering needed to deliver high performance (i.e., environmental quality, energy-efficiency, cost-effective products, products that do not incur liability). The difficulty for U.S. architects and engineers is that the client rarely had the added budget to cover such costs, either because they didn’t understand that such systems required extra fees or because some client’s budgets didn’t allow for life-cycle savings from operations to feed back into the capital budget. On the other hand, European clients are willing and able to cover the costs of advanced facades because of their interest in long-term building performance and in keeping facility operating costs low (energy prices are substantially higher than in the U.S.). Some used the U.S. Green Building’s Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Building Rating System as a means of convincing the client to pay extra fees. Others have used utility design assistance programs such as California’s Savings-by-Design program. Performance-based fees were also discussed.

“We are offering an additional service and we typically argue that we need to relate the façade to the behavior of the building as a whole investment in the building. It is a kind of convincing process to invest in better design. It is interesting that compared to the American market, in Germany, clients pay maybe double for the design than they would pay in the U.S. “ — Engineer

“I think that it is easier to try to convince a client to cover extra fees resulting from trying to follow the LEED program for sustainability than it is to go ahead and say that we will try and design an advanced façade and I need more money for it. I think that there is a big difference in terms of perception from the client’s standpoint. They don’t understand why the design of advanced facades and mechanical systems needs more money. They don’t see that as something separate from what we normally do. But when we start talking about sustainability and following LEED and trying to get platinum and silver ratings for the building, that is something perceived as being extra. Even with that, we are faced with clients coming back and saying, “But that is why we came to you, that is your expertise, that is the better design that we get by going to architects like you.” So even there we are facing difficulties.” — Architect

“I think that a lot of people talk about sustainability and LEED as a reason to use advanced facades, but we still come back to the cost issue. I know of a couple of experiences where we have been trying to work with a double-façade on a museum project. The cost issue still is far and foremost for clients.

Architects really need performance information and need to become articulate in that information because the more we can integrate the design with the performance of the building, the less likely we are to lose some of those design elements in value engineering. I think that we have a tendency in value engineering to pick things off. The more integrated we make the design with the facade or mechanical system, the less likely it is to lose them in the design process. That is really the essence of integration — designers can promote their fashion or design statement at the same time as they are promoting the performance of the building and articulating that with the client. Which then leads to the sustainability. You can start to then sell the client more on sustainability.” — Architect

The following comments reflect the difficulty of dealing with institutional clients who have the desire but not the funds or infrastructure to follow through on high-perfor-mance design.

“I think that the Universities and some of the jurisdictions are now including, “Thou shall do everything that you can to be sustainable,” but they don’t have the money to do that. So in effect, they are kind of getting off the hook by saying that they want to be sustainable, but when you start presenting them with what it will take to get there or some of the upgrades that the design needs or the additional money needed for commissioning, there is quite a bit of reluctance to take money from what they perceive as their short-term goals to look at these long-term issues. That is the dilemma: long-term life cycle assessment versus short-term turnover. I think that the challenge is to try to deliver substantive, life-cycle information to clients. Especially for universities and institutions with long-term ownership. I think it is just a matter of education and politics. I think that it is coming, but it is not there for us yet.” — Architect

“With institutions like universities, first cost is everything. With institutions, capital funds come from one pocket and operating funds come from another pocket. So if you can pay back in the first six years, there has to be a way for these funds to come back to capital programs, not to be absorbed in the general fund. There is pressure to bring facilities and capital programs back together. Most State university institutions now compete with each other.” — Architect

California’s Savings-by-Design program seemed to be readily embraced by clients and the design team. Performance-based fees (explained below by a respondent) posed more problems. One respondent suggested that substantial engineering could be covered by the manufacturer, who can then take that knowledge and apply it to other building projects, but in fact that most manufacturers do not chose to invest in such expertise.

“We have been able to use the Savings-by-Design program that is sponsored by the utilities here in California to cover added design costs. There is an understanding that making a building perform better takes more work in the design phase and may cost more. I am totally in support of the utility’s decision to split the cash between the design team and the owner to help look at not only some of these advanced facades, but all kinds of systems that could help reduce your energy demand. This type of program has helped us carry the cost of some of the extra engineering associated with determining upfront whether different technologies are appropriate for the building and proving whatever performance criteria we might want to achieve.” — Engineer

“Performance-based fees is a concept where the A&E team gets some standard fee to produce a building that meets some performance requirement. If the building performs substantially better than expected, implying that extra effort went into the design, the fee is increased, but if the performance is lower than expected, then there is a penalty payment. One of the difficulties is that the A&E team may have little or no influence on the operation and occupancy of the building a year or two after the design is complete, so there is some serious risk there. You have to carefully think through what the metrics are, how do you bench mark that, how do you determine and normalize what the performance is for that building compared to a simulation you did three years ago using a weather tape and other assumptions. It is an interesting approach that begins to open up the possibility of fees that could be greater than they are now.” — Researcher

 “Performance-based fees have always struck me as a little odd. Now I have someone paying me to do something. Is that in the best interest of my client? Am I always going to be listening to my client or am I going to be listening to the energy company when decisions have to be made? Is there a conflict of interest there?” — Architect

“In our case, the client and the design team were both interested in getting whatever money we could to help better the building. I haven’t found the Savings-by-Design program particularly onerous except that you do have to do the energy modeling to show that you use a certain percent less than a normal Title-24 building. We probably would have done that anyway using the performance method of meeting Title-24, so we just fill out another piece of paper and write up a report that gets submitted to the utility. I don’t think that is an antagonistic relationship and I don’t think that there is a division of loyalty.” — Engineer

“With the more elaborate systems, particularly point-supported glazing and double-skin facades, the engineering is so complex and so expensive that the manufacturers often pick up the engineering aspect of the job and do it for the client. If environmental issues are what is really driving the advanced façade, I think that we would be seeing more interest on the part of the manufacturers to pick up some of the additional engineering design that goes into making these facades work on an environmental level. We are not seeing that.” — Architect

Question/Information: eslee@lbl.gov