[Bldg-sim] [Equest-users] A Response & Statement on Energy Modeling Services: Meaning and Value

[Cristian Salvador Jara Toro]

Dear all:

(First of all, be careful with my sentences which might be miswritten,
because I´m not english native and in this topics about earned money or
billabe rates, we need to clarify and not to get hooked).

I´m continuing this post because I have some questions in order to unravel
the issue about Modelling. And I´ll start giving my gratefulness and
greetings to whom have written before.

Here is my list of questions/uncertainty related to .doc document attached
by Nick:


   - LEED are increasing his users/fans, and not only northamerica nor
   europe but south america is very close too, so, rates have to be universal
   or local? (it seem to me that this kind of filter dosen´t exist on GBCI in
   projects register matters).


   - we need to clarify skill levels on modelling. New? INtermediate?
   Advanced? Expert?


   - we need to clarify skill level on LEED modelling...


   - Misunderstood: if I pick up a project like "building energy
   evaluation" (and I alreday made my charge), and suddenly the mandator wants
   to get a LEED medal: the model is entirely drawn on software, I made my
   assumptions, and I´ve almost sent my results in an oficially report: the
   question is, how can I make another offer with Pasha´s cost logical? Are
   going to be the same hours (let´s say same example of 72,000sqft) to make
   LEED model?


   - What software I used to make my models? which one is free or which
   another is paid? is this going to make any difference with final price?


   - Do you have any way to compare "LEED" certification building model
   hour price, with some "energy evaluation" building model hour price? to
   make my own comparisons?


   - *Pasha´s* professional LEED hour rate it´s 60% over professional
   typical hour for whatever we are modeling without pursuing any
   certification.


   - some countries have very poor thermal standards, and we always are
   looking outside to make the difference to get/offer something better (in
   order to sustainability and eficiency) than 'we have'.


   - competition: small economies where few building are made per year
   (always comparing with USA or CA or Europe), how can I get prices agreement
   with my competition?


   - is it convenient to work on a project in an advanced design stage that
   suddenly wants to pursue LEED certification where we didn´t be before (I
   mean, have been part of the design team)?


   - can we do something similar to PassivHaus or BREEAM certification?


I think that´s all.
Thanks in advance and I´ll be waiting for any comments.

best greetings.

*Cristian Jara Toro*
Ingeniero - Editor de Libros.

Cel: 6 207 8566




On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Boxer, Eric <eboxer at pathfinder-ea.com>wrote:

>  Nick,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for taking the time to put this credo together. There of many out
> there who support your values of quality in the modeling process.****
>
> I would like to add to one of your points:****
>
> ** **
>
> ***1.       ****Energy modelers have a responsibility to influence,
> support, and engage themselves in the design process as a participating
> member of the design team.  If you instead structure your services as “a
> way to find LEED points after design is completed,” you have stumbled and
> fallen behind the starting line.  Your own hard-earned modeling skill set
> is rendered a meaningless exercise in paper-shuffling courtesy of the
> USGBC:  a disservice to yourself, your clients, and your energy modeling
> brethren.  *
>
> ** **
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with this; Bill and I definitely practice that here.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Adding to that:****
>
> 3.1.    It is the responsibility of energy modelers to advocate for and
> support the collection of post-occupancy usage data in the buildings we
> model. Without this data, our models have little validity and we are not
> learning about how to simulate the way buildings operate, we are merely
> learning about how to use the energy modeling software. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Building energy use has a great deal to do with how facilities managers
> operate their buildings. By advocating for the additional M & V, we can
> move towards the adoption of energy models as a tool that building
> facilities managers can use to optimize building performance. This would
> make energy models really valuable tools with an extended lifetime beyond
> just scoring LEED points. Maybe we can also think about offering additional
> services to the facilities managers in helping them with this process. ***
> *
>
> Any other thoughts?****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Eric****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2012 11:53 AM
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org;
> EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com
> *Cc:* Jeremiah Crossett; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] A Response & Statement on Energy Modeling
> Services: Meaning and Value****
>
> ** **
>
> I am posting this to multiple lists as it is intended to benefit the
> broader energy modeling community.  Anyone wishing to respond, disagree,
> add-to, or otherwise participate in the discussion:  I strongly encourage
> you to reply to bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org, where your thoughts will
> reach the broadest audience.  This message is attached as a .doc file
> inclusive of formatting, for those who need it.****
>
> ** **
>
> The following response/statement is a collaborative effort, and represents
> shared assertions.****
>
> A great thanks to both Bill Bishop and Pasha Korber-Gonzalez for their
> separate efforts off-list to add to this discussion.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> A primer:  Some of this is “tough-love.”  Where I choose my words
> candidly, they are backed by my experience and best intentions.  It’s my
> sincere hope Jeremiah and everyone following along will recognize and seize
> an opportunity learn from this situation, coming away with an improved
> perspective on our shared profession.  If you haven’t seen his query yet, I
> advise scrolling down to read Jeremiah’s post first, as this is largely
> structured as a direct response and will read easier.****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       **Everything you have bulleted as difficult to have others
> assemble are items I understand to be gathered by the *modeler*.  This is
> critical.  I normally start with at least a full set of construction
> documents (plans + specs) and load calculations, in whatever state of
> design they may be:  ****
>
> **a.       **I do my own lighting takeoffs and lighting control credit
> calculations using the lighting RCP’s, scheduling, and control diagrams.**
> **
>
> **b.      **Thermal blocks are defined and revised as design progresses,
> typically working directly from the HVAC ductwork layouts to trace
> boundaries.****
>
> **c.       **Systems are fully understood by carefully studying their
> control schematics, scheduling and the associated drawings/specs.  ****
>
> **d.      **Appropriate exterior elevations are gathered for WWR
> takeoffs.   Spec sections and floor/wall/roof section details typically
> fully inform envelope/glazing constructions. ****
>
> **e.      **Anything which cannot be determined or reasonably assumed
> after a thorough review of the construction documents is then fair game to
> ask of the designers.  Asking a series of questions already answered
> suggests (true or not) a lack of effort to familiarize yourself with the
> project.****
>
> **f.        **A “fill out this worksheet” approach is something many of
> us have tried and come to avoid for the same reasons you’re struggling
> with.  Seizing the responsibility to identify & extract required inputs is
> ultimately a time-saver for everyone, and is an efficient way to place
> yourself on the same playing field as the design team.  This maximizes
> face-time spent informing and supporting design decisions.   ****
>
> **2.       **Where a cooperative designer is willing to put forward their
> takeoffs/calculations – I will happily take in any such information, but I
> allot myself time to review those inputs before sticking them in my models.
> ****
>
> **3.       **Energy modelers have a *responsibility* to influence,
> support, and engage themselves in the design process as a participating
> member of the design team.  If you instead structure your services as “a
> way to find LEED points after design is completed,” you have stumbled and
> fallen behind the starting line.  Your own hard-earned modeling skill set
> is rendered a meaningless exercise in paper-shuffling courtesy of the
> USGBC:  a disservice to yourself, your clients, and your energy modeling
> brethren.  ****
>
> **4.       **The difficulties inherent with “preliminary baselines” are
> appreciably difficult to convey – especially to those who do not care to
> understand.  You however are being paid to be an expert.  To offer
> evaluative modeling services during design, you must embrace these
> difficulties and adapt your workflow to meet your clients’ needs and pace.
> Don’t get hung up explaining how complex our job can be at times,
> especially if nobody’s asking!****
>
> Some direct advice on the matter:****
>
> **a.       **90.1 baselines are as you say constructed from actual design
> – wherever the proposed design isn’t complete, you are charged with
> identifying and implementing reasonable assumptions.  I suggest recording
> and clearly presenting critical assumptions alongside your results for open
> review – this is a fundamental means of engaging the designers.  Early
> baselines are *always* built on assumptions – it’s as simple & complex as
> that.****
>
> **b.      **On the flip side:  Early baselines, in spite of the most
> intelligent assumptions, can easily bear little resemblance to their final
> counterparts.  Present early modeling results as design alternative *
> comparisons* and in * relatives* to avoid the deadly trap of others
> assuming they will apply to the final design.  Example: “These day lighting
> controls will save approximately 20% in lighting energy consumption
> relative to occupancy sensors alone.  This equates to approximately 2 LEED
> points using our current baseline estimate.” ****
>
> **5.       **Modeling service pricing is a complex and sensitive subject
> - easily many discussions unto itself - but the three of us are in full
> agreement on one thing:  $2,500 to cover full LEED energy modeling
> responsibilities for any size project is VERY much below the mark.  ****
>
> **a.       **Adding another zero moves you into a closer ballpark for
> projects of this size and time schedule.  This assumes your services are
> bringing enough value to the drawing board that “What’s the point?” never
> comes up.****
>
> **b.      **A suggested estimating exercise:  Keep a careful record of
> how much time you *actually* spend on this project in total (including
> data collection, communications, compiling documentation for LEED,
> researching modeling nuances, responding to commentary from all parties…),
> then turn to the fee you requested and give thought to what your actual
> hourly rate turns out to be.  This exercise is often an eye-opener.  ****
>
> ***c.       ***Pasha has put forward the following estimate and advice
> based on the basics you have shared regarding the project’s scope:    **
>
> *If I had priced this I would have approached it with this cost logic:
> 72,000ft2 x $0.20/ft2 = $14,400 / $125/hr billable rate (this is what I
> charge for my services & experience skill-set) = 115 hours to complete this
> model scope of work –I then estimate that it will take me an additional 25
> hours of work to complete the LEED documentation and review comments.  At
> an average of 40 hrs /work week, a total of 140 hours of work is
> approximately 3.5 wks of work.  At this rate, this is the standard amount
> of time I need to complete everything.  If the client asks for a quick
> turn-around time on a project I always charge a $5,000 premium.  My
> standard frame of measure is 4 weeks.  If a client needs a model in less
> than four weeks from me, it is subject to a $5000 add fee for priority
> which gives them 1A Priority over all my other commitments.  Any model that
> is expected in less than 4 weeks is always pushing the limits of quality
> modeling.   Now---DON’T get me wrong, I’m not saying it always* *takes me
> this long to build a model; however I don’t give my client anything less
> than 4 weeks of an expectation for me to deliver anything to them. Of
> course every project and every client will have their unique scenarios that
> will dictate how you navigate your projects.  It’s a pretty sure bet that
> you will run into problems of not having information you need for the model
> and this will inevitably push out* *your ability to get a model completed
> on time, which is indicative of Jeremiah’s current issue. My final fee,
> based on what has been shared  for this model, would have been $15,000
> standard fee + $5,000 if they wanted the final compliance model and LEED
> documentation in less than 4 weeks, because it doesn’t leave any room to
> work on any other projects during that time in order to complete all the
> work they are asking for.***
>
> **d.      **To answer “how much should I charge for my services?” you
> must eventually consider all of the following:  (1) how much your time is
> worth, (2) how much time the project will require, and (3) the market value
> of your services – which should impose both a minimum (what the seller can
> bear) and maximum (what the buyer will bear) to an acceptable offer.****
>
> **e.      **Pasha also wrote you (and all of us) specific advice on the
> concept of minimum project time investment.  I follow similar logic and
> work from a minimum quantity when building my proposals:****
>
> *Any average sized compliance project should take a minimum of 80 hours
> based on mine and other colleagues’ experience; this is always where to
> start pricing. ** **Even the smaller sized building models will still
> take approx. 80 hours from start to finish because of the idiosyncrasies
> that we encounter with our simulation tools, discrepancies with project
> info/ client communication, and time, etc.  Now, what is your skill level &
> skill-set as an energy modeler?  I’m presuming that Jeremiah is new to this
> game, based on his questions/comments, so here is some guidance on minimum
> fees to charge for any energy model:  Try to never offer a LEED Compliance
> modeling fee lower than $6,000 to a client (and this is really scraping the
> bottom of the barrel, I suggest not actually lower than $7,500).  This
> $6,000 fee is based on $75/hour billable rate x 80 hours (absolute minimum
> time) = $6,000.  If you’re doing the model with a quick turnaround time
> also, I suggest adding another $4-5,000, so you should be looking at a
> $10,000 fee approx. for a full compliance model in 80 of work done in 2.5
> weeks of time right?  Or think of this ----even a $7500 total fee at an
> hourly rate of $75 = 100 hours of time to do the work = 2.5 weeks.*****
>
> **f.        **Nick’s personal perception:  I appreciate the logic of
> “paying” to get your foot in the door to learn & gain experience, but
> energy consulting as a solo venture seems at best a rocky path to that
> end.  If your immediate priorities include ‘learning the
> modeling/networking ropes’ to a significant degree, permanent employment or
> a paid internship with an MEP or A/E design firm that can use an extra hand
> with modeling services is a more economically stable and faster means of
> building such skill sets and experience.  ****
>
> **6.       **On the role of defaults/generic inputs for LEED:  This query
> could quickly blossom into long discussions around ethics, professionalism,
> quality, etc… The following points intend to address your specific question
> without venturing into those broader topics:****
>
> **a.       **The degree of accuracy (to reality) appropriate for *any*energy model or study hinges directly upon the needs of your clients and
> information available.  ****
>
> **b.      **Careful review of 90.1 Appendix G and the LEED literature
> reveal the requisite degree of accuracy (to reality) is relatively low.
> Re-stated for clarity:  A significant quantity of generic/default inputs
> may be acceptable to a LEED reviewer.  ****
>
> **c.       **This has surfaced before on the lists but bears repeating:
> The 90.1 Appendix G Performance Rating Method is fundamentally &
> necessarily arbitrary, and is not a process structured to predict actual
> utility bills.  Do not allow your colleagues/clientele to assume
> otherwise.  Utility bill calibration is something you may choose to offer
> alongside LEED modeling services, but maintaining this distinction remains
> important.****
>
> **d.      **Energy modelers have an obligation to utilize all information
> provided and available, time permitting.  There is a “pencils down” moment
> to be cognizant of with every project, and your personal skill level will
> dictate when you must make judgments to prioritize input data available.
> If an assumption or generalization must be made (for whatever reason), that
> is best discussed with your design team to their satisfaction well prior to
> deadlines.  ****
>
> **e.      **If ‘real-world accuracy’ is a marketed or requested feature
> of your modeling services, be warned this can easily call for tiers of
> skill & time-commitment *well *beyond what a set of LEED models demand…
> Structure your proposal fees accordingly, and be wary of biting off more
> than you can chew.****
>
> **1.       **Intermediate modelers:  I advise great caution.  ****
>
> **2.       **New modelers:  Here be Dragons!  (Run awaaaay!)****
>
> **3.       **Advanced modelers:  Why are you still reading this?  =)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Concluding thoughts:  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Hopefully both you and your clients are learning to never offer/solicit
> services at such undercut rates.  I do empathize with “getting your foot in
> the door,” but when that crosses the line of mis-representing the value or
> meaning of quality energy modeling services, it creates negative effects we
> all must bear and overcome as an industry.  The personal ramifications
> should be clear as well:  Once you have offered a “discount” price, you can
> never go back and raise your price with that customer…****
>
> ** **
>
> Again, much thanks to Pasha and Bill for contributing and helping to
> distill these views into a (hopefully) intelligible statement.  I look
> forward to hearing other’s thoughts!****
>
> ** **
>
> ~Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
> ** **
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> www.smithboucher.com<http://../Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/EOHS9LS2/www.smithboucher.com>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *CleanTech Analytics
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:57 PM
> *To:* EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [EnergyPlus_Support] Best practices for data collection?****
>
> ** **
>
>   ****
>
> ** **
>
> Hello Simulation community. ****
>
> ** **
>
> This request is somewhat vague so please feel free to respond with any
> comments, questions etc...****
>
> ** **
>
> I am working on my first LEED project, a 72,000 square foot plastics
> manufacturing facility and have found the data collection process to be
> quite difficult. ****
>
> The mechanical engineer says she does not think detailed modeling is of
> much value, the architect has expressed that he will not do anything that
> takes any additional time.****
>
> ** **
>
> I have created this data collection form, but have not had the best of
> luck getting them to fill it out:
> https://docs.google.com/a/cleantechanalytics.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGVMRGdPeDN2Zk9JT1gyMXY1QUplMGc6MA#gid=4
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Some of the issues I have had are:****
>
>    - Difficulty explaining the concept of thermal blocks****
>    - Difficulty explaining the concept of window to wall ratio****
>    - Difficulty explaining the concept of a baseline building being
>    developed from the proposed, specifically they want me to create the
>    baseline first to test their proposed building against.****
>    - Difficulty explaining the concept of building area vs space by space
>    lighting compliance paths. ****
>
> Other questions I have:****
>
>    - I made the mistake of charging a low ($2500) price to get my first
>    project, and wonder what something like this should be worth. ****
>    - I am being pressured to produce this model in a very fast
>    time-frame, and wonder how long in terms of man hours is reasonable for
>    such a project?****
>    - I have been asked to use generic data for much of the proposed
>    building inputs, and it was said that due to my limited experience that I
>    did not understand how to do this where a more experienced modeler would--
>    I think that some default values are consistently used in modeling but feel
>    that this should be a last resort. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I have purchased all of the ASHRAE books on the subjects, but other
> recommended reading would be great, specifically if anyone knows of a very
> simple overview of the minimum requirements that I could share with the
> project team that would be great..****
>
> ** **
>
> Lastly, if anyone could let me know if this difficulty in explaining the
> required processes, or issues with project teams not understanding the
> concepts behind Energy modeling is the norm, and if anyone has any advise
> so far as streamlining the data collection process, or explaining the
> importance of the requirements I would be appreciative..****
>
> ** **
>
> Your advise is much appreciated and Best regards-****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> ****
>
> *Jeremiah D. Crossett*****
>
> *CleanTech Analytics*****
>
> *503-688-8951*****
>
> *www.cleantechanalytics.com* <http://www.cleantechanalytics.com>****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20121209/8d70d5d0/attachment.htm>