Envelope Commissioning, when done to NIBS requirements, can equal or exceed the costs of commissioning MEP systems. Owners often balk at the cost and decline to pursue it. This presentation will present a reverse case-study for envelope commissioning by describing the deficiencies in envelope design and performance and providing costs associated with remediation. It will do this by walking through the envelope waterproofing design, the fixes for its shortcomings, and costs associated with the repairs. In short, the cost for repairs was about TWICE the cost for envelope commissioning. The project was design-build with an innovative delivery method: precast structure and precast radiant slabs. The novel design meant that it could be delivered quicker than a steel frame structure, but the envelope’s connections to the structure needed to be equally as innovative. Although DPR supervised the installation of the façade and exterior glazing, water penetration tests failed in several locations. DPR immediately started working on solutions – some going so far as removal of an entire aluminum entrance façade. Throughout the process DPR kept track of costs, so along with some BECx estimating from our friends at the BCxA, we’ll show the true value of BECx. Along the way, the presentation will also cover:
Best practice approach to quality
Successes and strengths of the current process (integrating design activities, leveraging internal and external subject matter experts)
Use of Cause Map Analysis to create potential solutions and manage risk

Learning Objectives:

1. Quantify the value of Building Envelope Cx compared to the costs associated with not doing Envelope Cx
2. Describe solutions for mitigating water penetration in an aluminum-clad facade
3. Use Cause Map Analysis process to mitigate waterproofing failures
4. Apply best practices and approach to quality assurance