Including ASHRAE Standard 209 in AIA Standard Contract Docs

Sarah Welcome. Yes, I was a member of the SPC, and Kjell Anderson was the major architectural commenter and contributor to 209. A short update: Nadav and I participated in a call with the AIA staff who run the contract docs program. It looks like we might have an opportunity to get a few words about using building performance simulation as a design tool into the D503 Guide to Sustainable Projects doc, but any chances to amend the C401 have sailed until the next major review cycle. AIA has a policy of not referencing standards in their contract docs, which seems a little odd to me, but there you are – it won’t say “comply with ASHRAE Standard 209-2018…”. By the way, one of the AIA staff people that we talked with is a lawyer who used to be an engineer. That makes the 4th or 5th one of those I’ve run across, but I’ve never heard of the reverse career path (a lawyer becoming an engineer). I think that this is further proof of the second law of thermodynamics. Since you’ve volunteered, I’ll add you to our little task group. Kim Kim E Shinn, PE, LEED Fellow, BEMP Principal | Sustainability Wizard | PEAK Institute kim.shinn@tlc-eng.com TLC ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 12 Cadillac Dr., Ste 150 Brentwood, TN 37027 Cell: 615.394.4297 www.tlc-engineers.com 

Just an update for everyone interested in this thread.  The AIA has proposed to incorporate a brief mention of Standard 209 into their D503 Sustainability Guide - I have uploaded the excerpt containing the 209 language to our Advocacy folder (Standard 209_D503_Current Juris Rqmts_Shinn_2019.09.09.docx).  When I say "proposed", the updates to the new D503 still must be approved by AIA's Contract Documents Committee over the next few months.  If it makes it through that gauntlet, the updated Guide is due to be published in the Summer of 2020, The Year of Perfect Vision. In the meantime, I will be working with our small group of 209 enthusiasts (Sarah, Sergio, Kjell, and any other interested parties) to draft some suggested RFP and Agreement language that will then be posted to the larger Green Gurus Forum for discussion, and hopefully, adoption by that group of industry leaders.  If it becomes widespread practice to use 209 as the framework for defining BPS scope, perhaps we can persuade AIA to include it in the revision of the C401 series in 2027.  

We have a finished draft of the Standard 209 scope document.  Before we launch this onto the Worldwide Green Guru forum, we wanted to give the SMEPLs a chance to do comments and suggestions. Big thanks to the task group that helped create the draft:  Sarah Gudeman, Paul Erickson, and Sergio Sadaba from the SMEPLs and Kjell Anderson and Jason Hainline from the SDLs.  Thanks also go to Gwen Fuertes, Jason Glazer, Erik Kolderup, Peter Alspach, Ale Menchaca, Jim Bradburn, Harry Flamm, Erica Weeks, and other contributors from Green GuruLand. I would like to post this over to Green Gurus for their use and comment (after all, this doc is essentially for them to use) no later than the Monday after GreenBuild.

Friendly nudge and reminder to my SMEPL brethren and sistren:  I need your comments and edits of the proposed 209 scope of work exhibit by CoB Monday, 25 Nov 19.  

Adam: Thanks for taking the time to comment.  

1. RE your comment about showing modeling cycle 3 as required under Standard 209.  I like the idea of adding the Lime Green [required] to item 6.a.iii.
2. RE your comments about the exclusions and clarifications being in the energy modeling consultant's voice.  I'll change into my all-black outfit, put on my round reading specs and see if I can summon my architect's voice.
3. RE your comment about the 9th exclusion item on studying the actual operating data, I am amenable to deleting this exclusion, since having actual operating data helps inform the modeling, if it is available. 

Pete Thanks for taking the time to review and comment.  RE your comments:

1. You might have been speed reading, but I did include a suggestion about 2030 in the Project Goals section:  “The project is to be designed to achieve a predicted Energy Use Intensity that will meet the 2030 Challenge goal of no greater than 43 kBtu/sf/yr”.  I'm going to revise that a bit to take out the 43 and replace it with "[XX]".
2. Daylighting analysis is not dealt with as a specific service in 209.  Since daylight-responsive controls are now a mandatory code requirement, any analysis that is required to evaluate code conformance will by needs include that.  However, I think that daylight and glare analyses, e.g., ASE and SDa, are services separate from this scope of work and I am inclined to list them as exclusions from this SOW.  I am open to persuasion, however, especially if someone has some suggested phrasing.
3. Thanks for the suggestion of a matrix of other services.  At this point, I am inclined to push this doc over to the larger forum without it, and to see if that suggestion comes up from the architects.  I would like to keep this exhibit to short-story length, in the hopes that it actually gets some traction.
4. See #3 above.  On the subject of LEED documentation of the energy prereq and credit, please note that item 6.d.i includes editorial suggestions for specifically including this.
5. Thanks for bringing up the ownership of the model.  I will include this as a clarification, noting that the model is the property of the energy modeling consultant.