Consulting-Specifying Engineer - June 2008 - (Page 55)

And You’ll Be Floored By Our Complete Line! cannot be overstated. As an example, consider the OPRs potential for minimizing conflicting owner directives. Most seasoned building consultants have received different messages regarding project priorities and expectations from different groups within a single owner’s organization. The facility O&M staff may want to emphasize simplicity and reliability while the resource managers may want to concentrate on energy savings. The focus of the capital projects group may be constructability. Developing the OPR requires these groups to reach consensus on, or at least states, “The owner shall document the OPR. The design team shall develop the BOD. The CxA shall review these documents for clarity and completeness. The owner and design team shall be responsible for updates to their respective documents.” This requirement underscores how essential it is that the owner be fully engaged in documenting requirements. It seeks to avoid the unfortunate practice of the owner delegating the creation of the OPR to the CxA or the design team without being fully involved and without taking final responsibility for the documents content. In many cases, the very nature of the owner’s functional requirements may adequately communicate the success criteria. accept, common functional requirements. For owners that are new to construction, developing an OPR may facilitate awareness of critical performance issues early on, when they can be addressed by the basis of design. This minimizes the potential for becoming aware of these issues after occupancy. The value of the OPR is increased by not only describing the owner’s functional requirements, but also clarifying how the successful fulfillment of these requirements will be judged. In many cases, the very nature of these requirements may adequately communicate the success criteria. An effective OPR provides clarification; however, it may need to be added to the original draft through collaboration during design development. An effective OPR is a living document. As functional performance questions arise during design, the team looks to the OPR for the answer. If the answer is not in the document, a revision may be warranted to address the subject. The question is often asked, “Who should develop and maintain the OPR?” This question is clearly answered for LEED project teams. Fundamental Commissioning Requirement 2, under LEED NC 2.2, clearly ASHRAE Guideline 0 describes one approach to this kind of collaborative process. Participants include the design team, CxA, and construction manager, as well as the owner’s project manager, building operators, resource manager, and building user groups. Involving the design team in OPR development may also facilitate and expedite efficient development of the BOD. BOD in detail The BOD may be thought of as the design team’s confirmation of the OPR. While the OPR describes the owner’s functional requirements, the BOD is the design team’s opportunity to confirm that they understand the requirements and describe how they intend to achieve them with the design. For this reason, there is value in involving the design team in the development of the OPR. The BOD records concepts, design assumptions, important calculations, decisions, product selections, rationale, and other applicable regulations, standards, and guidelines the design incorporates to satisfy the OPR. It is possible to use the actual electronic OPR file to develop a BOD checklist, or even as an In addition to pokethrough systems, SteelCity ® also offers the industry’s widest selection of floor boxes to accommodate any in-floor application— concrete slabs, raised floors, or wood sub-floors. Our floor box family has built a reputation for superior quality and continuous innovation. To request more information, call 1-800-816-7809 or visit www.tnb.com. © 2008 Thomas & Betts Corporation. All rights reserved. Input #231 at csemag.com/quickResponse http://www.tnb.com http://www.tnb.com http://csemag.com/quickResponse

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Consulting-Specifying Engineer - June 2008

Consulting-Specifying Engineer - June 2008 Contents Viewpoint Letters News M/E Roundtable No Gambling Allowed on Smoke Control in Las Vegas Be Prepared: Hospital Protections for Catastrophic Events Ready for Retail Commissioning Documents: Necessary Evil Codes & Standards Codes & Standards Case Study Equipment Lifecycles New Products Advertiser Index Green Space

Consulting-Specifying Engineer - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.