Column The performance gap Gap Diagnosis Several sources contributing to the performance gap were discovered during the investigation that indicated problems with the energy model. This section discusses the five common pitfalls (see sidebar) and highlights how two of them directly contributed to the errors in this project and how they could have been avoided. Underqualified team members. Although the performance gap in this case study can be attributed to assumptions and mistakes made by the energy analyst, the mistakes are not related to lack of qualification. Both assumptions contributing to the disparity between the actual and modeled savings were consciously made as a result of missing data. The analyst correctly chose a 0.65 de-rate factor that more than compensated for those assumptions and uncertainty. Yes, the chief result of the investigation showed that an unchecked human error was the dominant contributor to the savings shortfall, but qualifications cannot prevent all human errors. The root causes of the performance gap are more related to the atmosphere contributing to the mistakes and lack of oversight as discussed below. Performance Gap Contributors Five common pitfalls were identified that contribute to the performance gap: * Under-qualified team members; * Poorly specified design details; * Field installation errors; * Poor communication; and * Lack of accountability. Unspecified or under-specified design details. The investigation found that although all performancecritical design details were only informally documented in emails and telephone conversations, they were proactively communicated with an engaged project development team and installation personnel. As a result, this pitfall did not contribute to the performance gap. As a matter of good practice, even on small projects, the project development team can create and distribute a concise document summarizing the www.info.hotims.com/44638-45 70 ASHRAE JouRnAl ashrae.org N ovem ber 2013