renew school sustainable school building renovation … · 2015. 10. 1. · iee renew school 3 the...

IEE Renew School

1

RENEW SCHOOL

Sustainable school building renovation promoting timber prefabrication, indoor environment quality and active use of renewables

D3.1

Cooperation models and financing methods for advanced school renovations with prefabrication technology in selected front runner school buildings

Prepared by: Passiefhuis-Platform vzw and external expert Dipl.- Ing. Sonja Geier, HSLU T&A, Switzerland, in consultation with RenewSchool partners.

date: 29/9/2015

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

IEE Renew School

2

INTRODUCTION

Previous research projects showed that time and cost optimized as well as high-quality application of prefabricated elements in building retrofit depends less on technological availability than on frictionless project progress with unimpeded action chains and optimized work-flows. Communication channels, information flow, interface management and a clear definition of rights, responsibilities and obligations are crucial aspects to achieve this [1][2][3]. Prefabrication offers a lot of opportunities compared to current applied standards, but the retrofit reality is lagging behind it technological options. Therefore the Renew School project aims to learn from practice and to gain a new understanding by a so-called «bottom-up approach»1 in order to support practice. This practice is being investigated by means of different cases study analysis (school building projects) from the Renew School partner countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. The applied cooperation models and financial methods in these case studies were analyzed in order to gain deeper understanding on how they work. Additionally, the reasons for choosing prefabrication technology, key decision makers for it and the experienced barriers and advantages were also analyzed.

[1] Geier Sonja, et al. (2013). Evaluation of Collaboration Models». Public Report. FP7 project E2ReBuild. 2011-2014. Grant agreement n°260058; www.e2rebuild.com/en/links/deliverables/Sidor/default.aspx.

[2] Geier Sonja, et al. (2013). Collaboration Models for Industrialised Renovation Methods and Prefabrication – Opportunities, Barriers, Risk. In: Proceedings Passivhus Norden Conference 2013. Göteborg, Sweden, 15.-17.Oct. 2013

[3] Geier Sonja, et al. (2013). Collaboration Models for Industrialised Renovation – Experiences and Outlook on Organizational and Legal Frame Conditions. In: Proceedings Sustainable Building Conference 2013. Graz, Austria, 25.-28. Sept. 2013.

SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS Advanced school building renovations in which prefabricated technology is used is a

complex process. The scope within the investigation presented in this report focused

on distilling an understanding of cooperation models used, on financing methods

and aspects affected by use of industrial method with timber prefabrication.

Therefore, it was deliberately chosen as ‘out of scope’ to investigate all possible

social, environmental, economic and construction related aspects of the building

process in the case studies, as well as not to investigate aspects affected by chosen

renovation measures, the user and architectural aspects.

1 Geier S., et.al. (2013). p 8-9

http://www.e2rebuild.com/en/links/deliverables/Sidor/default.aspx

IEE Renew School

3

The diagram below illustrates this narrowed scope.

Figure 1: Scope of the Renew School Survey ; Source [1]

MAIN OBJECTIVES

The main objectives are to: Identify key aspects of cooperation within the project teams in each school building case study that influence frictionless work flow and optimization of technical solutions.

Therefore each case study was analyzed in terms of: - different actors involved their roles and interconnections - experiences with all phases of the renovation process and maintenance - links between the owner, the architect, the main contractor and the other different parties involved, and - suggestions on improving/optimizing the cooperation in future projects.

Investigate the way these front runner examples were financed, in terms of: - what financing tools/mechanisms they used - which sources of capital were used, and - what were the positive and negative experiences with the used financing model.

Find out experiences with the use of prefabricated timber technology in the school renovation processes in terms of:

- reasons to choose this technology - who and what had a decisive role in decision making - what level of “off-site” prefabrication was used, and - what was experienced as benefits and barriers .

KEY QUESTIONS The key questions that were in focus to be answered with the help of the case studies are:

Cooperation models Q1: What are the strengths and weaknesses in the cooperation models in the front-runner school renovations?

IEE Renew School

4

Financing

- Q2: What are the methods of financing in the front-runner school renovations?

Followed by a sub-question: o Which financial sources/constructions are typical? o What are the positive and negative experiences?

Prefabrication technology

- Q3: What advantages and barriers (process, financing) arise with the prefabrication technology using timber elements?

METHODOLOGY AND MEANS USED For this work data from the Renew School identified front runner case studies school building projects was collected to get an in-depth understanding of the complexity of cooperation models, composition of funding sources and experiences with prefabricated timber technology. To this end, tools used were survey questionnaire and individual interviews. The survey questionnaire was suitable in order to generate data on the front runner cases by asking different key actors involved (project manager or owner and investor, architect – planner and the main contractor). Additionally, the interviews were appropriate to get an understanding of the unique approach/experience of each project. An extensive survey with number of questions was developed by the Passiefhuis Platform (PHP) (example shown in Appendix) and sent to the Renew School partners, who used this tool to contact key actors of each case study and conduct the interviews. The survey was accessible on-line via ‘Survey Monkey’. Completing the survey and the interviews were anonymous, strictly confidential and in accordance with the privacy law. It was pointed out to the interviewees that it is important to mention positive as well as negative experiences about the applied solutions in their answers. The survey questions were not only focusing on collecting relevant information on the total of 14 selected front runner projects from the Renew School partner countries, but also on the conventional practice in their consequent city/region, since it was acknowledged important to gain an understanding of the wider context where the case studies are located. The selection of the case buildings was done as part of WP2, Task 2.1 “Collecting Frontrunners” of the Renew School work plan, where it came apparent that due to lack of completed advanced school building renovations using prefabricated timber technology in some Renew School participating countries, the scope had to be

IEE Renew School

5

widened to include educational buildings in the wider sense (e.g. kinder gardens). Additionally, in Belgium, the only application of timber prefabricated technology was so far applied to new built schools, therefore two such cases were selected. In total, twenty four respondents answered the survey and interview questions and were consequently analyzed. The data was analyzed by the WP3 leader PHP together with the external expert Sonja Geier of Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts–Engineering & Architecture, Competence Centre Typology & Planning in Architecture (CCTP) in Switzerland. The analysis findings were consulted with the Renew School Partners. The majority of the twenty four respondents of the survey and interviews were school owners and main contractors (38% and 33% respectively), followed by the architects 24% and facility managers and project coordinators 5% each. To this list of respondents, 23% were representatives of the community/municipality where a front runner building was placed and investors (advisors, financier). This variety and number of reached respondents proved to be beneficial for collecting their experiences and points of view which is further elaborated in this report. GENERAL FINDINGS

The survey and interview questions were carefully developed to investigate the following aspects:

- General questions concerning the project in focus - Questions concerning specifics of the cooperation model - Questions relating to the financing method - Several questions on timber prefabrication technology - Final questions about the cooperation and financing of school renovations

within common practice in cities/regions where the front runners are located.

In total, the survey had thirty seven questions. Answers were collected for:

- one secondary school in Norway - two schools in Belgium (note that these are new built due to lack of

representative renovation project) - four schools in Austria - four in Slovenia (kinder gardens) - one school from Denmark - one school in Poland, and - one kindergarden in Italy.

IEE Renew School

6

Interestingly, the main reasons to renovate coming from the survey answers were to: (note that it was possible to give multiple answers to this question)

- Improve thermal comfort in winter (found in 71% of the answers), followed by improve indoor air quality and degradation of components and installations (58% in both cases).

- The next group with high number of answers is with reasons to renovate based on reduce energy costs, environmental awareness and improve thermal comfort in summer.

- The group with lowest percentages of answers was to: improve the image of the school, improve visual comfort (daylight/shading) and improve acoustical performance.

In 70% of the front runner cases the energy conditions were demanded as integral part of the renovation. Interestingly this was expressed in different ways: required reaching the passive house standard, or through more general sustainability requirements without specifying an energy standard , or energy requirement to be better than the applicable building code or even meeting the energy-efficiency requirements of an (eco) fund provider. This demonstrates different pathways that the front runner cases had for advanced renovation using prefabrication technology. Moreover, in 58% of the cases there were specific requirements on conditions (indoor air, thermal, visual comfort). Regarding use of public tenders, the diagram below shows the importance of criteria

in evaluation. The results demonstrate that main criteria was the priorities of

investment costs (88%), followed by quality (53%) and experience of the tender

applicant (47%). Operating cost and technical merit were 35% and 29% respectively.

Least important were the methodology, CO2 emissions and life cycle cost.

The lowest price and conditions within were pointed out in the answers as main

evaluation criteria. It is somewhat surprising that for these front runner buildings,

the importance of CO2 emissions and calculations based on life cycle are not more

prominent.

IEE Renew School

7

Figure 2: Renew School front runners survey: overview of responses Q18.

IEE Renew School

8

Key Question Q1 Cooperation models Q1: What are the strengths and weaknesses in the cooperation models in the front-runner school renovations? Respondents were asked to give a chronological overview/description of the building

process actions (from preparation, through planning and tendering, to production

planning prefabrication, on-site and off-site work, construction, completion and

maintenance).

Table 1: Strengths and weaknesses identified in the cooperation of the 14 Renew School case studies;

Cooperation Models Strengths Cooperation Models Weaknesses

S1 Internal driving forces pushed the

project and innovative ideas (such as

prefabrication) for a long time in order

to realize renovation.

S2 A central source of data proved to be

beneficial for the project processing.

S3 Personal meetings and dialogues in

the beginning foster mutual cooperation

in the team that is necessary for

thorough information handling and

frictionless procedures.

S4 Extended design phases provide

optimization options.

W1 Communication and information

management between partners was

lacking behind expectations.

W2 Experts (passive house/ timber

manufacturing/HVAC) were not

integrated from the beginning.

W3 No standardized documentation for

the building itself and possible «learning

curves»

W4 The introduction of the users after

renovation was dominated by technical

experts less experienced to explain the

functions in an understandable way.

W5 Lowest price principle as main driver

for the designation of cooperation

partners (especially of the contractors).

W6 Less importance of architectural

design.

IEE Renew School

9

Ad S1

Nearly in all demo projects that applied successfully prefabricated elements had a

strong driving force behind the project, pushing it forward but without having the

security that it can be financed and carried out finally. Most often it was the mayor

of the municipality (or an representative of a public administration) with a high

personal engagement. It was this internal «motor» who opened the path and pushed

the vision to an innovative renovation project [Q8, #2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17,

18]

Ad S2

Two respondents [Q21,# 1 and Q22, # 4] pointed out that the information

management either due to the usage of «central information sharing system» or

«cloud programme» for the project management proved to be beneficial for project

progress and cooperation.

Ad S3

Personal meetings and dialogues enabled a better mutual understanding and

induced consequently a better atmosphere of trust and confidence. A problems and

challenges normally came up – the problem-solving was facilitated [Q22, # 1, 3, 6, 7,

8].

«The suggestion is to meet in person in the beginning». [Q22, #7 and #8]

Ad S4

Figure 3: Action chain of the renovation in Søreide (primary school in Norway)

The renovation of the Søreide primary school from Denmark, was an interesting in

terms of cooperation to optimization. The project was based on a PPP model, the

competition criteria were the costs, the application of wood, reaching the passive

house standard and the design. The prefabrication idea was established in the

competition were 6 teams took part. The winning proposal was based on a

cooperation of the contractor and the architect. In an extended design phase

IEE Renew School

10

«Planning and detailed planning» after the contracts were established (see «P» and

«C» in Figure 4) the architect, engineers and contractors optimized the prefabricated

elements and the solution set.

Ad W1

Some respondents claimed that information and communication was lagging and

that the communication between the cooperation partners would have needed

improvement and another understanding of cooperation:

«Exchange of info between main and prefab-elements contractor […] could be

better.» [Q22, #1]

«The communication between the architect, the main contractor and the engineering

company was suboptimal» [Q28, # 3,#18]

«I suggest more mutual listening and finding the best possible solution irresistible of

the profit of each contractor. [Q22, #4]

«Less mutual listening» [Q22, #7]

Ad W2

The information flow between design and execution or the early integration of

experts in early planning phases was addressed directly in many answers [Q22, #1,

#3, Q28, # 1, # 2 #10], however it can be read between the lines in a a lot of answers

throughout the survey. In fact, the survey showed the challenge of getting all actors

necessary for planning and implementation together hindered by the barrier of how

the financing models could be established.

Basically, any financing model was an aggregation of different sources. Each source

was bound to requirements, for instance: application of innovative or sustainable

technologies or materials, achieving comfort criteria, etc. Nearly in all projects the

time needed to find develop the financial model was about 4-5 years. At this time

the renovation project was not fixed and the planning effort had to be kept as low as

possible. Thus, a team that would have been necessary to streamline all activities in

financing and target-setting for the renovation did not exist in the early design

phases.

«Better architect + contractor collaboration earlier is strictly necessary» [Q22, #3]

IEE Renew School

11

Figure 4: Cooperation model of the school renovation project in Neumarkt.

This is visible in the team set-up of the «Neumarkt» school renovation (see Figure 3).

The design and planning team (green ellipses and background) was working along

the entire planning phases without knowing who will be the executing contractor.

In Neumarkt the architect was very experienced in prefabrication from previous

projects. Nevertheless, the public procurement regulation hindered them to

optimize the elements in terms of production capabilities given by the manufacturer.

Hence many of the implemented cooperation models had to neglect possible (and

radical) optimization options.

Ad W3

Two respondents proposed that renovation projects in future [Q22, #12, #13] should

take care of a better and more precise documentation. Especially public buildings are

very sensitive regarding their further operation and maintenance regarding a proper

documentation.

However, who is responsible? In case of the architect being the coordinator, it is him

to bring all documentations together. On the other side, it is also the duty of the

owner`s representative taking care of wrapping up everything in the end.

Ad W4

IEE Renew School

12

This chapter aims to highlight the cooperation between all actors in the design,

planning and execution phase. Nevertheless, it is only possible to take advantage of

a high quality renovation if the users in the end are enabled to use the building in

the right way. Most often technicians are responsible to introduce the technologies

to the users. However, two respondents claimed that this introduction should be

done by people who are able to speak the ‘language of the users’. [Q22, #9, #14]

Ad W5

All demo projects were driven by the «lowest price» principle. This was due the

obligation of the public procurement. The tender should identify the bidder being

able to realize the solution proposed by the design team to the lowest possible price.

Hence, there was less room to think about an alternative solution that might be even

easier to realize.

Ad W6

What was also interesting in the answers is that the architectural design had less

importance. Either it was due to those providing the answers (owners and investors

are more interested in economic aspects as they are responsible to bring up the

money), or it is a most likely neglected aspect as the financing model is dominating.

Only one quote [Q21 #1] pointed out that there was an architectural competition in

the beginning.

The following part of the cooperation model analysis is focusing on the links (defined

as contract, communication, information and legal requirements) that the school

building OWNER, ARCHITECT, MAIN CONTRACTOR had with the different involved

parties.

Cooperation Model: Links OWNER to the different parties involved:

2 of the 18 respondents were professional investors [#3 and 5 in Q3]; in [#2] there

was a representative of the municipality (MOL) the investor.

Actually it has to be questioned whether there is a tendency to establish

professional investors or owner representatives?

Basically the intrinsic motivation of mayors (even if less professional) to realize

innovative and high quality solution would be higher as they identify themselves

with the project. Professional representatives and investors would steer and control

the entire process more efficient, however due to their profession they would stick

more to their «business as usual» standards and would act less ambitious concerning

probably «unreachable» objectives.

Cooperation Model: Links ARCHITECT to the different parties involved:

IEE Renew School

13

In most of the renovations the owner designated the architect – either based on the

fact of confidence and trust in the person or by an architectural competition.

Despite the denomination based on trust or the architectural competition in nearly

all renovations the architect and the planning team was separated from the

implementing contractors. There was no contractual relationship. Only in [#8 and 9

in Q21] the architect was hired by the contractor.

The respondents were further asked, after having their experience with the front

runner building, on how they think the cooperation between involved parties could

have been improved?

The majority of answers revolved around communication. Communication during

commissioning phase was experienced as difficult, with recommendation to

separate the delivery in an architectural and an installation technical part by

commissioning.

Communication through regular meetings with the architect/site manager once per

week and monthly meetings of the project group with the school teachers proved

beneficial to the whole process.

In summary, better integrated planning and better sharing between the architect

and the main contractors is sought after. Also, the need for thorough planning was

strongly emphasized as important to keep the benefits of the prefabrication

technology. The complexity of the planning and construction processes were

unnecessarily made difficult due to design process that was done without taking into

consideration the limitations of the prefabrication technology.

The respondents were also asked on suggestions to improve sharing of information

and resources in future projects. Suggestion came to improve exchange of

information between the main and the prefab elements constructor regarding air

tightness, as this caused lower quality in reaching the required air tightness level.

Partners were also asked on suggestion on which optimization of the cooperation

are still possible to have a better ‘unburdening’? One of the respondents has

specified the following: “One optimization for this project could have been that the

builder/investors would be more involved in the chosen solution. When the builder is

not involved from the start and later becomes involved and disagrees with the

solution, it creates delays, more work and higher cost for the entire project”.

IEE Renew School

14

Key Question Q2 Financing

- Q2: What are the methods of financing in the front-runner school renovations?

Followed by a sub-question: o Which financial sources/constructions are typical? o What are the positive and negative experiences?

Typically, it was found that the municipality / school owner pays the energy bill of

the school/kinder garden out of the yearly operating budget, and this is the case

before and after the renovation.

Interestingly, in one case, the renewable energy system installed on the building

produce energy in excess of the school needs. This energy is sold to the electrical

network and it repays the whole energy bills of the schools.

The graph below shows the answers received regarding financial methods applied.


IEE Renew School

15

The answers show majority of financing coming from funds and grants, followed by

preferential loan programmes and VAT reductions. Importantly, novel forms of

financing have been used, although in small number of cases, of third party financing

(7%), ESCO Energy Service Company (7%), and energy guarantees (7%).

This shows that typically, the funding has come as combination of sources: majority

of which are public capital, and increasingly with private capital (preferential loans),

to which further mechanisms of private capital such as third party financing with its

form of ESCO formula and guarantees has been complementary enabler for

achieving the necessary renovation budget. The sole use of third party financing (as

PPP Public Private Partnership) with ESCO and guarantees demonstrates that such

mechanisms have economic sense in buildings realizing high energy savings and

quality of construction.

In more detail, an EFRO funding, regional development funding, eco funding were all

accessed to supplement the budget of a province/municipality where the school is

located. Also, national funding and research funding as grants were also used. The

case buildings often represented the ‘first off’ in, for example applying an energy

standard such as the passive house or implementation of innovative technologies

(e.g. lighting, LED systems, control systems) for which research grants were applied.

Private financing was also used in form of private bank funding (typically with

preferential loans at 2% interest rate), private company investing in the PV system

installed on a school building, or combination of private and public financing (PPP).

Finally, VAT reduction where possible was also used.

The factors influencing choice of financing method ranged from: as “only available”

and the “only feasible” with details that the used grants were incentives to go

further than most common renovations and that the only choice was to combine

several sources of financing, since the municipality did not have sufficient financial

resources.

Looking into the experiences of what were the positive and negative aspects with

the used financing method and possible ways for improvement revealed:

- Disadvantage with the traditional banks that could give a loan with the

guarantee of the government gave unfavourable conditions. One ethical bank

gave better conditions.

- Advantage with the municipality as being only “one owner”, for calculation of

construction and maintenance costs.

- Those using EU grants experienced positive aspects as the systematic

approach with good organization, yet negative was the complex procedures

that can result in non-use of already appropriate funds.

IEE Renew School

16

- A lot of effort needed to convince the regional government of the

comprehensive way of renovation resulted with additional hours of work.

It became apparent that majority of the front runner projects had to combine

several financing sources, each of which had their own requirements, with an overall

picture of fragmentation due to these various “side objectives”.

In reflection to the financing of front runner buildings with the wider conditions in

the city/region where they are located, the respondents were also asked to explain

how school renovation projects are typically financed.

The answers provided showed that usually the funding comes from the municipal

budget or the city budget where the school is located. To this funds operated by

central government is in cases linked.

New direction reported by one responded is preparations on PPP-Energy

Performance Contracting for up to 30 schools that need retrofit, in which certain

level of energy savings should be guaranteed by the private partner the Energy

Performance Contractor.

As to what are the main advantages of the commonly used financing models in their

cities/regions, the respondents placed “one owner” (typically municipality)

benefiting from the energy savings directly in the budget.

Negative aspects were that should the intended project goes beyond the valid

building codes, the municipality must on its own obtain additional funds that would

come from different sources, including EU funds.

When own funds of the city, for example were used, this resulted to faster and

simpler investment process. The disadvantage here is that the related lack of

requirements as to the environmental effects of the investment leads to maintaining

common bad practice if school managers do not consider decreasing energy costs to

be a critical issue.

A barrier is also reported when there is no separate available funding for thermal

retrofits, so application of these measures to school retrofit must compete with

other maintenance actions such as removal of asbestos and works on water

installations, for example.

Key Question Q3

Prefabrication technology

IEE Renew School

17

- Q3: What advantages and barriers (process, financing) arise with the prefabrication technology using timber elements?

The survey respondents gave the following as typical answers as to “what were the

reasons to choose for prefabricated technology?”

- Short time of construction on site and higher quality of construction, as well

as the advantage of having precise cost for planning for this structure.

- Several answers were provided on the advantage on using local craftsman

quality.

- It was also repeated on the time problem with schools (i.e. short renovation

time available during summer), as reason to opt for prefabricated

technology.

Below is table with the received answers.

IEE Renew School

18


The following question intended to evaluate their experience as to “why have you

chosen prefab = “we heard it’s faster” approach:


There is a common agreement by the number of answers received to the above

question that the used prefabrication method has led to limiting execution time,

whereby speed on site is seen as biggest advantage, followed by improving quality,

lower burden on site. Less evident is that the project management is easier and

lower cost is achieved.

Below is an overview of the answers to this question aggregated from point of view

of respondents: school owners, architects and main contractors.

IEE Renew School

19

IEE Renew School

20


Furthermore, the respondents were asked on who and what had a decisive role in

the decision process? (with the prefabricated technology). Highlighted was the role

of the mayor and local politicians, then the municipality with the public tender/call

and the investor and /or building owner. In cases (such as with the kinder garden

example), when the municipality had little experience with advanced energetic

renovation, advise was sought from a consultant in low energy buildings, upon which

the municipality took decisions.

In more detail:

IEE Renew School

21

- The main decisions regarding technical issues with the prefabricated modules

were taken by the main contractor and the architect.

- Noticeable is chain of decision making as ‘top down’, namely, the political will

(mayor and local politicians role) and investors is found as an accelerator for

opting for advanced renovations using prefabricated technology, that is then

put in place by the municipality open call/tender to which architects and

contractors provide further decisions making regarding technical aspects of

the prefabrication technology.

The main initiative for the use of prefabrication technology came from various

actors. Namely, in some cases it was by the architect and the contractor, or through

the tender offer that was selected which had prefab solution although that was not

specifically asked in the tender.

In other cases it was the owner who demanded it from the beginning or the investor.

This shows that initiators for use of prefabrication in school renovation projects can

be by different actors and in most cases from the very start of the project and from

the preliminary design.

Those who have experienced working with prefabricated technology have provided

the following insights into what were the legal constraints. Transportation

restrictions on module dimensions was mentioned, fire safety regulations and

requirements due to use of timber whereby additional documentation was needed

to prove that wood works in terms of fire protection, also the financial limits. It was

also reflected on the possible problems with the static to fix timber prefab elements

into existing brick/concrete walls.

On the “off-site” integrated elements in the prefabricated timber modules (diagram

below), predominantly the insulation, air-tightness, window frames and glazing was

integrated. Electricity was also in over 20% of cases while installations (ventilation

ducts, heating, sanitary hot waste and rain pipes, in minority of cases (less than

10%). Noticeably, in several cases the prefabricated elements came with fixation

points ready, partly shading system installed or the first internal finish layer

prepared.

IEE Renew School

22


DISCUSSION

The current cooperation models lack sufficient (and professional?) information and

communication management. On the one side, the project responsible (from the

owners’ side) is most likely a mayor (in case of small municipalities). On the other

side, in cities or in case schools that are administered on an aggregated level, there

are most often professional setting up a financial model and the cooperation model

right from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the design and planning procedures afterwards are vastly

characterized by ambiguities concerning clear and target-oriented planning

IEE Renew School

23

procedures. As prefabrication depends on a finalized planning before production

may start, any uncertainty in the design and planning before influences the result in

terms of time and quality (and money too).

OUTLOOK

The next step with the investigation of the cooperation models is the international

workshop on 19th November 2015 in Stuttgart, Germany. This workshop is intended

to gather experts and practitioners to create a dialog between research and practice

on how to initiate a “game change” for successful cooperation models in sustainable

school buildings renovation.

This event is organized in the context of the Renew School project. Presentations

and interactive part followed by questions, answers session and networking moment

will focus on finding ways forward to the key question: “What are the enablers for

change in the current practice of school building renovation”?

Attention in the workshop will be given to further explore the effect on the

cooperation models when General Contractor or the Main Contractor is involved.

Also, on the role of communication in terms of importance of physical meetings vs

“virtual” meetings, given the current available IT tools.

APPENDIX

Surveys questions

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3

In WP3 we are interested in the financial and cooperation models which are used in school renovation projects. We will assess • the financial aspects • the contractual relations • the work order • communication aspects The collected data is strictly confidential and anonymous, in accordance with the law on privacy. This questionnaire will take about 40 minutes of your time. How to fill in this questionnaire? • To gather the right answers it's recommended to have a personal interview with the architect (or planner), projectmanager (or owner and investor) and the main contractor. The interviews can be done with all parties together or seperate. Questions 5 until 18 are typical questions for school owners only. • It is important to mention positive and negative experiences about the applied solutions. • Click on 'next' to go forward, and 'previous' to go backwards. • The answers will be registrated immediatly. You can leave the webbrowser always without progressing. • A progress bar will allow you to know how far you are in the survey. If you have questions, you can always send a message to [email protected] or give a call at +32 473 68 98 22 We thank you for your participation!

1. Contact information of interviewee

2. I fill in this questionnaire for...

*Name:

Company:

Emailadress:

Phone:

*

one of the selected frontrunner projects

nmlkj

the conventional practice in my region/country

nmlkj


3. Function of the interviewee.

4. For which project do you fill in this questionnaire?

*

*

School owner

gfedc

Facility manager of the school

gfedc

Project coordinator

gfedc

Architect

gfedc

Main contractor

gfedc

Other

gfedc

Other (describe)

Romsdal Secondary School, Norway

nmlkj

Søreide Primary School, Norway

nmlkj

Risør Technical College, Norway

nmlkj

Backsippans Preschool, Sweden

nmlkj

School Zonnekind, Kalmthout, Belgium

nmlkj

School CVO HeusdenZolder, Belgium

nmlkj

Detmold Vocational College, Germany

nmlkj

Schwanenstadt, Austria

nmlkj

Rainbach, Austria

nmlkj

St.Leonhard, Austria

nmlkj

Neumarkt, Austria

nmlkj

Tišina kindergarten, Slovenia

nmlkj

Lavrica kindergarten, Slovenia

nmlkj

Kekec kindergarten, Slovenia

nmlkj

Storžek kindergarten, Slovenia

nmlkj

Siemianowice, Poland

nmlkj

Kirkebjerg, Denmark

nmlkj

Vibengen, Denmark

nmlkj

Capriva del Friuli kindergarten, Italy

nmlkj

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP35. What was/were the main reason(s) to renovate?

6. Was a “rebuild”(instead of renovation) ever been considered?

7. What were the reasons to choose for using prefabricated modules?

55

66

Degradation of components or installations

gfedc

Improve thermal comfort in winter

gfedc

Improve thermal comfort in summer

gfedc

Improve visual comfort (daylighting/shading)

gfedc

Improve air quality

gfedc

Improve acoustical performance

gfedc

Availability of a funding opportunity or grant application limited in time

gfedc

Energy cost

gfedc

Image of the school

gfedc

Environmental awareness

gfedc

Others

gfedc

Others (explain)

55

66

yes

nmlkj

no

nmlkj

not applicable

nmlkj

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP38. Who and what had a decisive role in the decision process?

9. How does the school pay its energy bills? (Possibly different before and after the renovation.) For example: Before renovation the school payed their energy bills out of the general operating budget. This operating budget is a fixed amount per pupil given by the government. After the renovation the energy bills are payed by a DBFMcompany. (DBFM = Design, Build, Finance and Maintenance). This company is responsable for the building during 30 years after completion.

55

66

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP310. Which financing tools/mechanisms were finally USED to finance the construction of the school?

funds

gfedc

guarantees or surety

gfedc

(preferential) loan programs

gfedc

Grants

gfedc

Third party financing

gfedc

Trading (certificates)

gfedc

Tax Rebates

gfedc

Tax deductions

gfedc

VAT reductions

gfedc

Esco (energy service company)

gfedc

Please describe it in detail:

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP311. Why was finally choosen for the used financing tools/mechanisms?

12. What are the positive and negative experiences with the used financing model? Do you have suggestions to improve this?

55

66

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP313. Give for each financing tool/mechanism which was considered to finance the construction the source were you found very usefull information? (websiteadress, mail supportadress,...)

14. Were there energetic energy performance conditions linked to?

funds



Grants



Tax Rebates

Tax deductions

VAT reductions


Other 1

Other 2

Other 3

Other 4

Other 5

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

No idea

nmlkj

If yes, please describe

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP315. Were there other important conditions (Indoor air comfort, thermal comfort, visual comfort, ...) linked to it?

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

No idea

nmlkj

If yes, please describe

55

66


16. Which sources of capital were used and what was their contribution (amount)?

17. Impact of the renovation costs

National government

Regional government (region)

Region government (province)

Region government (municipality)

Building owner

Building occupier

Building contractor

Bank

Energy supplier

Energy distributor

Energy service company

Other (describe)

For how many pupils was the building designed before renovation?

What was the budget for education per pupil before renovation?

Yearly budget for maintaining this building before renovation?

Yearly energy expenses before renovation?

For how many pupils was the building designed after renovation?

What is the budget for education per pupil after renovation?

Yearly budget for maintaining this building after renovation?

Yearly energy expenses after renovation?

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP318. How were the tenders evaluated?

investment cost

gfedc

operating cost

gfedc

life cycle cost

gfedc

experience of the tenderer

gfedc

methodology

gfedc

quality

gfedc

technical :…merit

gfedc

CO2emissions

gfedc

other

gfedc

Explain more in detail

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP319. What was “offsite” integrated in the prefabricated walls?

Insulation

gfedc

Airtightnessmeasures

gfedc

Window frames

gfedc

Glazing

gfedc

Ventilation ducts

gfedc

Ventilation equipment

gfedc

Heating pipes

gfedc

Sanitary water pipes

gfedc

Rain water pipes

gfedc

Cooling pipes

gfedc

Electricity

gfedc

Photovoltaics

gfedc

Thermal solar collector

gfedc

Other 1

gfedc

Other 2

gfedc

Other 3

gfedc

Other 4

gfedc

Other(s) (Specify)

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP320. Do you agree that the following issues are advantages of the used prefabrication method?

don't agree at all partially don't agree neutral partially agree totally agree

Limiting execution time nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Easier project management

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improving quality nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Clarifying responsibilities of partners

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Better stability nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Spaces remain used nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Less burden on site nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Better comfort nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Less cost nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Other 1 nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj




Other(s) (Specify)

55

66


The next question is about the action chain. See some examples below. Instead of answering the question in textform it is recommended to draw the action chain directly in the powerpointfile which was recently distributed to you.

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP321. Give a chronological overview/description of the building process actions? (Preparation, preliminary design, contract planning team, design, cost calculation, planning to get building permit, detailed planning, tendering, cost statement, contract main contractor, design freeze , production planning prefab, onsite preparation for renewables and prefab elements, Offsite prefabrication in fabrication hall, standard onsite construction work, installation of prefab elements onsite, completion, maintenance)

22. Do you have any suggestions to improve the sharing of information and resources in future projects?

55

66

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP323. Who initiated the idea of prefab construction and in which phase was that?

24. Were/Are there any legal constraints that impede high energy efficient and/or prefab construction solutions?

55

66

55

66


The next question is about the cooperation models. See some example below and the powerpointfile. Instead of answering the next 3 questions it is recommended to draw the cooperation model directly in the powerpointfile which was recently distributed to you. Questions to ask are: Which parties had a contractual relation? Which parties had communication (bidirectional) with eachother? Degree of communication? Between which parties there was an information flow? Degree of information flow? Were there influences of legal requirements between the parties?

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP325. Cooperation model: Please indicate which links (contract, communication, information, legal requirements) there were between OWNER and the different involved parties.

contract type =

performance contract

contract type = funding

commitment

intensive communication (bidirectional)

moderate communication (bidirectional)

little communication (bidirectional)

intensive information

input

moderate information

input

low information

input

influenced by legal

requirements

Project manager gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Owner gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Investor gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Operator gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Facility manager gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Utility provider (electricity)

gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Utility provider (gas) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

District heating provider


Architect gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Architect Project coordinator


Planner Building Physics


Planner statics gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Planner fireprotection


Planner Heating gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Planner Ventilation gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Planner Cooling (summercomfort)


Planner Electricity gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Planner lighting gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Planner daylighting gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Planner building control systems


Site manager gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Consultant energy gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Other planner/consultant:…


Main contractor gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor construction


Contractor prefabmodules


Contractor windows gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor shading gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Contractor roof gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor Heating gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor Ventilation


Contractor Cooling gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor Electricity gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor lighting gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Contractor daylighting


Contractor building control systems


Other contractor:… gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

School management gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Parents association gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Pupils gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Teachers gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Caretaker gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

External users of the school building (club music, sport,…)


Authority (building permits)


Authority (fire protection)


Insurance company gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Funding Institution gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Funding Body gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Funding Entity gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Investor (PPP) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

Other 1 gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc


Others (Please specify)

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP326. Cooperation model: Please indicate which links (contract, communication, information, legal requirements) there were between ARCHITECT and the different involved parties.

contract type =



commitment





input


input

low information

input

influenced by legal

requirements






































































55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP327. Cooperation model: Please indicate which links (contract, communication, information, legal requirements) there were between MAIN CONTRACTOR and the different involved parties.

contract type =



commitment





input


input

low information

input

influenced by legal

requirements






































































55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP328. How do you think the cooperation between partners could have been better?’

29. Which optimizations are still possible to have a better unburdening?

30. Were certain responsibilities defined in the contractual relation? Please explain

31. I confirm my answers

55

66

55

66

55

66

I confirm

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


The following questions should be asked at people who have a good insight in school building projects in their region/country.

32. The anwers that I give are applicable for

*Austria

nmlkj

Belgium

nmlkj

Denmark

nmlkj

Germany

nmlkj

Italy

nmlkj

Norway

nmlkj

Poland

nmlkj

Slovenia

nmlkj

Sweden

nmlkj

If only applicable for a certain region (please describe)

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP333. Give for each financing tool/mechanism, which is usefull to finance schoolrenovationprojects, the source were schools can find interesting information? (websiteadress, mail supportadress,...)

34. Explain how school renovation projects are financed most of the time.

funds



Grants



Tax Rebates

Tax deductions

VAT reductions


Other 1

Other 2

Other 3

Other 4

Other 5

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP335. What are the positive and negative experiences of the most common used financing models? Do you have suggestions to improve this?

36. How do schools pay their energy bills? (Possibly different before and after the renovation.) For example: Before renovation the school payed their energy bills out of the general operating budget. This operating budget is a fixed amount per pupil given by the government. After the renovation the energy bills are payed by a DBFMcompany. (DBFM = Design, Build, Finance and Maintenance). This company is responsable for the building during 30 years after completion.

55

66

55

66

Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP3Renew School Questionnaire WP337. Which legal responsibilities has every party in the standard renovation process? (f.e. What happens in case hidden defects are detected after some years?)

55

66

renew school sustainable school building renovation … · 2015. 10. 1. · iee renew school 3 the...

Documents