OPR Gap Discovered After Design Is Complete
A new 90,000 ft² middle school is in the design development phase. The Cx provider was hired late, only after the 95% construction documents were issued for a design-assist review. The owner's project requirements (OPR) document consists of a two-page narrative that states the facility should be 'energy efficient, comfortable, and easy to maintain.' The design team has specified a variable-air-volume system with a 42 °F supply air temperature, an air-cooled chiller with a 1.30 kW/ton full-load efficiency, and no economizer. The district's energy policy requires a minimum 15% energy cost reduction below ASHRAE 90.1 and the classroom acoustics target of NC-30. The owner's facility manager mentions that the previous school had chronic humidity complaints in the gymnasium. The design review is scheduled in three weeks and the construction budget is locked at $34 million.
1. Identify the OPR deficiencies and explain how the Cx provider should address them given the fixed budget and schedule.
Read the worked answer
The OPR is not measurable, not verifiable, and incomplete. Deficiencies include:
- No quantitative targets. 'Energy efficient' cannot be verified; the district's 15% below 90.1 requirement is an objective that must appear in the OPR, not just in a policy document.
- Missing environmental/comfort criteria. NC-30 is stated nowhere in the OPR; humidity control for the gymnasium is absent even though the owner has a documented history of complaints.
- No maintainability or training requirements. 'Easy to maintain' needs to be translated into specific requirements (e.g., accessibility, spare parts, training hours, systems manual deliverable).
- No basis for the economizer decision. Without a stated requirement for energy performance, the design team cannot be judged against the omission of an economizer.
The Cx provider should not rewrite the OPR alone. It should facilitate a structured OPR workshop with the owner, facility manager, and design team, convert each vague statement into a measurable acceptance criterion (e.g., 'meet or exceed 15% energy cost savings vs. 90.1-2019 baseline as demonstrated by energy model; NC-30 in classrooms; gym RH not to exceed 60% at design conditions'), and document owner sign-off. Because the budget is locked, the provider should flag any OPR-derived requirement that the current design cannot meet (e.g., economizer, humidity control) as a design review issue with a cost/benefit note, so the owner can decide whether to accept the gap, issue a change order, or revise the OPR. The three-week window is tight; the provider should issue the OPR update and design review comments concurrently and track discrepancies in an issues log.
2. The design team argues that the economizer was value-engineered out and that the OPR did not require one. How should the Cx provider respond?
Read the worked answer
The provider should resist the framing of 'the OPR didn't require it, so it's acceptable.' The OPR is the owner's statement of need, and the district's 15% energy policy is part of that need. The provider should:
- Tie the issue to the OPR objective, not the component. The question is whether the design as configured can demonstrate 15% savings. If the energy model shows it cannot without an economizer, the design does not meet the OPR regardless of whether the word 'economizer' appears.
- Document the decision. If the owner chooses to accept the value-engineered design, the provider should record the owner's informed acceptance as a deviation from the OPR, with the energy impact quantified, in the issues log and final report. The provider does not have authority to force a design change.
- Recommend a verification path. Suggest that the design team re-run the energy model with and without the economizer and present the delta at the design review, so the owner decides with data rather than assertion.
- Avoid scope creep accusations. Frame the comment as a design review observation against a stated owner requirement, not as a demand for additional services.