Inland Empire Chapter presents Technical Session at the Region XI 2009 CRC:

As part of the Region XI 2009 CRC, the Inland Empire Chapter is presenting a Technical Session on the topic of Healthcare Facilities Design. It is the goal of our Technical Session to be instructive and educational as well as informative and entertaining. Our program includes one hour of soft skills training presented by Dale Carnegie Training, two one-hour technical presentations on health and ventilation by our guest lecturers, a lighter talk on the history of health and ventilation during our luncheon, and a panel discussion about ASHRAE’s Healthcare Facilities Design Professional Certification Program. Certificates of completion for professional development hours will be provided. There will be product displays by our vendor sponsors during the event. Included in our Technical Session will be a continental breakfast, snacks and beverages during our breaks, and a luncheon featuring the Davenport’s Northwest Buffet with baked salmon and grilled tri-tip steak. Registration is available on-line on our web-site.

ASHRAE REGION XI SPRING 2009 CRC
Chapter Regional Conference
Davenport Hotel
May 7-9, 2009
Spokane, Washington
Hosted by Inland Empire Chapter
http://www.ie-ashrae.org/2009CRC

HEALTHCARE FACILITES DESIGN TECHNICAL SESSION SCHEDULE
Thursday, May 7th, 7:00 am to 3:00 pm
Registration Fee: $150.00

7:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Vendor Displays
Aircuity – Indoor Environmental Quality
American Air Filter – Better Air is Our Business
Johnson Controls Inc. – JCI Hospital Controls
PacifiCAD – Autodesk Building Information Modeling
Vemco – Phoenix Lab Fume Hood Airflow Controls
Washington Air Reps – Huntair Fan Wall

7:00 AM to 8:00 AM
Continental Breakfast

8:00 AM to 9:00 AM
JILL PITTMANN – Dale Carnegie Training
Dale Carnegie Training works with organizations and their people to develop skills that increase individual potential and improve bottom-line results. During this program you will discover:
The Cycle of Performance Improvement
Tools to communicate more effectively
Techniques to improve your memory
How to Win Friends and Influence People

9:00 AM to 9:30 AM
Break with beverages and snacks

9:30 AM to 10:30 AM
JAN SUNDELL, M.Sc.Eng, Dr.Med.Sc.
Technical University of Denmark
Jan Sundell is an environmental scientist, from Sweden, with a unique background in both engineering (M.Sc.Eng) and medicine (Dr.Med.Sc.). Before going into science he was responsible for building codes, and occupational health legislation in Sweden and the Nordic countries. Within ASHRAE he is a member of SSPC 62.1, the Environmental Health Committee, and is the chair of EHC Subcommittee for Research. He is an excellent provocative lecturer, with outstanding knowledge on the need of ventilation, and the importance of indoor air factors for health.

Dr. Sundell’s technical session presentation will provide an overview of the state of the art regarding the importance of ventilation and indoor air quality for health.

10:30 AM to 11:00 AM
Break with beverages and snacks

11:00 AM to 12:00 PM
PAUL NINOMURA, PE, HFDP
Paul Ninomura is a Mechanical Engineer with the U.S. Indian Health Service in Seattle, WA. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Washington. He is an ASHRAE Health Facility Design Professional (HFDP) and is a LEED Accredited Professional. He is currently serving as the Chairman for SSPC 170: ASHRAE Standard for Ventilation of Health Care Facilities.

Mr. Nimomura’s technical session presentation will provide a history of ASHRAE Standard 170, Ventilation for Healthcare Facilities, with a general overview of the Standard, highlights of a few aspects of the Standard, the current committee structure and the continuing maintenance of the Standard. The presentation will include a brief discussion of the development of the 2010 edition of the FGI Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities and the potential integration of Standard 170 with the FGI Guidelines.

12:00 PM to 1:30 PM
Included with Technical Session
EMPLOYER RECOGNITION LUNCHEON
During the luncheon, Dr. Sundell will present a historical discussion on ventilation and health.

1:30 PM to 2:30 PM
HFDP PANEL DISCUSSION
A discussion of the ASHRAE’s Healthcare Facilities Design Professional Certification Program including a review of the course content outline, sample questions, eligibility requirements, application and testing procedures.

On-Line registration for the Region XI 2009 CRC is now available. Please visit our web-site at http://www.ie-ashrae.org/2009CRC for registration forms and more information about the 2009 CRC.

The Young Engineering Professionals of Puget Sound are
providing a Networking Social next month.

Click on the image below for a more readable
version of the announcement.

Registration Open for 2009 CRC in Spokane

Members of Puget Sound ASHRAE have a rare opportunity this year--Our region's (Region XI) Chapters Regional Conference (CRC) will be held in Spokane, WA. The CRC is being hosted by the Inland Empire Chapter and our close proximity to the event makes it a lot easier for Puget Sound Chapter members to attend.
Why should you be interested in attending this event? Well, first the CRC give members a unique opportunity to meet with ASHRAE members across our region, which spans through much of the Northern regions of North America:



Attendees get to meet great people who are doing the same things in different parts of the US and Canada and to share fresh perspectives with each other. Attendees also get to meet and talk with the regional officers who direct the day-to-day business and chart the strategic goals for the region. And, for many attendees, the CRC is an unmatched opportunity to learn more about ASHRAE and how it works.

But that's not all. The CRC also provides a technical seminar program providing educational opportunities for attendees, factory tours, excursions, etc.

You can learn more about this year's CRC, which is held May 7th - May 9th at the Region XI CRC Website, or register for the conference at the registration page. Note that you can save money on your registration by mailing in your forms before March 15th!

Chapter Committee Contacts

ASHRAE Puget Sound Chapter - COMMITTEES

Advocacy
Chair: Leslie Jonsson
Phone: 425.672.1071

Auditing
Chair: Rand Conger
Phone: 206.321.1416

Chapter Programs
Chair: Alan Burt
Vice Chair: Melinda Nelson
Phone: 206.839.0819

Chapter Technology Transfer
Chair: Alan Burt
Phone: 206.839.0819

CRC Action/PAOE
Chair: Jason Hall
phone:206.304.1509

Field Day
Chair: Tom Easton

Historical
Chair: Luna Michael
Phone:

Membership Promotion
Chair: Gary Robertson
Phone:425.774.1441

Industry Directory and Roster
Chair: Alan Burt
Phone: 206.839.0819

Membership Database
Chair: Alan Burt
Phone: 206.839.0819

Nominating/Honors and Awards Committee
Chair: Jim Sinclair
Phone: 206.767.2600

Committee Members:
Brian Wolford

PAOE
Chair: Tiffany Rourke
Phone: 425.586.1211

Publicity
Chair: Alan Burt
Phone: 206.304.1509

Punch List (Newsletter)
Editor: Kathi Schoemake
Phone: 206.448.3376

Reception and Arrangements
Editor: Kathi Schoemake
Phone: 206.448.3376 

Refrigeration
Chair: Vacant
Phone:

Research Promotion
Chair: Brian Wolford
Phone: 206.779.1473

Student Activities
Chair: Matthew Longsine
Phone: 206.225.7128

Student Branch Faculty Advisors
University of Washington: Ashley Emery
Bellingham Technical College: Ken Olesen

Sustainability
Chair: Tamás Bencsik
Phone: 206.859.5384

Technical, Energy and Government Activities (TEGA)
Chair: Ron Fues
Vice Chair: 
Phone: 206.832.8486

Young Engineers of ASHRAE (YEA)
Chair: Matt Roe
Phone: 206.839.0819

Web Page
Chair: Alan Burt
Phone: 206.839.0819

New Job Posting Information

To post items to this page please send an email to Scott Sherman. Opportunities must be for HVAC related positions in the Puget Sound Area. All listing must state the company that the potential job is with. Please limit ads to 250 words or less.

Research Promotion Acknowledgement, December 10 2008

Each year we at Puget Sound ASHRAE like to thank our members for the contributions the have made to ASHRAE's Research program. This year, we have much to be thankful for, as Puget Sound Chapter members donated over $12,500 to what is the largest fundamental and applied research program supported by a technical society in the world.

The contributors to ASHRAE Research for FY2007/08 from Puget Sound Chapter are:

• Mr Roderick R Kirkwood, PE
• Franklin Engineering Mech Consulting
• Mr James R Luddon, Jr, PE
• In Control Inc
• Mr John A Ramstead
• Mr James J Pechan
• Mr Robert O Dorse
• Specification Sales Inc
• Air Commodities Inc
• Michael A Crawford, PE
• Mr Jay T McCarthy
• Mr Hans G Person, PE
• Mr Joel K Jackman, PE
• Mr Sotero Y Go, PE
• Mr Erling J Olsen, PE
• Mr Arthur S Yorozu, PE
• Mr Earl W Tidball, PE
• Mr Peter J Hemmen, PE
• Mr James E Harrison, PE
• Mr John F Bergo
• Mr Timothy L Burns, PE
• Ms Leslie A Jonsson
• Mr Michael A Byron
• Mr Scott T Sherman
• Mr Gary R Williamson, PE
• Mr David A Osborne
• Mr David P Porter, PE
• Mr Thomas Cyril Boysen, Jr, PE
• Mr Joseph Stagg
• Air Tec Company - Seattle
• Ms Jill A Connell, PE
• Mr David John Landers
• Mr Richard D Kunkle, PE
• Mr Scott P Vollmoeller
• Ms Angela B Lavigne, PE
• Ms Lisa L Rosenow
• Mr Jerry Lilly
• Mr M David Gardner, PE
• Mr Lloyd D Opfer
• Mr Donald D Macinnes, PE
• Mr Charles W Mathisson
• Ms Martha E Rowland, PE
• Mckinstry Company

And a special thanks for our contributors of $500 or more:

• Baron W Derr, in the name of SMACNA of Western Washington
  
• Mr Michael N Otani, in the name of Air Commodities in memorial of Harold Straub, Titus
  
• Mr Reed C Lyons, PE, in the name of Aardvark Engineering Services
  

And almost $3,500 was donated in the name of the chapter from funds raised at the Golf Tournament and other chapter events! Come join us December 10th for recognition of our donors and for special recognition of our high-level donors!

September 2008 Program Summary

SPECIFICATION ENFORCEMENT AFFECTS YOU
Traci Hanegan, P.E.,LEED®AP, HFDP
Coffman Engineers, Inc.

Below is a blended summary of responses from the chapters to some of the questions discussed during the presentation.

Why is spec enforcement so good?

-There is a legal basis for doing so. Above board.
-Reduces liability on engineer
-Life safety
-Owner gets what they paid for
-Improves quality of future contracts
-Contractors are comparing apples to apples
-Equipment verification
-Fair to vendors/reps
-Helps contractor in scheduling their work with other trades
-Confidence that other contractors are held to the same standard
-Less worry when bidding that the competition will get away with providing less
-Contractor knows what to expect – no guessing about what the engineer will or will not enforce
-In the long run this will result in smaller punchlist reports by architects and engineers. Over time, contractors realize that everything is enforced and will have to eventually be fixed, so they are more likely to do it right the first time.
-Keeps quality contractors profitable and in business
-Fewer call backs for operational problems. Keeps Owner happy.
-Bids are tighter, which makes the design team look better.
-The system is more likely to work
-Provides owner’s project requirements – meets design intent
-Prevents poor workmanship
-Energy efficiency designed for is what you get
-Indoor air quality designed for is what you get
-Comfort designed for is what you get
-Preserves engineer’s reputation
-Avoid re-engineering
-Avoid problems with operations and maintenance
-Projects go smooth – on time, budget, operation for everyone.
-Lower blood pressure.
-Validates the reason for having specs
-Good enforcement can mean future work for consultant
-Avoid future expense
-Quality control
-More profit for engineers – sets precedent and punchlists are smaller

What are the problems if we don’t enforce the specs?

-Comes back to bite the engineer
-Future projects are worse
-Why bother to write them if you don’t enforce them?
-Designer’s reputation suffers
-System may not work, performance headaches
-Possible early system failure or shorter building life
-Things may not fit
-May get a system that uses more energy than planned
-Increased liability
-Increased arguments
-Lose contractor and vendor support in the future
-It’s a race to the bottom
-Engineer loses credibility
-Owner doesn’t know what they are getting - Unknown end
-Unprofessional
-Increased workload in long run
-Unhappy owner
-Leaves trouble for architect
-Can be unsafe
-Contractor will cut every corner. You get junk
-Increased operating expenses
-Corrosion problems
-Loss of pride
-Lose good people and encourage bad
-Warranty problems
-Pipes may freeze

If enforcement is so good, why do we sometimes fail to enforce? What are the challenges to good spec enforcement?

-The sheer quantity/breadth/depth of specs to produce
-So much boilerplate
-Proprietary or confusing manufacturer info
-Time and schedule for the project is too short – not realistic
-Trying to avoid confrontation
-I like the rep – don’t want to make them upset
-Owner wants job finished on time more than they want it done right
-Unrealistic owner expectations – time, fee, scope
-Time and fee allowed for site observations gets cut
-Owner won’t back you anyway
-Lack of good communication.
-Contractor pressure
-Owner pressure and lack of support of design team
-Owner has different goals
-Owner caves in to contractor’s pleadings, asks engineer to stop looking
-Where do you draw the line – picky
-Contractor looks at drawings at last minute
-Engineer gets contractor question after last addendum
-Too much detail to manage
-Hard to get access to see some equipment. Things get covered up too soon (ceiling tiles in too early).
-Owner pays contractor too soon – no holdback
-Market pressure
-Owner doesn’t have a realistic contingency
-Too much complacency
-Codes and standards change so fast
-Manufacturer changes to products – hard to keep on top of
-Everyone is busy fighting for space
-City inspectors have different interpretations. Can be a big problem for contractor if the inspector is unreasonable or has too much pride.
-Lack of spec writing education for engineers.
-Inexperienced engineers editing specs
-Inexperienced superintendends
-Site visits are substituted for commissioning
-Engineer doesn’t want to be questioned by the rep or the contractor. Not open to suggestion.
-More back-checking means less profit on a lump sum job.
-Pointing out problems that cost the contractor can cause them to be more aggressive about change orders for the rest of the project. They may be more likely to cause trouble.
-Equipment delivery times

Where are some opportunities for improvement or for overcoming challenges?

-Attend ASHRAE meetings – get to know others in industry, develop relationships, find resources for asking questions, learn standard of care in industry.
-If you have to backcheck more than twice, the contractor pays for your time
-Be serious about it
-Take pictures to illustrate deficiencies – better communicates it to the owner and is clearer to the contractor about what you mean. Good documentation for future.
-Share spec with reps before bid and get feedback. Architects need to schedule time for this and -Owners need to agree, knowing the value. Do this early. Trust reps and work with them – they are knowledgeable about the product
-Develop a system in each consulting firm for updating specs for all projects (master specs) to keep them current.
-Don’t use outdated specs.
-Talk to the Owner and architect at the start of the project about the need for good enforcement. Get their buy-in.
-Write a performance spec, to avoid proprietary issues
-Avoid catch-all phrases.
-Ask competing vendor, co-worker, or ASHRAE member for advice on spec issues
-Prequalify contractors
-Submit a site observation log to the architect (to share with contractor and owner) so everyone knows when you plan on visiting, what you’ll be looking at, and what shouldn’t be done yet (i.e. no insulation on ducts before the duct construction is observed).
-Take pictures of problems and include in site observation reports. Helps Owner and architect appreciate and understand the problems.
-Be open and receptive to early comments.
-Extend the time to tender bids – make it reasonable.
-Build a mock-up of part of the project.
-Get a second opinion on your site visits. Take another engineer from your office, let them go in your place, or review their reports from other jobs. Get out of the rut of writing up the same things and forgetting about other issues.
-Conduct a mandatory pre-bid meeting. Point out the fact that you intend to enforce specs, so it gets in the meeting minutes and is clear to everyone. Note unique spec items and the site observation schedule.
-Fight for the fee to do site observations. Use the log that lists what will be observed at each visit – ask the owner “which visit do you want me to take out in order to reduce my fee?”
-Put an hourly rate for site observations, or a lump sum charge for every extra site observation visit, on your original fee proposal. Then it’s easy to show how much the extra visit will cost, including visits for excessive back-checking.
-Admit errors when you make them.
-Define the project scope better. Do a narrative.
-Have a pre-construction meeting, just after the bid. Highlight submittal requirements. Re-emphasize spec enforcement.
-Have a pre-installation meeting with the contractors that will actually be doing the installation. -Review the submittals and spec with them and let them ask questions.
-Require the sub and general contractors to sign-off on each punchlist item and send it to you before you make a trip to backpunch.
-Make some site observations early in the project. Early detection of problems is better for everyone in the long run.
-When troubles arise – be fair and ethical. Ask other engineers (even your competition) on how to handle certain issues. They can give an unbiased opinion or share a past experience.
-Be open to suggestions for improvement on your specs and designs. Suggestions may come from contractors, reps, and other engineers. You can still learn something new about a design that is similar to 20 you have done before.
-Contractors – get submittals in early
-Design team – review submittals fast
-Require contractors to submit on everything, even if it is “per spec”, so that you have a dialogue/communication about what is expected and intended. This reduces misunderstandings and strengthens the engineer’s position if there is a deficiency noted.
-Engineer – ask to see pay applications. Don’t approve payment of items that have been installed incorrectly or not at all.
-See if things fit
-Question the low bid
-Don’t over specify
-Avoid horsetrading – illegitimate. Process credits and changes separately and document – no deals between engineer and contractor without architect and owner knowledge.
-Get the general contractor to move the ladder for you when you do a site observation back-check. Then they see first hand how many items were not fixed correctly and feel your pain and time spent. This motivates them to keep their subs in line.