NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Controlling Capital Costs in 

High Performance Office 

Buildings: A Review of Best 

Practices for Overcoming Cost 

Barriers

Preprint 

Shanti Pless and Paul Torcellini

To be presented at the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy 

Efficiency in Buildings

Pacific Grove, California

August 12-17, 2012

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-5500-55264

May 2012
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US 

Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
The Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance), is the manager and operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL). Employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Dept. 

of Energy, have authored this work. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for 

publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to 

publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance Office Buildings: 

A Review of Best Practices for Overcoming Cost Barriers

Shanti Pless and Paul Torcellini

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

ABSTRACT

First costs, or capital costs, for energy efficiency strategies in office buildings are often a 

primary barrier to realizing high-performance buildings with 50% or greater energy savings. 

Historically, the industry has been unable to reach deep energy savings because of a reliance on 

energy cost savings and simple payback analysis alone to justify investments. A more 

comprehensive and integrated cost justification and capital cost control approach is needed. By 

implementing innovative procurement and delivery strategies, integrated design principles and 

cost tradeoffs, life cycle cost justifications, and streamlined construction methods, first cost 

barriers can be overcome. It is now possible to attain marketable, high-performance office

buildings that achieve LEED Platinum and reach net zero energy goals at competitive whole 

building first costs, as illustrated by the U.S. Department of Energy’s and National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory’s latest high-performance office building, the Research Support Facility 

(RSF) on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory campus in Golden, Colorado. The RSF is a 

recently completed 220,000-ft2 headquarters and administrative office building with a corporatescale data center. The RSF reached these goals while maintaining a firm fixed price budget at 

competitive whole-building capital construction costs (move-in ready) of $259/ft2. This paper 

presents a set of 15 best practices for owners, designers, and construction teams to reach highperformance goals while maintaining a competitive budget. They are based on the recent 

experiences of the owner and design-build team for the RSF, which show that achieving this 

outcome requires each key integrated team member to understand their opportunities to control 

capital costs.

Background

First costs, or capital costs, for energy efficiency strategies in office buildings often 

present a significant barrier to realizing high-performance buildings. Innovative procurement and 

delivery strategies, integrated design principles, and streamlined construction methods can help 

overcome these barriers. This report presents a set of 15 best practices for procurement, design, 

and construction teams to reach high-performance goals and maintain a competitive budget. It is

based on the recent experiences of the owner and design-build team for the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) latest highperformance office building, the Research Support Facility (RSF) on NREL’s campus in Golden, 

Colorado. By fully exercising each best practice, DOE and NREL were able to deliver a 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum, capital cost-competitive, 

large-scale office building with net zero energy use and more than $200,000/yr in energy cost 

savings. From the beginning, the RSF presented a unique opportunity to demonstrate the state of 
2

the art in efficient, cost-effective commercial office design and operation. The RSF and the 

innovative procurement process demonstrate that significant, cost-effective energy efficiency 

gains can be realized in new office buildings with current technologies, if careful attention is 

paid to project energy goals, building procurement, and integrative building design.

The RSF is a recently completed 220,000-ft2 headquarters and administrative office 

building with a corporate-scale data center. It showcases cost-competitive, marketable and 

sustainable, high-performance design that incorporates the best in cost-effective energy 

efficiency, environmental performance, and advanced controls using a whole-building integrated 

design process. The RSF building showcases numerous high-performance, yet cost-effective 

energy-efficient design features, passive energy strategies, and renewable energy technologies, 

as documented at www.nrel.gov/rsf. An interior office floor plan is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Fully Daylit Open Office Space

During construction of the RSF, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) injected additional funding into the project to add a third wing expansion. An additional 

138,000 ft2 of office space for more than 500 NREL employees, including NREL executive 

management, were added. The RSF north wing expansion will be completed by the same designbuild team, with substantial completion in fall 2011. Figure 2 shows the north wing expansion 

construction progress from May 2011.

Figure 2. RSF and RSF Expansion, May 2011

NREL PIX 17904

NREL PIX 19088
3

RSF Capital Costs

Capital costs can be measured and evaluated for multiple purposes with multiple metrics.

Making quantitative comparisons between projects is difficult when capital costs across multiple 

commercial buildings are being evaluated. Every project has a different program, project-specific 

constraints, varying local labor and construction costs, and different site requirements. However, 

general cost comparison trends can be evaluated with certain capital cost metrics such as core 

and shell construction costs, total construction costs, and total project costs. To compare the RSF 

capital costs to other projects, we attempted to document total construction costs and total project 

costs for a range of recent projects. We used multiple sources, including the Design Build 

Institute of America’s (DBIA) project database and other publically available capital cost 

sources, to document their total and capital costs. Pless (2012) lists each project and source of 

cost information used for RSF comparison purposes. We focused on identifying comparable 

projects with either documented total project costs (which typically include all core and shell 

costs, finishings, furniture and equipment, site costs, and soft design costs) or total construction 

costs (which typically include total project costs and exclude soft design costs). Land costs are 

typically not included in capital cost metrics.

The RSF total project costs were about $64 million, or $291/ft2

, and include all core and 

shell costs, interior design such as furniture, finishings, audiovisual equipment, information 

technology infrastructure, all “soft” design costs, and related site costs. The total project costs do 

not include direct photovoltaic (PV) system costs, data center equipment, independently 

provided electrochromic demonstration glazing, owner-directed change orders, or ownerprovided computer equipment. The total construction costs for a move-in-ready office building, 

which excluded design costs and PV, were $259/ft2

.

The original RSF design concept to reach net zero energy within the $64 million budget 

was to provide all the necessary 1.55 MW of PV with a power purchase agreement (PPA)

without adding to the overall project costs. A third-party for-profit company would finance, own, 

and receive all applicable tax credits and rebates for the PV system, and DOE and NREL would 

agree to purchase the energy over 20 years at a competitive electric utility rate. The first 450 kW 

of PV on the roof of the RSF was procured through such a PPA. The remaining 1.1 MW needed 

to offset RSF energy use was initially intended to also be part of this PPA, but 2009 ARRA 

funding was allocated to purchasing the remaining PV for the RSF and the expansion. Therefore, 

RSF construction costs with a full PPA for PV and without any PPAs (full PV purchase without 

rebates) are presented for comparison purposes. If the project’s construction costs included all 

the RSF PV needed to reach net zero, an additional $29/ft2 would be added to the RSF 

construction costs, for a total construction cost with PV of $288/ft2

.

As the same design-build team was commissioned to build the 138,000-ft2 RSF third 

wing expansion, more cost reductions were expected. By applying lessons learned from the first 

phase, repeating the fundamental design concept, and leveraging subcontractor familiarity with 

the various building components, an additional $14/ft2 was saved in the total project construction 

costs and energy use was reduced by 11% compared to the first two wings. The RSF expansion 

construction costs were $246/ft2 without PV and $275/ft2 including the PV needed to reach net 

zero energy use. Figure 3 compares the RSF and RSF expansion total project costs and total 

construction costs (with and without PV) to those of other recent projects. In general, the RSF 

and RSF expansion cost trends for our capital cost metrics (with and without PV) are within 

competitive and market-acceptable capital cost ranges.
4

Figure 3. RSF and RSF Expansion Total Project and Construction Costs Compared to 

Other Recent Projects

RSF Payback Analysis

Because the innovative procurement and delivery process required energy use goals with 

a firm-fixed price (FFP), no explicit analysis was done to determine payback of efficiency 

strategies. Payback analysis implies that if a decision is made based on the technique, additional 

funds must be available so decisions can be implemented. In this case, we established a fixed 

energy goal and the design-build team had to make the design and construction process decisions 

about how to incorporate these goals into the FFP. The design team used an effective value 

engineering process and made design decisions based on the most cost-effective efficiency 

strategies to meet the performance requirements (Best Practices #6 through #15), as these 

decisions all had to be made within the FFP requirements. The result is a building that meets the 

energy goals on a market-competitive first-cost budget, without an incremental total project cost.

Capital Cost and High Performance: Other Industry Perspectives

The RSF project is not the first to claim that energy efficiency and green design do not 

have to cost significantly extra. A local example is the Aardex Signature Center, a twice-certified 

LEED Platinum speculative office building. According to published claims by the developer and 

design team, the LEED Platinum and energy efficiency strategies had to pay for themselves 

within three years or be considered on a “whole project” basis, considering all benefits and cost 

tradeoffs. A commonly cited example is the dedicated underfloor air with chilled beam 

mechanical system, which included components that might be more efficient, but are more 

$201 

$215 

$240 

$246 

$247 

$253 

$254 

$259 

$259 

$266 

$266 

$271 

$273 

$275 

$281 

$284 

$288 

$291 

$293 

$298 

$308 

$311 

$316 

$318 

$326 

$354 

$369 

$371 

$384 

$393 

$412 

$418 

$442 

$460 

$503 

$521 

$530 

Heifer International Center - Platinum

NVCI Cancer Research - Silver

Kitsap County Admin Building - Other

RSF Expansion - Total Construction Cost without PV - Platinum

The Signature Centre - Platinum

Great River Energy Headquarters - Platinum

Ft. Carson Brigade/Battalion HQ - Gold

RSF - Total Construction Cost without PV - Platinum

International Fund for Animal Welfare - Gold

Omega Center - Platinum

Chevron Office - Other

Bremerton BEQ - Certified

University of Denver Sturm College - Gold

RSF Expansion - Total Construction Cost with PV - Platinum

Naval Facilities Southeast Engineering Operations Center - Other

Ft. Lewis Barracks and Dinning - Silver

RSF - Total Construction Cost with PV - Platinum

RSF - Total Project Cost without PV - Platinum

Dillard University - Gold

EPA Region 8 Headquarters - Other

Fernald Visitors Center - Platinum

Commerce City Civic Center - Silver

Leo Trombatore Office - Silver

Arizona State University School of Journalism - Silver

Arizona State University College of Nursing & Health - Gold

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City - Other

Leprino Building - Other

San Joaquin Admin Building - Gold

1800 Larimer - Platinum

Las Cruces Courthouse - Other

NASA Sustainability Base - Platinum

Applied Research & Development - Platinum

Aircraft RSF - Silver

National Association of Realtors - Silver

Fort Bragg Forces Command HQ - Gold

San Joaquin Comm. College - Other

DC Federal Building - Other
5

expensive than a conventional system. Those “additional” costs are offset by reductions in other 

building costs, such as the reduced building height of 10 in. per floor, resulting in less envelope, 

reduced ducting, and higher delivery air temperatures, so that the overall project costs were 

similar to office buildings with conventional mechanical systems (Aardex 2011). Ben Weeks, the 

Aardex principal in charge of the Signature Center, has identified a key strategy for 

incorporating the best in energy efficiency and LEED:

“A vertical integration of the development interests—design, construction, 

and ownership—will result in significant savings to a project—as much as 15% 

or more of overall costs. This allows implementation of the most beneficial 

strategies and features at a delivery price at or below market rates for 

conventional facilities.” (Aardex 2011)

Two sector-wide studies of LEED ratings and capital costs have also concluded that there 

is no significant difference in average costs for green buildings compared to nongreen buildings.

A survey of capital costs (Davis Langdon 2007) of institutional projects such as libraries and 

academic buildings documented a range of construction costs from $225/ft2 to more than 

$500/ft2—construction costs similar to our precursory survey of publically available project 

capital costs. More recently, Kats (2010) used a dataset of 170 projects to document that most 

green buildings have slightly higher costs than similar conventional buildings, but that some had 

no incremental costs. Kats proposed that the cost premiums for green buildings are a function of 

the project teams’ experience with cost-effective green design and construction rather than of the 

LEED certification level. In fact, more than 80 of the projects in Kats’ dataset reported 0%–2% 

green cost premium, with no correlation between the LEED level achieved and the cost 

premium.

In reviewing our own preliminary survey of construction costs and those available in 

industry, energy-efficient and green buildings may cost more, but do not necessarily have to cost 

more. The best practices in this paper are presented in an attempt to help owners and project 

teams build high-performance green buildings that do not have to cost more. The following best 

practices for controlling capital costs in high performance buildings are documented as owner, 

designer, and construction strategies in the following sections.

Owner Strategies

Best Practice #1. Select a Project Delivery Method that Balances Performance, Best Value, 

and Cost Savings

The RSF incorporates a range of readily available energy efficiency strategies combined 

in innovative ways; however, the DOE/NREL team’s real breakthrough was rethinking the 

project delivery and acquisition process. The team decided early on that a traditional design-bidbuild would not deliver the RSF—with its challenging performance requirements—on time and 

on budget while mitigating costs and risks. Rather than designing the building and then putting it 

out to bid, the ownership team opted for a performance-based design-build procurement process.

The energy savings goal could not override the focus on cost effectiveness and ensuring DOE 

obtained the best value. DOE budgeted the RSF’s construction costs of 259/ft2 to be competitive 

with today’s less energy-efficient institutional and commercial buildings.
6

Traditionally, DOE uses a design-bid-build approach to project acquisition, selecting 

separate design and construction contractors. This process usually provides a competitive price, 

but it limits the design team’s creativity in developing the most cost-effective, integrated, 

energy-efficient solution. And as learned from past research and demonstration projects, the 

design-bid-build process often limits the design team’s full integration with the builder, cost 

estimators, and subcontractors, resulting in a longer, costlier delivery process and lower value. In 

this scenario, the designer and contractor often have no contact or relationship with each other 

until after the contract is awarded, which limits the potential of a contractor and estimator’s 

integrated design concepts to provide the most cost-effective energy efficiency strategies. If the 

bids come in higher than the designer’s estimates, the owner and designer must decide how to 

bring costs back within the budget. This process takes time, and may mean that energy efficiency 

and other nonaesthetic building components and strategies will be eliminated. Energy efficiency 

strategies that are not well integrated with the building architecture or envelope are likely to be 

eliminated, as these can be easily replaced with less efficient alternatives. Because the design and 

construction contracts are separate, this method offers some checks and balances for the owner 

(Molenaar 2009), but the owner pays a price in scheduling and minimally integrated efficiency 

solutions. This method is also the most time consuming and may create adversarial relationships.

The resulting value engineering process, disputes, cost overruns, and construction delays can 

result in less-than-optimal performance, headaches (and often litigation), and increased project 

costs. To overcome these limitations, DOE and NREL selected a performance-based “Best Value 

Design-Build/Fixed Price with Award Fee” delivery approach.

In design-build, the owner contracts with a single legal entity—the design-builder—to 

construct a building based on the owner’s design criteria. Unlike design-bid-build, in designbuild, the design-builder controls the design and construction processes. To support this process, 

the owner takes the responsibility to develop a clear, comprehensive request for proposals (RFP) 

that outlines the program and performance specifications and proposal requirements. Then the 

design-builder assumes complete responsibility for delivering the project as specified in the RFP, 

on time and on budget. This method solicits a teaming approach between the architectural and 

construction communities from the outset to offer best value bids for specified owner objectives.

Design-build streamlines project delivery through a single contract between the owner and the 

design-build team by transforming the relationship between designers and builders into an 

alliance that fosters collaboration and teamwork. As a subset of the typical design-build process, 

performance-based design-build attempts to elevate design and performance requirements to be 

on par with budget and schedule. The object is to create an instrument that motivates 

marketplace providers to offer greater value for the owner’s asset—value defined as performance 

over time acquired at a competitive cost.

Because design and construction can overlap, and because general contract bidding 

periods and redesign time are eliminated, total design and construction time can be significantly 

reduced. A contractor-driven schedule, integrated project team, and no project-driven change 

orders all contribute to reducing delivery time, thus saving significant capital costs. NREL and 

DOE committed to adopting the design-build process in spring 2007, and the RSF opened a little 

more than three years later, saving months compared to typical DOE design and construction 

schedules. The construction phase was only 16 months (see Table 1). In performance-based 

design-build, the owner does not rely on plans and specifications to describe the scope of the 

project, but focuses on the problems to be solved and leaves the solutions to the design-builder.

This delivery method allocates control and accountability differently, in that the owner sets an
7

FFP for the project, establishes program and performance requirements, prioritizes these 

requirements in an RFP, and then invites design-builders to propose solutions that best achieve 

the requirements. The intent is to provide the design-build experts creative freedom to meet the 

owner’s objectives in a competitive forum. The owner then selects a design-builder to complete 

the project for an FFP based on the best value, which includes the design-builder’s specified 

scope of requirements proposed. The successful design-builder is responsible and accountable 

for designing, building, and delivering the project that meets the contractually proposed 

requirements, within a proposed fixed schedule and for the FFP (Pless et al. 2011).

Table 1. RSF Design and Construction Timeline

Event/Milestone Date

Planning Started April 2007

$63 Million Appropriated April 2007

National Request for Qualifications Advertised April 2007

Design Charrette June 2007

DBIA Training August 2007

Three Highly Qualified Teams Shortlisted September 2007

Haselden/RNL Selected April 2008

Contract Signed July 2008

Preliminary Design Completed November 2008

Construction Started February 2009

Final Design Completed July 2009

Building Dried In December 2009

Substantial Completion June 2010

Final Completion July 2010

Best Practice #2. Incorporate Measurable Energy Use Performance Requirements into a 

Performance Based Design-Build Procurement Process

Performance based design-build has been used historically to reduce costs, increase 

value, and reduce project delivery time. As documented by Konchar in 1997, a Penn State 

researcher compared the design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods (Konchar 

1997). He found that design-build projects cost an average of 6% less, were an average of 12% 

faster to build, and were an average of 33% faster to deliver from conception through 

completion). Especially for an innovative building, design-build delivery coupled with clear and 

prioritized energy performance requirements (performance-based design-build) appears to be a 

successful combination. And establishing prioritized performance goals from the beginning 

greatly increase the probability that the completed building will meet the project’s critical goals. 

A performance-based RFP focuses on measurable performance outcomes rather than 

prescriptive solutions to design problems. It describes how the building will perform, in clear, 

measurable terms—what the building will do rather than what it will be. This frees the owner to 

concentrate on the functional expectations of the building rather than worrying about the details 

of how to meet those expectations and allows the design-builder to draw from all possible 
8

solutions rather than only those prescribed by the plans and specifications. The clearer and more 

measurable the performance criteria are, the more likely the project will successfully meet them.

Absolute and measurable energy use performance goals were incorporated into the RFP 

and the design-builder contract to leverage the benefits of the design-build process to meet 

energy goals at a competitive first cost. Instead of specifying technical standards such as building 

size, configuration, efficiency measures, and conceptual drawings, DOE and NREL used the 

RFP to prioritize key performance parameters using “Mission Critical,” “Highly Desirable,” and 

“If Possible” designations. During the competitive design-build team selection process, teams 

were, in part, selected based on their ability to incorporate and support as many of the prioritized 

objectives as possible within the overall fixed budget and schedule constraint. These objectives 

included key absolute energy performance goals such as using only 25 kBtu/ft2 and net zero 

energy performance. Including energy goals into the contractual agreements elevates the 

importance of energy use to be on par with scope, budget, and schedule project objectives.

The more measurable the energy goals during actual operations, the easier it is for the 

building owner to verify that the design can actually operate as intended. Incentive programs can 

then be integrated into the project management process to reward superior design-build 

contractor performance during the warrantee period, ensuring successful measurement and 

verification of the absolute energy goals.

By hiring a design-build team and contractually obligating them to satisfy measurable 

energy use requirements, NREL drove the formation of an integrated design process comprising 

architects, engineers, and builders (which included cost estimators and key subcontractors). This 

arrangement resulted in an iterative pattern between the architects, engineers, and builders, and

aided with detailed computer simulations needed to assess whether the building design, as it 

evolved, would meet the performance requirements and cost constraints of the owner. An added 

advantage is that members become familiar and comfortable with each other long before 

construction begins. Because the general contractor (and key subcontractors)—typically the team 

members most familiar with cost and constructability issues—have input during the design 

process, this delivery method takes full advantage of the contractor’s experience and knowledge.

Best Practice #3. Clearly Prioritize Project Objectives at the Beginning of the Design 

Process

At the beginning of the design process, design teams often spend significant time learning

specifically what the owner needs, then persuading the owner that a particular design will meet 

the needs. Therefore, the more direction an owner can provide a design team at the beginning,

the more time can be invested early on to optimize and analyze efficiency opportunities. Before 

the RSF design-build team was selected, the owner clearly prioritized project objectives with an

FFP in the RFP. When the design-build team began the early design process, all the owner needs 

were clearly identified and prioritized in the form of the Objectives Checklist. This allowed the 

design-build team to focus early design time on developing an integrated solution that met all the 

performance objectives, including cost, schedule, and energy.

Once the project objectives are communicated (preferably in the form of an RFP and 

contract), the owner needs to fully commit to them so the process can optimally address the

needs in an integrated, cost-effective manner. Any changes to the owner’s objectives or needs 

after the design has begun slows the process, increases costs, and has suboptimal results.
9

Best Practice #4. Competitively Procure an Experienced Design-Build Team Using a Best 

Value, Firm Fixed Price Process

To encourage the innovative design and construction processes needed to reach worldclass performance at competitive first costs, the design-build team selection process should 

encourage and reward novel approaches. Including “if possible” stretch objectives in the

competition for an FFP rewards innovative design, construction, and teaming concepts. The 

teams with the most innovative, integrated, and cost-effective solutions can provide the most 

performance objectives within an FFP, increasing their chances of winning. Limiting the design 

competition to three highly qualified teams and providing stipends to the losing teams to partially 

offset their participation costs ensure high-quality proposals.

The design-build team that won the RSF design competition developed a novel teaming 

arrangement with a third-party PV financer. The design thus met all performance objectives 

within the FFP contract limit, including the stretch goals such as net zero energy performance.

Additional design and construction innovations such as modular office space concepts, high 

thermal mass exposed precast wall panels, and ceiling slab integrated radiant heating and cooling 

systems were all developed in a competitive design environment.

Kats (2010) documented that the highest LEED certification levels are possible with 

virtually no cost premiums; however, experienced design-build teams are needed to select the 

most cost-effective strategies and apply industry best practices for reducing any possible 

premiums. Therefore, teams must be selected who have experience delivering innovative designs 

and construction processes to reach the high levels of green design at competitive first costs. As 

the RSF process demonstrates, when the owner’s RFP requests a net zero energy building, and 

the criteria for selecting the design-build team clearly reflect that goal, all the players will focus 

on that outcome and consider management, design, teaming, construction, commissioning, and 

operational strategies based on how they affect that outcome.

Best Practice #5. Include Best in Class Energy Efficiency Requirements in Equipment 

Procurement Specifications

In modern high-performance office buildings, plug and process loads are becoming the 

dominant end use. To reach aggressive energy savings levels, owners need to consider all 

possible plug load efficiency strategies. Plug and process loads represent half the RSF’s energy 

consumption, so the owner deployed a wide range of plug load efficiency strategies, as 

documented in Lobato et al. (2011). Plug load and data center energy savings of 49% are 

expected compared to business-as-usual practices in NREL’s leased office space (as measured in 

2007). One of the most cost-effective plug load control strategies has been to develop equipment 

procurement specifications that include best-in-class energy-efficient office equipment. This 

specification can be incorporated into the normal (and often frequent) legacy equipment 

replacement cycle.
10

Design Strategies

Best Practice #6. Leverage Nonenergy Benefits of Efficiency Strategies

Often, energy savings alone may not be sufficient to justify the most efficient strategy. In 

these cases, leveraging related nonenergy benefits can help to justify an energy efficiency design 

decision. For example, it is often difficult to justify—with energy cost savings alone—the bestin-class traction elevators with regenerative drives for low- and medium-rise buildings. Highefficiency traction elevators such as those installed in the RSF do not require a machine room, a 

deep elevator pit, or significant overhead accommodations, and therefore, they use less space and 

minimize costly support spaces. These cost savings help to offset any additional costs for a highefficiency traction elevator system. Also, their regenerative drives can capture braking energy as

electricity to power the building, rather than generating waste heat, which then has to be 

removed from the elevator control room with air-conditioning. Although the regenerative drives

may cost slightly more, capital cost increases can be absorbed by eliminating the need for an 

elevator control room air-conditioning system.

Purchasing laptops for all RSF staff was also justified, in part using benefits unrelated to 

their energy savings versus standard desktop computers. Even though laptops are significantly 

more efficient than desktops, the energy cost savings alone do not necessarily justify their higher

costs. Laptops increase worker productivity by increasing office space flexibility, enabling work 

from home and travel mobility, and reducing redundant computing systems (having both a 

desktop and laptop). Mini-desktops are now also available that have the efficiency of a laptop 

without the cost or security concerns associated with laptops if workers do not require mobility.

NREL’s move to using a single centralized high-speed multifunction 

printer/copier/scanner/fax on each floor of each RSF wing was justified through the overall 

reduction in maintenance costs and unique toner support versus individual printers. Minimizing, 

centralizing, and standardizing the RSF’s document services greatly increase the ease of 

implementing robust standby power configurations and significantly lower service costs. Not 

only did NREL significantly reduce the total number of devices with unmanageable power 

settings, volatile organic compounds from the printer toners were isolated to a few copy rooms 

with dedicated exhaust, increasing the office space indoor air quality. In the RSF, we replaced 

more than 300 individual printers with 18 multifunction devices, which are distributed 

throughout the building. Each also has effective and robust standby modes.

A final example was the move from drywall-enclosed offices and high cube walls to a 

demountable and reconfigurable open office furniture system. This plan was a key daylighting 

and natural ventilation component, but the furniture systems are not necessarily cost justifiable 

from energy savings alone. The added flexibility of minimizing hard walled offices saves 

significant costs when spaces are reprogrammed. Also, the open environment and narrow floor 

plan mean that all occupants are within 30 ft of windows with a view from their workstations to 

the outside, and encourage and promote interaction and collaboration.

Best Practice #7. Consider Life Cycle Benefits of Efficiency Investments

Life cycle costing (LCC) has long been key to integrated design, and is becoming more 

common in many commercial building projects. It compares first costs to long-term energy cost 

savings and maintenance, replacement, and operational costs over a given life cycle. Based on a 
11

predesign LCC analysis, NREL selected the optimal LCC solution at 50% savings and a 

corresponding energy use intensity of 25 kBtu/ft2 to be included in the performance objectives.

When long-term maintenance costs are incorporated into design decisions, simpler, 

longer lasting, and more passive systems are often considered advantageous. These costs helped 

to justify strategies such as exterior LED lighting in the RSF. The lighting fixtures may be more 

expensive, but energy cost savings, longer lifetimes, and lower relamping costs justify the first 

cost investment. Similarly, the extended lives of lamps in daylit spaces that are off all day help to 

justify the daylighting control system. The reduced maintenance costs from easily controllable 

hydronic radiant heating and cooling systems compared to an optimally and continuously tuned 

variable air volume system help to justify the investment in the hydronic piping in the ceiling 

slabs. In general, simpler systems that require minimal attention have lower LCC to ensure 

performance. Simple, passive strategies such as high thermal mass exposed concrete, good 

insulation, reduced lighting power density, rightsized heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

systems, and overhangs have low to no operations and maintenance costs and high assurance of 

actual performance. More complex efficiency strategies such as daylighting controls or carbon 

dioxide sensors require almost constant retro-commissioning and maintenance to ensure they are 

working as intended. These strategies may save significant energy; the long-term maintenance, 

calibration, and operational costs must be considered to ensure a successful LCC exercise.

Net zero projects require an additional LCC evaluation step. Investments in efficiency 

strategies must be compared to an investment into the equivalent renewable energy generation 

needed to offset the same amount of energy use. For the RSF net zero energy LCC accounting, 

every continuous Watt that could be saved through efficiency strategies avoided purchases of

$33 in PV. More than $6 million in PV costs for the RSF were saved by reducing the annual 

energy use by 50%.

Best Practice #8. Integrate Simple and Passive Efficiency Strategies with the Architecture 

and Envelope

Integrating energy efficiency strategies into the architecture and building envelope is a 

key incremental cost control strategy for any high-performance commercial building. Wellintegrated strategies start by identifying single building components that can perform multiple 

functions. For example, if the building orientation, massing, and layout can help reduce energy 

use, they typically do not have to cost extra. Other passive strategies, such as daylighting, 

thermal mass, natural ventilation, and shading, which integrate efficiency with the building 

envelope and structure, can be effective architectural designs that also save energy.

The RSF design team looked to the pre-industrial age for guidance on how buildings 

were designed before the advent of air-conditioning or electrical lighting. High mass stone and 

concrete buildings provided passive cooling with ample daylighting and natural ventilation.

These simple, passive strategies were integrated into the RSF’s envelope components through 

the use of a narrow floor plate with full access to daylighting, operable windows, insulated 

precast concrete panels with exposed interior thermal mass, solar shading, and optimal 

orientation. Continuous insulation in the concrete precast panels also substantially reduce

thermal bridging, a common weak spot in commercial building insulation systems.

Another project-specific example of leveraging the building structural elements as an 

efficiency strategy is the RSF’s concrete crawlspace. The expansive soils at the site prevented a 

slab-on-grade foundation. Therefore, the RSF is supported on concrete piers and grade beams, 
12

creating a crawlspace under the first floor. Through minimal additional cost, the concrete grade 

beams were positioned to allow the building’s outdoor air to be drawn through the full 

crawlspace. The remote thermal mass in the concrete grade beams and ground slab allow the 

outdoor air to be preheated or precooled, reducing air-conditioning energy use.

The investment in simpler, passive systems is also evident in the south daylighting 

control strategy. Typical south daylighting windows may include adjustable blinds or expensive 

automatic roller shades to control direct glare into the workspace. The RSF daylighting design 

incorporates passive fixed light redirecting devices that require no adjustment, maximize

daylighting, and eliminate direct glare. In general, well-integrated passive solutions are cheaper, 

simpler, and more reliable than technological solutions added after the architecture has been 

designed. If efficiency strategies are not well integrated, additional controls and moving 

components (all with additional costs) are typically pursued to reach aggressive energy goals.

Best Practice #9. Allow for Cost Tradeoffs Across Disciplines

To ensure cost-effective investments in architecture and building envelope measures, the 

possible cost tradeoffs available in rightsizing the corresponding smaller heating, ventilation, and 

air-conditioning systems must be evaluated. Shading, insulation, triple-pane windows, thermal 

mass, lower lighting power density, and lower installed plug loads result in smaller peak airconditioning loads. First cost savings from installing a smaller cooling system to meet these 

reduced loads will help to offset any first costs associated with the load reduction strategies.

Smaller outdoor air heating and cooling systems enabled by exhaust air energy recovery also 

help to pay for the energy recovery system. Energy modeling, starting in the early design phases, 

is also required to optimize the architectural and mechanical efficiency strategies and maximize 

the benefits. The RSF’s passive and envelope measures resulted in a mechanical cooling system 

sized at 1000 ft2

/ton; a conventional system may often be sized at 400 ft2/ton. Reduced pumping 

and chilled water capacity cost savings helped to offset many integrated envelope measures. To 

ensure these types of cost tradeoffs are possible, typical discipline-based construction budget 

allocations need to be reconsidered. Similarly, traditional discipline-based fee percentages may 

also prevent the disciplines that are most capable of developing energy reduction strategies from 

applying their analytical technologies and abilities.

Best Practice #10. Optimize Window Area for Daylighting and Views

High-performance office buildings must include a high-performance envelope, of which 

window size, type, orientation, and shading are all key cost control and thermal performance 

parameters. Reduced window area decreases overall envelope costs and improves thermal 

envelope performance. A purely theoretical optimal window area based on energy consumption 

would be a small amount of glass for daylighting purposes only; however, views would be 

significantly reduced, which would lessen the quality of the space. Therefore, an optimal window 

area strategy that balances cost, thermal performance, daylighting, and views should be pursued.

Such a strategy would first provide enough glass area for full, glare-free daylighting, and then 

identify key opportunities for view glazing without overglazing the envelope.

The RSF design team implemented this best practice by dedicating the upper windows to 

daylighting and the lower windows to views and natural ventilation. The south office wing 

façade has a 24% window-to-wall ratio (WWR); the north façade slightly more (26% WWR).
13

The daylighting dedicated windows are sized at only 11% WWR, with the remaining window 

area for views and natural ventilation. East and west windows were also limited to views through 

appropriately located punched windows. In strategic top floor areas, fully glazed east- and westfacing curtain walls were included. Because these design elements were less than optimal or cost 

effective, their use was limited. Compared to conventional fully glazed 60% WWR office 

buildings, an optimal window area strategy significantly improves the thermal properties of the 

envelope, reduces unwanted solar gains, and provides abundant views and full daylighting, all 

while significantly reducing the overall envelope cost.

Best Practice #11. Maximize Use of Modular and Repeatable High Efficiency Design 

Strategies

Modular and repeatable design elements and space types reduce design and construction 

costs. Unique space types or design elements such as curved wall sections add costs. Therefore, 

highly replicable building block modules are often the most cost-effective design and 

construction strategies. The primary office space block module in the RSF was a 30-ft × 60-ft

open office bay that incorporates standard dimension precast wall panels, a well-planned clearspan open and modular layout, standard south and north window details optimized for 

daylighting and views, a repeatable electric lighting layout, and a modular underfloor air delivery 

system. This bay was then replicated for each wing, reducing the overall design optimization 

time needed for the full facility. Integrating energy efficiency with modular construction 

techniques can save significant energy at similar overall project costs.

Any component that can be significantly replicated through repeatable design and 

manufacturing will, through economies of scale, be less expensive than a custom component.

This best practice resulted in the largest savings in the south and north window system design.

The RSF has more than 200 south windows, all with the same overhang, window size, operable 

component, and daylighting redirection device. More than 200 north windows are the same size 

with the same operable components. Standardization reduced window costs; thus, other energy 

efficiency elements such as overhangs, triple-pane glazing, and advanced thermally broken 

window frames could be included.

Finally, increasing space efficiency through modular and open office space design 

strategies is a key cost control element. Increasing space efficiency allows more of the building 

purpose to be included in a smaller footprint, resulting in more project scope for less first costs.

The space efficiency results in 267 ft2 of building gross area per workstation. NREL’s space 

efficiency in previous leased office space with typical enclosed offices and high cubicle walls 

was 350–400 ft2 per workstation. Because the furniture system determined the building design, 

wasted space was minimized. The open office system (824 workstations) allows for slightly 

smaller cubicles (reduced from 84 ft2 to 72 ft2

), which feel much larger than enclosed cubicles.

The RSF also includes support spaces such as huddle rooms, a lunchroom and coffee bar, 

numerous conference rooms with capacity ranges of 8–100 occupants, a data center, an exercise 

room, and a library. In general, reinvesting space efficiency cost savings into efficiency 

strategies can result in high performance with similar overall first costs.
14

Best Practice #12. Leverage Alternative Financing to Incorporate Strategies that Don’t Fit 

Your Business Model

Alternative financing models should be used when available for more expensive 

strategies such as on-site renewable generation. PPAs and performance contracting are 

commonly used to incorporate on-site renewables without project capital. DOE and NREL, as 

nontax-paying entities, used PPAs to include on-site building-mounted PV systems and a 

woodchip-fueled campus water boiler. The PPA provider can take advantage of various tax 

deductions and credits, as well as local utility rebates, offering a competitive rate to the owner.

Without a PPA, the RSF would not have been able to reach its net zero energy goals. Numerous 

demand-side rebate programs are usually available from the local utility; these can help to defray 

the cost of efficiency investments. The local utility rebate was reinvested into the project to help 

fine-tune controls during the measurement and verification process in the first year of occupancy.

Construction Strategies

Best Practice #13. Maximize Use of Offsite Modular Construction and Building Component 

Assembly

Owners who have projects that are designed to maximize the modularity of key building 

blocks may be able to save manufacturing and assembly costs by having these manufactured

offsite in a quality-controlled assembly process. Moving as much of the building construction 

process off-site eases site coordination details and safety concerns, and results in faster, safer, 

and higher quality installation, both of which save total project costs. The off-site manufacturing 

of the RSF’s precast wall panels resulted in a simplified construction process: the wall panels 

were hung on the steel structure, the panel joints were sealed, and then the interior concrete was 

painted. This resulted in a high-quality, easily constructible, finished wall system.

Further off-site manufacturing advances allowed the RSF expansion’s precast wall panels 

to be glazed off-site. The panels with the windows installed were then craned into place. This 

approach reduced installation costs by reducing the site scheduling and coordination, freeing 

project funds for triple glazing at the east and west balconies.

The 42 miles of radiant heating and cooling tubing that is integrated into the ceiling slabs

were also assembled off-site. To reduce site coordination and setup time during the ceiling slab 

concrete pours, mats of preplumbed zones were prefabricated off-site and rolled up for 

transportation and placement. A crew of five spent three months in the mechanical 

subcontractor’s yard prefabricating each zone—laying out the tubing, tying it to the rails, and 

then rolling each mat for storage until the decks were ready. Then the mechanical subcontractor 

craned the huge bundles of tubing onto the decks. A crew unrolled the tubing, tied it down, and 

made the connections. The construction schedule allowed five days to install the tubing on each 

deck, but the off-site fabrication enabled the work to be completed in two days, saving 28 days in 

the construction schedule. This installation model was a precursor to a new product now offered 

by the radiant tubing manufacturer: a custom-designed, prefabricated, prepressurized network of 

tubing connected with engineered plastic fittings. This product can now be installed

approximately 85% faster than conventional radiant tubing (Sullivan 2011).
15

Best Practice #14. Include a Continuous Value Engineering Process as Part of the

Integrated Design Effort

To reach a high level of energy efficiency while meeting an FFP contract limit requires 

an early and continually evolving understanding of construction costs, energy performance, and 

construction scheduling. To develop an early and robust understanding of various project cost 

options, cost estimators must be integrated as key members of the project team. This results in 

nearly continuous value engineering throughout the design process. Early design decisions made 

without input from either constructability or energy experts often do not represent an optimal 

balance of schedule, scope, budget, and energy performance.

Before the first RSF design team project charrette, the energy modeling team was 

engaged to evaluate and recommend key conceptual design features, such as high mass concrete

wall systems, radiant heating and cooling, building orientation, and a 60-ft cross section. Design 

development and value engineering were thus able to integrate these critical energy features into 

the FFP contract and meet all required project objectives.

Best Practice #15. Integrate Experienced Key Subcontractors Early in the Design Process 

To control the construction costs for novel or untested efficiency strategies, the key 

mechanical and electrical subcontractors must be included in the design process. This reduces 

bids from subcontractors who are uncertain about the design and who do not fully understand the 

intent, and reduces the installation risk and contingency carried by inexperienced subcontractors.

Some of the most cost-effective and critical efficiency features were designed in conjunction 

with key subcontractors to ensure constructability. The RSF design-build contractor developed a 

team with its subcontractors and design partners. The team continuously evaluated bids from the 

subcontractor community to find the best value—the combination of complete scope, best 

experience, and past performance—compared to the lowest first costs.

The design-build team leveraged the experience, relationships, and investment of the 

original subcontracting team to manage costs for the RSF expansion. The contractor’s

preconstruction team worked with all the primary subcontractors to negotiate commitments for 

cost reductions by leveraging the replication between the RSF and the expansion, the 

subcontractors’ success at executing the first project, and the proven abilities in managing the 

overall work to support efficient construction of their scope. As simple as it sounds, every owner 

should consider leveraging this simple opportunity to get more for less—an expansion or 

additional building that follows while the construction team is already on-site can leverage cost 

control. By applying lessons learned from the building’s first phase, repeating the fundamental 

design concept, and leveraging subcontractor familiarity with the various building components, 

an additional $14/ft2 was saved in the total project construction costs and energy use was reduced 

by 11% compared to the first two wings.

Conclusions

The RSF is a recently completed 220,000-ft2 headquarters and administrative office 

building with a corporate-scale data center. It is a showcase for cost-competitive, marketable and 

sustainable, high-performance design that incorporates the best in cost-effective energy 

efficiency, environmental performance, and advanced controls using a whole-building integrated 
16

design process. A series of 15 best practices for controlling capital costs in procurement, design, 

and construction was developed based on experiences with the RSF project. During the design

process, the integrated design-build team used an effective continuous value engineering process 

to ensure the energy performance requirements were met in the most cost-effective way. This 

included early energy modeling balanced with continuous cost modeling to optimize efficiency 

strategies. Strategies that integrated energy efficiency with the architectural design and envelope 

components are key elements of the RSF design. Conceptual design strategies such as a doubleskin façade provided limited value in reaching the energy goals relative to cost. Additional cost 

controls, such as a simple modular structure and office layout, no curved walls, an optimized 

WWR, and precast concrete wall panels allowed the design-build team to meet the energy 

requirements at a construction cost that is competitive to other government and institutional 

campus office buildings. Combining the cost-effective energy efficiency strategies with a PPA

PV system allowed the RSF to reach a net zero energy position and save more than $200,000/yr 

in energy costs on schedule and on budget.

References

Aardex. 2009. http://www.aardex.com/projects/Case%20Study%20of%20Singature%20Centre%

20PDF.pdf; http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5111

David Lagdon LEED and Cost Study. 2007. http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/images/

publications/USA/The%20Cost%20of%20Green%20Revisited.pdf

Kats, G. 2010. Greening our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C.

Konchar, M. 1997. A Comparison of United States Project Delivery Systems. Architectural 

Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. University Park, Penn. Technical Report No. 

38. Accessed from http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/cic/publications/

TechReports/TR_038_Konchar_Comparison_of_US_Proj_Del_Systems.pdf 12.23.09. 

Lobato, C., S. Pless, M. Sheppy, and P. Torcellini. 2011. “Reducing Plug and Process Loads for 

a Large Scale, Low Energy Office Building: NREL's Research Support Facility.”

Presented at ASHRAE Winter Conference. NREL/CP-5500-49002. National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49002.pdf

Pless, S., P. Torcellini, C. Lobato, and T. Hootman. 2010. “Main Street Net-Zero Energy 

Buildings: The Zero Energy Method in Concept and Practice.” In Proceedings of ASME 

2010 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, ES2010, Phoenix, Ariz.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47870.pdf

Pless, S., P.A. Torcellini, and D. Shelton. 2011. “Using an Energy Performance Based DesignBuild Process to Procure a Large Scale Low-Energy Building.” Presented at ASHRAE 

Winter Conference. NREL/ CP-5500-51323. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Golden, Colo. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/51323.pdf
17

Pless, S., P.A. Torcellini, and P. Macey. 2012. Controlling Capital Costs in High Performance 

Office Buildings: 15 Best Practices for Overcoming Cost Barriers. NREL/TP-5500-

54978, 2012. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo.

Sullivan, D. 2011. Uponor RSF Case Study: Blueprint for America’s Energy Future.

http://uponor.oreilly-depalma.com/casestudies/nrel-rsf.shtml#gallery