DISCLAIMER 

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 Battelle Memorial Institute, 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, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

Government or any agency thereof. 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY 

operated by 

BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE 

for the 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 

This document was printed on recycled paper. 
 

PNNL-17393 

Assessing Green Building Performance:
 

A Post Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings 


Kim M. Fowler 

Emily M. Rauch 

July 2008 

Prepared for the U.S. General Services Administration 

under Contract DE-AC05-76RLO1830 with Battelle Memorial Institute. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Richland, Washington 99352 
Acknowledgements 

This study was conducted under the direction of Kevin Powell, Don Horn, and Mike 

Atkinson with assistance from Cheri Brown, Patricia Cheng, and Jim Carelock of the U.S. 

General Services Administration (GSA). Kim M. Fowler of the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) led the PNNL research team as the principal investigator of the study. 

Emily M. Rauch was the co-author and lead for the site visit task. PNNL statistician John 

Hathaway was a significant contributor to the study. Additional contributing PNNL staff 

include Eric Richman (technical peer reviewer), Richard Fowler and Mike Perkins (graphics), 

Amy Solana (literature search regarding baseline), and Susan Ennor (technical editor). 

PNNL interns Anna Passernig, Jaclyn Phillips, Kimberly Petty, Jayson Valencia, and Eric 

Pratt were essential to the data management task. John Goins, Lindsay Baker, and Jennifer 

Hsiaw from the Center for the Built Environment were instrumental in the administration 

and report generation of the occupant satisfaction and transportation surveys. 

Assistance Was Crucial 

With the need for a large quantity of data from each building, this study easily could have 

become a data collection nightmare. However, the site contacts for the GSA buildings were 

exceptionally generous with their time and data, allowing the PNNL research team to focus 

on the analysis rather than data collection. The positive attitudes of the site contacts and 

their willingness to participate in the study made visiting the buildings, on a very tight 

schedule, a pleasure. The site contacts offered their time to host site visits, provide data for 

the building performance metrics, and promptly responded to our requests for clarification. 

Only 14 of the buildings pursued in this study lent themselves to assembling comparable 

data sets for analysis that met our building selection criteria (described in the body of the 

report). The site contacts that helped make this study possible include the following (in 

alphabetical order) 

• Paul Anderson, Davenport CH 

• Jonathan Bringewatt, Lakewood FB 

• Jim Brown, Ogden FB 

• Diana Ciryak, Cleveland CH 

• Pamela Coleman, Ogden FB 

• Scott Crews, Ogden FB 

• Dan Fenner, Sault Ste. Marie Port 

• John Garner, Omaha NPS FB and Omaha DHS FB 

• Christopher Grigsby, Denver CH 

iii 
• Scott Hawkins, Greeneville CH and Knoxville FB 

• Sue Heeren, Davenport CH 

• Tina Hingorani, Santa Ana FB 

• Jason Hunt, Fresno CH & FB 

• Nicholas Infantino, Youngstown CH & FB 

• Mary Ann Kosmicki, Omaha NPS FB and Omaha DHS FB 

• Kristina Lee, Omaha NPS FB 

• Jill McCormick, Omaha DHS FB 

• J. Michael Ortega, Denver CH 

• Peter Pocius, Sweetgrass Port 

• Wendy Schuman, Lakewood DOT FB 

• Sandy Sitton, Fresno CH & FB 

• C. Johnathan Sitzlar, Greeneville CH and Knoxville FB 

• Don Smyth, Omaha NPS FB 

• Mark Stanford, Sweetgrass Port 

• Christopher Wentzell, Sweetgrass Port 

• Stephen West, Scowcroft FB 

Thank you to these and all others that contributed to this research effort. 

iv 
This page was left blank intentionally. 
Executive Summary: Why It Matters 

The General Services Administration (GSA) sustainably designed buildings investigated 

under this study cost less to operate, have excellent energy performance, and have occupants 

that are more satisfied with the overall building than the occupants in typical commercial 

buildings. Among the many informative observations derived from the data analysis are the 

following findings 

•	 water performance needs further investigation; 

•	 maintenance, grounds, and janitorial costs vary by location; 

•	 waste disposal costs are less than the baseline; and 

•	 carbon dioxide equivalents for commute miles traveled are lower than the baseline 

for most buildings. 

Figure S1 offers a summary representation of the energy, water, occupant satisfaction, and 

aggregate maintenance costs for each of the buildings investigated. All of the energy use 

intensity (EUI, energy use per gross square foot) values were better than the baseline typical 

building, two-thirds of the water use intensity (WUI, gallons/occupant) values were better 

than or at the baseline, all of the occupant satisfaction scores were higher than the 50th 

percentile (the length of the line represents the percentage satisfaction), and more than half 

of the buildings have aggregate maintenance costs that are below the baseline. The buildings 

performing the best in all categories would be located in the top right quadrant, with a 

brown box and long lines to the right. 

Figure S1. Energy performance and occupant satisfaction are better than the baseline for all 

buildings, aggregate maintenance costs are better for most buildings, and water performance 

is better than or at baseline for two-thirds of the buildings. 

vi 
The intent of this whole building performance measurement analysis is to inform GSA on 

how its sustainably designed buildings are performing in comparison to traditionally 

designed buildings. Ideally, this information will be used to gain perspective, inform 

building design and construction, and advance the operation of GSA’s buildings portfolio. 

This study compares measured whole building performance for 14 GSA buildings located in 

half of its national regions (Figure S2) to industry standard performance of energy, water, 

maintenance and operations, waste, recycling, transportation, and occupant satisfaction 

metrics. Eight of the buildings are U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED®) certified, two are LEED registered, one used Green 

Building Challenge and has an equivalent LEED score, while another three buildings 

emphasized energy efficiency during design. Two of the 14 buildings are Port of Entry 

facilities, one LEED certified and one LEED registered. These are examined separately in 

an appendix, because no valid baseline for this building type exists. This study focused on 

the remaining 12 buildings for the analysis. 

Figure S2. GSA buildings included in this study, shown by region. 

As of the summer of 2007, GSA had 19 LEED-certified buildings. Although this study 

involved a small number of buildings, especially when considering the size of the GSA 

building stock, it includes more than one-third of GSA’s LEED buildings, a respectable 

sampling of the buildings that have been officially identified as being sustainably designed. 

vii 
 

 

 

LEED points and certification levels for each building are shown in Table S1. The Energy 

Star Portfolio Manager, an energy performance assessment tool, was used as a building 

comparison tool for this study. Energy Star scores in this table are unofficial, but are 

determined directly from the data provided by the sites for this study. All but one of the 

buildings scored above the 75th percentile, which means they could potentially qualify for an 

Energy Star rating. The remaining building still scored above the average building in the 

Energy Star database. 

Table S1. “Green” scores of the GSA study buildings 

LEED® LEED® LEED® Energy 

Total EAc1 WEc3 Star® 

Building Name Certification Level Points Points Points Score 

Ogden (L) FB LEED-NC Silver 33 5 1 79 

Lakewood (L) FB LEED-NC Silver 35 4 0 80 

Omaha DHS (L) FB LEED-NC Gold 42 10 2 85 

Omaha NPS (L) FB LEED-NC Gold 40 3 2 86 

Knoxville FB LEED-EB Silver, Energy Star 29 8 2 91 

Santa Ana FB California Energy Standard Title 24 - - - 92 

Denver CH Green Building Challenge -- Score: 2.0 34 2 1 77 

Davenport CH LEED Registered n/a n/a n/a 78 

Cleveland CH LEED-NC Certified 29 3 2 82 

Greeneville CH Energy Star 2007 - - - 87 

Youngstown CH & FB LEED-NC Certified 27 0 0 58 

Fresno CH & FB California Energy Standard Title 24 - - - 92 

Table Notes 

FB is the abbreviation used for Federal Buildings 

CH is the abbreviation used for Courthouses 

CH & FB is the abbreviation used for combined Courthouse and Federal Buildings 

(L) identifies the leased facilities 

LEED-NC is LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations 

LEED-EB is LEED for Existing Buildings 

EAc1 represents LEED Energy and Atmosphere credit 1 – Optimize Energy Performance 

WEc3 represents LEED Water Efficiency credit 3 – Water Use Reduction 

Performance metrics collected, normalized, and analyzed for the buildings include 

• water 

• energy 

• maintenance and operations 

• waste generation and recycling 

• occupant satisfaction 

viii 
• transportation. 

Building contacts provided utility bills, maintenance budgets, and supported an occupant 

survey for the key data inputs. Twelve consecutive months of data were collected for each 

performance metric and then normalized using the building and site characteristics. 

The performance data were compared to industry baselines developed from GSA, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), International Facility Management Association, Building 

Owners and Managers Association International, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

University of California Berkeley’s Center for the Built Environment, and the Energy 

Information Administration. 

Aggregate Operational Cost Is Lower than Baseline 

The “aggregate operating cost” metric used in this study is not the same as “total building 

operating cost.” The aggregate operating cost represents the costs that were available for 

developing a comparative industry baseline for office buildings. The costs include water 

utilities, energy utilities, general maintenance, grounds maintenance, waste and recycling, and 

janitorial costs. All three of the buildings that cost more than the baseline in Figure S3 have 

higher maintenance costs than the baseline, and one has higher energy costs. 

Figure S3. Aggregate operational costs are lower for most of the buildings. 

ix 
Energy Performance Is Better when Energy Performance Is a Design Focus 

Some of the observations confirmed “common beliefs,” such as buildings that intentionally 

incorporate energy considerations into design have better energy performance (Figure S4). 

The data show that half of the change in the Energy Star score can be explained by the 

change in the LEED Energy and Atmosphere “Optimize Energy Performance” credits 

(EAc1). That is, the buildings that received more LEED EAc1 points tended to receive 

higher Energy Star scores. 

Figure S4. The more LEED Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1 (EAc1) Optimize Energy 

Performance points, the better the Energy Star rating 

x 
In addition to looking at the relationship between the design intent and energy performance, 

the measured energy performance of each building in the study was compared to the 

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) national, CBECS regional, and 

GSA national averages (Figure S5). The CBECS national average is for office buildings only 

built from 1990 – 2003, while the regional average is for all building types. The GSA 

national average is the Public Buildings Service goal for energy performance across the 

agency. All of the buildings performed better than the CBECS averages and most 

performed better than the GSA goal. 

Figure S5. GSA buildings used less energy than the CBECS national and regional EUI 

averages. 

On average the office buildings in the study performed 29% better than the CBECS national 

average for office buildings. All of the buildings performed 29% better than the CBECS 

regional averages. If the CBECS office buildings average is used as the baseline for all of the 

buildings, the buildings in the study performed 26% better than average office buildings. 

When compared to the GSA national goal for energy performance, these buildings perform 

14% better. 

xi 
Water Use Does Not Offer a Clear Story 

Figure S6 shows how each building is performing in comparison to a water baseline for 

domestic water use. The water use data provided for eight of the buildings included process 

water and/or irrigation water. Because of this, domestic water use had to be estimated. 

Domestic water use was estimated as the base water load revealed from the monthly water 

use data. Sub-metering and more detailed information about each of the buildings’ water use 

is needed before the water use at these buildings can be compared to relevant baselines. 

Given these estimates, the average water use of the GSA buildings in this study was 3% less 

than the calculated water use indices baseline. 

Figure S6. Water use per occupant compared to water baseline 

Aggregate Maintenance Costs Do Not Exceed the Baseline Range for Most 

Buildings 

There has been debate as to whether maintenance costs for sustainably designed buildings 

are higher than traditionally designed buildings. For comparison, the same maintenance 

costs were compared in the industry baseline and the buildings under this study. Figure S7 

shows general maintenance, grounds maintenance, and janitorial costs per rentable square 

foot. Looking at the trends in these three figures, you can see that several buildings have 

consistently higher maintenance costs in each category. Similarly, several buildings have 

consistently lower maintenance costs or costs that fall within the baseline. When combined, 

average maintenance for these buildings cost 13% less than the average baseline cost. 

Figure S7. Maintenance costs fall within baseline range for most buildings. 

xii 
Waste Disposal Cost per Occupant Is Less than Average 

Although the collection of waste generation and recycling data was inconsistent, the data 

show that the waste disposal cost per occupant is less than the industry baseline (Figure S8). 

However, the ratio of the quantity of waste recycled to the quantity disposed did not offer a 

clear story. 

Figure S8. Waste disposal cost per occupant is lower than the industry baseline. 

xiii 
2 

1.5 

Core Survey Average Score 

1 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

General

Building

Satisfaction

General

Workspace

Satisfaction

ThermalComfort

Air Quality

Lighting

Acoustic

Quality

Cleanliness

and

Maintenance 

LEED SPOT Non-LEED 

Occupants of GSA’s Sustainably Designed Buildings Are Satisfied 

All of the GSA buildings in this study scored above the 50th percentile for general building 

satisfaction based on the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) survey (reformatted by 

GSA for this study as the Sustainable Places and Organizational Trends [SPOT] survey 

[Figure S9]). On average these buildings scored 22% better than the CBE 50th percentile. 

Figure S9. GSA building occupants are satisfied with their buildings overall. 

In comparison to all non-LEED buildings in the CBE database, the GSA buildings in this 

study reported higher than average satisfaction scores in all categories. In comparison to the 

LEED buildings in the CBE database, the GSA buildings reported higher than average 

satisfaction scores in all categories except air quality (Figure S10). 

Figure S10. Study building occupants are more satisfied than the LEED and non-LEED 

building occupants in the CBE database. 

xiv 
Occupants of GSA Sustainably Designed Buildings Contribute Less to Global 

Climate Change 

Based on the occupant commute response to in the CBE/GSA SPOT survey questions 

developed specifically for this study, the commute distance traveled and emissions from the 

identified transportation modes result in lower emissions than the average office worker 

commute (Figure S11). It is unclear whether this is the result of federal agency commute 

policies or sustainable design features such as preferred parking for carpools and alternative 

vehicles, showers and bike racks, or locating a building near mass-transit options. 

Figure S11. Lower emissions as a result of building occupant commute for most buildings. 

xv 
Combining the emissions avoided from the occupant commute and the building energy 

performance shows that each building is significantly below the carbon-dioxide-equivalent 

emissions baseline (Figures S12). 

Figure S12. Lower emissions as a result of building energy performance and occupant 

commute. 

xvi 
Percent Better than Baselin

e

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Energy Star

Score

Domestic

Water Use

Utility Costs

Recycle to

Waste

Ratio

General

Building

Occupant

Satisfaction

Total CO2

Equivalent

Emissions 

Omaha DHS (L) FB Omaha NPS (L) FB 

 

LEED Gold Buildings Are Top Performers 

All of the buildings in the study show above average performance for multiple metrics. The 

two LEED Gold buildings in this study performed better than the baselines for all of the key 

performance metrics. These buildings are the two best performers for water use, using 54% 

less than the baseline, they have an average Energy Star score of 85.5, have occupant 

satisfaction levels 34% higher than average and cost 43% less for utilities than the average 

building (Figure S13). 

Figure S13. LEED Gold buildings show exceptional performance on all of the key 

performance metrics. 

In summary, this study shows that for these 12 GSA buildings, the aggregate operational 

costs, the energy performance, and the waste costs are better than those of an average 

baseline building. Additionally, the building occupants are more satisfied with the buildings 

than occupants of baseline buildings, and the environmental impact with respect to carbon 

emissions of the study buildings are less than a baseline building. 

Because this study involves a small number of buildings, data on many more buildings are 

needed before any of the findings can be generalized to a larger population of sustainably 

designed buildings. Detailed analysis on individual buildings would offer a better 

understanding as to why each of these buildings is performing as it is. 

xvii 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronyms 

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association International 

Btu British thermal unit 

CBE Center for the Built Environment 

CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 

CH courthouse 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EAc1 Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1 (Optimize Energy Performance) 

EUAS Energy Usage and Analysis System 

EUI energy use intensity 

FB federal building 

FEDS Federal Energy Decision System 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

GSA General Services Administration 

gsf or GSF gross square feet 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

IEQ indoor environmental quality 

IFMA International Facility Management Association 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

kw kilowatt 

kwh kilowatt hour 

L leased facilities 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LEED-EB LEED for Existing Buildings 

LEED-NC LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations 

O&M operations and maintenance 

PIP Project Information Portal 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PBS Public Buildings Service 

rsf or RSF rentable square feet 

SPOT Sustainable Places and Organizational Trends (survey) 

WBPM whole building performance measurement 

WEc3 Water Efficiency credit 3 (Water Use Reduction) 

WUI water use intensity 

xix 
Contents 

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................................iii
 

Executive Summary: Why It Matters ............................................................................................................vi
 

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1
 

Background ..............................................................................................................................................1
 

Scope and Approach...............................................................................................................................2
 

Report Contents and Organization ......................................................................................................8
 

Summary Analysis: What We See ...................................................................................................................9
 

Water.......................................................................................................................................................12
 

Energy.....................................................................................................................................................18
 

Maintenance and Operations...............................................................................................................30
 

Waste Generation and Recycling ........................................................................................................34
 

Occupant Satisfaction...........................................................................................................................37
 

Transportation.......................................................................................................................................43
 

Conclusions: What We Learned.................................................................................................................... 47
 

Observations..........................................................................................................................................49
 

Lessons Learned and Future Research Opportunities ....................................................................54
 

Appendix A: Site Summaries......................................................................................................................... 55
 

Ogden Federal Building .......................................................................................................................57
 

Lakewood Federal Building.................................................................................................................61
 

Omaha DHS Federal Building ............................................................................................................65
 

Omaha NPS Federal Building.............................................................................................................69
 

Knoxville Federal Building ..................................................................................................................73
 

Santa Ana Federal Building..................................................................................................................77
 

Denver Courthouse ..............................................................................................................................81
 

Davenport Courthouse.........................................................................................................................85
 

Cleveland Courthouse ..........................................................................................................................89
 

Greeneville Courthouse........................................................................................................................93
 

Youngstown Courthouse and Federal Building................................................................................97
 

Fresno Courthouse and Federal Building....................................................................................... 101
 

Sault Ste. Marie Port .......................................................................................................................... 105
 

Sweetgrass Port................................................................................................................................... 109
 

Appendix B: Port of Entry Data ............................................................................................................... 113
 

General Building Information.......................................................................................................... 113
 

Water.................................................................................................................................................... 114
 

Energy.................................................................................................................................................. 115
 

Maintenance and Operations............................................................................................................ 115
 

Waste Disposal and Recycling.......................................................................................................... 116
 

Transportation.................................................................................................................................... 116
 

Appendix C: Baseline Development Documentation ............................................................................. 117
 

xx 
Water.................................................................................................................................................... 117
 

Appendix D: Reporting Metrics Table ...................................................................................................... 125
 

Appendix E: Occupant Satisfaction Key Survey Questions................................................................... 126
 

Appendix F: Conversion Factors................................................................................................................ 139
 

Appendix G: Building Contacts.................................................................................................................. 141
 

Appendix H: References .............................................................................................................................. 143
 
Figures 

Figure S1. Energy performance and occupant satisfaction are better than the baseline for all 

buildings, aggregate maintenance costs are better for most buildings, and water 

performance is better than the baseline for only a few buildings..................................... vi
 

Figure S2. GSA buildings included in this study, shown by region.......................................................vii
 

Figure S3. Aggregate operational costs are lower for most of the buildings.........................................ix
 

Figure S4. The more LEED Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1 (EAc1) Optimize Energy 

Performance points, the better the Energy Star Rating.......................................................x
 

Figure S5. All of the GSA buildings were below the CBECS regional EUI averages. ........................xi
 

Figure S6. Water use per occupant compared to water baseline............................................................xii
 

Figure S7. Maintenance costs within baseline range for most buildings...............................................xii
 

Figure S8. Waste disposal cost per occupant is lower than the industry baseline. .............................xiii
 

Figure S9. GSA building occupants are satisfied with their buildings overall.....................................xiv
 

Figure S10. Study building occupants are more satisfied than the LEED and non-LEED 

building occupants in the CBE database.............................................................................xiv
 

Figure S11. Lower emissions from building occupant commute for most buildings..........................xv 

Figure S12. Lower emissions from building energy performance and occupant commute. ............xvi 

Figure S13. LEED Gold buildings show exceptional performance on all of the key 

performance metrics. ...........................................................................................................xvii 

Figure 1. Study buildings by region...............................................................................................................5
 

Figure 2. Water use per occupant compared to the water use baseline ................................................13
 

Figure 3. LEED overall score and water usage ........................................................................................15
 

Figure 4. LEED WEc3 points and water usage .......................................................................................15
 

Figure 5. Water cost per rentable square foot compared to industry baseline.....................................16
 

Figure 6. Water use per gross square foot .................................................................................................17
 

Figure 7. Correlation between Energy Star rating and total LEED credits..........................................20
 

Figure 8. Correlation between Energy Star rating and LEED energy credits......................................21
 

Figure 9. Energy Star rating compared to energy intensity.....................................................................23
 

Figure 10. Study building EUIs compared to the GSA national average and CBECS 

national and regional EUIs ....................................................................................................25
 

Figure 11. EUI and water use per GSF performance...............................................................................26
 

Figure 12. CO2 equivalents compared to Energy Star baseline...............................................................27
 

Figure 13. Building CO2 equivalent emissions compared to baseline ....................................................28
 

Figure 14. Energy cost per gross square foot............................................................................................29
 

Figure 15. General maintenance cost per rentable square foot ..............................................................31
 

Figure 16. Grounds maintenance cost per rentable square foot ............................................................32
 

Figure 17. Janitorial cost per rentable square foot....................................................................................33
 

Figure 18. Recycling to waste generation ratio..........................................................................................35
 

Figure 19. Waste generation cost per occupant ........................................................................................36
 

Figure 20. Acoustic quality rating from the occupant survey .................................................................39
 

xxii 
Figure 21. Air quality rating from the occupant survey ...........................................................................39
 

Figure 22. Cleanliness and maintenance rating from the occupant survey...........................................40
 

Figure 23. Lighting quality rating from the occupant survey..................................................................40
 

Figure 24. Thermal comfort rating from the occupant survey...............................................................41
 

Figure 25. General building satisfaction rating from the occupant survey...........................................41
 

Figure 26. Study building occupants are more satisfied than the LEED and non-LEED 

building occupants in the CBE database..............................................................................42
 

Figure 27. Average commute distance and community size...................................................................44
 

Figure 28. CO2 equivalent emissions by community size.........................................................................45
 

Figure 29. Aggregate CO2 equivalent emissions compared to the baseline..........................................46
 

Figure 30. Aggregate operational costs compared to the baseline.........................................................49
 

Figure 31. Thermal comfort compared to EUI and maintenance costs ...............................................50
 

Figure 32. Janitorial cost compared to cleanliness satisfaction score and maintenance costs ...........51
 

Figure 33. Lighting satisfaction compared to EUI and maintenance costs..........................................52
 

Figure 34. WUI compared to EUI and aggregate maintenance costs ...................................................53
 

xxiii 
Tables
 

Table S1. “Green” Scores of the GSA Study Buildings..........................................................................viii
 

Table 1. GSA buildings studied .....................................................................................................................4
 

Table 2. Building and site characteristics metrics .......................................................................................6
 

Table 3. Whole building performance metrics............................................................................................7
 

Table 4. Key building and site characteristics............................................................................................10
 

Table 5. Additional building and site characteristics ................................................................................11
 

Table 6. LEED Water Efficiency credits pursued....................................................................................14
 

Table 7. “Green” design certification by building ....................................................................................18
 

Table 8. LEED Energy and Atmosphere Credits pursued .....................................................................19
 

Table 9. Energy use and cost by building ..................................................................................................22
 

Table 10. Various EUI values of interest ...................................................................................................24
 

Table 11. O&M data and cost by building .................................................................................................30
 

Table 12. Waste generation and recycling data and cost by building.....................................................34
 

Table 13. SPOT Survey scores ranked against CBE database ................................................................38
 

Table 14. Transportation data by building .................................................................................................43
 

Table 15. Annual costs and total project cost by building.......................................................................47
 

Table 16. Summary values for each performance metric.........................................................................48
 

xxiv 
This page was left blank intentionally. 

xxv
 
USGBC membership developed the 

LEED® green building rating system to 

provide a system for defining “green 

buildings.” The rating system is 

organized by five aspects of building 

design

 Sustainable Sites 

 Water Efficiency 

 Energy & Atmosphere 

 Materials & Resources, and 

 Indoor Environmental Quality. 

Points are earned for meeting the intent 

of specific design criterion in each of the 

above categories. A LEED rating is 

awarded based on the total number of 

points earned by a building design. The 

LEED ratings are 

 Certified (26-32 points)

 Silver (33-38 points)

 Gold (39-51 points)

 Platinum (52-69 points). 

LEED ratings can be achieved for new 

construction and major renovation 

(LEED-NC), existing buildings (LEEDEB), and several other building 

products. 

Introduction 

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has been applying sustainable design 

principles to its building design projects since 1999. In 2003, GSA set its target for 

certification at the Silver level of the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED®-NC) green building 

rating system for new building design starts. Now, GSA has chosen to analyze the 

performance of its sustainably designed buildings to determine the potential added benefits 

of such buildings. 

GSA engaged several key stakeholders, including 

its own representatives, a research team from 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 

the University of California Berkeley’s Center 

for the Built Environment (CBE), and site 

building managers and engineers to measure 

whole building performance in order to evaluate 

how well GSA’s sustainably designed buildings 

are performing compared to industry norms. In 

contrast to LEED-NC, which is focused on 

design and specifications for new construction 

projects, “whole building performance 

measurement” (WBPM) assesses how well 

sustainably designed buildings are actually 

operating. Thus, the primary intent of this 

WBPM study is to demonstrate the impact of 

investing in sustainably designed buildings, 

thereby enabling GSA to better document how 

its sustainably designed buildings are performing 

compared to traditionally designed buildings. 

Ideally, the information derived from this study 

will be used to inform design, construction, and 

operation of GSA’s building portfolio. 

Background 

GSA buildings are typically built for a 100-year life and follow robust guidelines to enhance 

their asset value. The federal government owns or leases approximately 725 million square 

feet of office space and employs 2.7 million workers. GSA houses 1.1 million workers in 

342 million square feet of office space (45% of federal government space).1 Of the more 

than 1,000 LEED-NC certified projects, 46% are owned by federal, state, or local 

governments.2

1
 
It is commonly recognized that a whole building, integrated design approach is essential to 

creating a sustainable or green building design. This design is assumed to result in optimal 

building performance based upon the product and equipment specifications. Several studies 

have documented the projected benefits of sustainably designed buildings3,4,5,6,7. Often these 

studies projected savings based on design intent or measured performance of a single metric, 

such as occupant productivity. The measured whole building performance of sustainably 

designed buildings has rarely been documented. To fully measure the operational impact of 

sustainably designed buildings, multiple occupant and operational measures, more than 

energy use, need to be considered. 

Although energy modeling of a building’s performance is a very useful tool during the design 

process, it does not always accurately predict how a building will perform. Studies have 

shown that although modeled data can predict average performance, the data do not 

consistently predict the performance of an individual building8,9. This is one reason why 

more measured performance data are needed to better predict the performance of design 

strategies. 

Some recent studies using measured building performance include the New Buildings 

Institute study, which focused on energy performance in LEED buildings.10 This study 

noted that the energy performance for individual projects is highly variable and more 

building performance data need to be gathered and analyzed to compare design performance 

with design intent. It also documented that the energy performance of LEED-NC buildings 

in their study performed 24% better than the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 

Survey (CBECS) average for all commercial building stock and 33% better than the CBECS 

average for office buildings.11 

Scope and Approach 

The scope of this study is to evaluate the impact of GSA’s sustainably designed buildings by 

collecting and analyzing actual performance data from operating buildings for comparison to 

industry baselines for building performance. As study collaborators, the PNNL research 

team was responsible for data collection, data management, data synthesis, analysis, and 

report development. The GSA representatives provided building and site contacts, building 

data derived from existing GSA systems—such as the Energy Usage and Analysis System 

(EUAS), the Asset Business Plan, and Project Information Portal (PIP)—and coordinated 

the completion of the study’s version of the CBE survey to assess occupants’ satisfaction 

with their buildings (also known as GSA’s Sustainable Places and Organizational Trends 

[SPOT] survey). The CBE team was responsible for preparing, distributing, and 

summarizing the data from the SPOT building occupant satisfaction survey. The building 

managers and engineers hosted the site visit(s), provided data as requested, and deployed the 

SPOT survey. The quantity and quality of data were enhanced by the engagement of 

multiple stakeholders. 

The selection criteria for the buildings in the study included the following 

2
 
•	 Buildings built or remodeled since 2000 that included sustainable design or energy 

efficiency as a key design consideration. 

•	 Ability to collect a minimum of 12 months of data, at least 6 months after the 

building occupancy date. 

•	 Data availability for the key performance metrics and occupants’ willingness to 

participate in the SPOT survey. 

•	 Comparability considerations, which included 

o	 selecting common GSA building types – office, courthouse, and port of entry 

o	 co-location of buildings by region 

o	 building ownership – leased or owned. 

Using the above criteria helped to narrow the GSA portfolio of buildings to a list of 18 

buildings. The list was reduced to 14 buildings based on occupants’ willingness to 

participate in the SPOT survey and the availability of data. (Site summaries for each building 

can be found in Appendix A.) Of the 14 buildings that were investigated under this study, 

data from 12 buildings were used for the analysis. Of the 14 buildings in this study 

•	 two are port-of-entry facilities 

•	 four are courthouses 

•	 six are federal buildings 

•	 two are courthouses and federal buildings 

3
 
 

For the remainder of the report, the buildings are organized by building type (Table 1). 

Federal buildings (FB) are typical office buildings for the most part and are designated by the 

color purple. Courthouses (CH), designated by the color orange, include bankruptcy and 

criminal courtrooms and related offices. The combined courthouse and federal building 

(CH & FB) type includes significant courtroom space and equally significant typical office 

space. The CH & FBs are designated by the color blue. Four of the buildings are leased 

facilities, and the rest are GSA-owned. Port-of-Entry facilities are a unique building type. 

Initial analysis of the Port of Entry data demonstrated that none of the commonly used 

baselines for office buildings would apply to Ports-of-Entry. Therefore, the two Port-ofEntry buildings were removed from the analysis in the main body of this report and the 

information collected can be found in Appendix B. 

Table 1. GSA buildings studied 

Region Building Full Name Abbreviation 

Federal Buildings 

8 Scowcroft Internal Revenue Service Building Ogden (L) FB 

8 Department of Transportation Office Building Lakewood (L) FB 

6 Department of Homeland Security/INS Omaha DHS (L) FB 

Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters of the 

6 National Park Service Omaha NPS (L) FB 

4 John J. Duncan Federal Building Duncan FB 

9 Santa Ana Federal Building Santa Ana FB 

Courthouse 

8 Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse Denver CH 

6 Davenport United States Courthouse Davenport CH 

5 Howard M. Metzenbaum United States Courthouse Cleveland CH 

4 James H. Quillen United States Courthouse Greeneville CH 

Courthouse and Federal Building 

Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building Youngstown CH & 

5 and United States Courthouse FB 

Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse and Federal 

9 Building Fresno CH & FB 

Port of Entry 

5 Port of Entry, Sault Sainte Marie, MI Sault Ste. Marie Port 

8 Shared Port-of-Entry, Sweetgrass, MT; Coutts, AB Sweetgrass Port 

4
 
The buildings were located in five different GSA regions (Figure 1) 

• two in the Southeast Region 4 

• three in the Great Lakes Region 5 

• three in the Heartland Region 6 

• four in the Rocky Mountain Region 8 

• two in the Pacific Region 9. 

Figure 1. Study buildings by region 

Seven of the buildings are U.S. Green Building Council LEED-certified buildings, one is 

LEED registered, one used Green Building Challenge but has a LEED-equivalent score for 

this report, and three buildings emphasized energy efficiency during design. It is assumed 

GSA design expectations have resulted in a number of undocumented sustainably designed 

buildings. As of the summer of 2007, the GSA had 19 LEED-certified buildings.12 For the 

current GSA building stock, LEED offers the most consistent way to track sustainably 

designed buildings within the agency. 

The PNNL research team collected building and site characteristics data (Table 2) to be able 

to normalize the building performance metrics in order to report on key building 

performance indicators. For example, gross interior floor area (gsf) is the total building 

5
 
Building 

Specifications 

 

Building Location 

address, city, state, zip code 

Building Function 

Federal building, courthouse, port of entry 

Key Building Features 

LEED checklist and design highlights 

Building Occupancy Date 

Year 

Gross Interior Floor Area (gsf) 

ft2 

Rentable Floor Area (rsf) 

ft 2 

Occupancy 

 

Hours of Operation 

hours 

 week 

Total Number of Regular Occupants and Visitors 

 occupants visitors 

 work day work day Occupant Gender Ratio 

Number of female & male occupants 

First Costs 

 

Total Building Cost 

Design and Construction Cost 

$ 

2 ft 

square footage value used to estimate costs per square foot, energy use per square foot, and 

more. The Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 

Building Cost and Performance Metrics: Data Collection Protocol13 was the tool used to identify, 

normalize, and analyze the performance data collected for each building. 

Table 2. Building and site characteristics metrics 

For each of the buildings, data were collected and analyzed for the key performance metrics 

provided in Table 3. The PNNL research team collected a minimum of 12 consecutive 

months of data and documented an industry baseline for each metric. Site and building 

contacts provided utility bills, maintenance budgets and schedules, and supported the 

distribution of the occupant satisfaction survey. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Whole building performance metrics 

Water Total Building Potable Water Use 

year 

gal

 year 

$ 

Indoor Potable, Outdoor, and Process Water Use 

 year 

gal

 year 

$ 

Energy Total Building Energy Use 

 year 

Btu $

year 

Maintenance & 

Operations 

Building & Grounds Maintenance 

year 

Service Calls

year 

Preventative Maintenance 

 year 

$ 

Waste 

Generation & 

Recycling 

Solid Sanitary Waste 

 year 

$ 

year 

ton 

Recycled Materials 

 year 

$ 

year 

ton 

Occupant 

Satisfaction 

Building Occupant Self-Reported Satisfaction and Productivity 

Survey Metric 

Occupant Rating

Transportation Regular Commute (from survey data) 

week 

miles 

gallon 

miles 

7
 
Report Contents and Organization 

The analysis results for each of the key performance metrics addressed under this study are 

provided in the Summary Analysis section of this report. The values used for comparison 

include the following 

• water use per occupant 

• water cost per rentable square foot 

• Energy Star rating 

• energy cost per gross square foot 

• ratio of preventative maintenance to service calls 

• general, grounds, and janitorial maintenance cost per rentable square foot 

• ratio of quantity recycled to solid waste generation 

• waste and recycling cost per occupant 

• occupant satisfaction scores 

• miles traveled and vehicle emissions per occupant. 

General observations from the study are provided in the Conclusion section. Site-specific 

observations are provided in the site summaries in Appendix A. The two Port-of-Entry 

buildings that were removed from the analysis in the main body of text are described in 

Appendix B. A description of how the water baseline was developed is provided in 

Appendix C. The units used for the reporting metrics and how they connect to the 

performance metrics can be found in Appendix D. Sample occupant satisfaction survey 

questions can be found in Appendix E. Appendix F, G, and H contain the conversion 

factors, site contacts, and references respectively. 

8
 
Summary Analysis: What We See 

This section is organized by metric type. First, the key building and site characteristics are 

provided as a reference for the analysis. Next, the building performance data are analyzed 

for each performance metric, with the information provided in the following order 

• water 

• energy 

• maintenance and operations 

• waste generation and recycling 

• occupant satisfaction 

• transportation. 

The discussion for each metric includes performance data, costs, and operational, occupant, 

or environmental impact, as available. At the end of each metric discussion, the two LEED 

Gold buildings’, Omaha DHS FB and Omaha NPS FB, results are highlighted. 

The data represented in this section were provided by GSA representatives, site contacts, 

and CBE. It is important to note that data for each metric were not available for the exact 

same timeframe for each building. The general date range is April 2005 through March 

2007, but in some cases data are as recent as November 2007. In most cases data are only 

available for 12 consecutive months, which offers only a snapshot in time of building 

performance. In some cases we had multiple years of data. Multiple years of data were used 

when trends were being investigated, but otherwise 1 year of data was used to be consistent 

across the building analysis. Future analysis would benefit from multiple years of data for 

each metric in order to be able to average the data and investigate potential trends. 

9
 
The building and site characteristics data collected for each building are used to normalize 

the performance metrics (Table 4). The gross square footage (gsf) and rentable square 

footage (rsf) are the primary building geometry characteristics used for normalizing the 

performance metrics. The building geometry metrics are needed as part of the water, energy, 

and maintenance and operations metrics. The number of regular building occupants (Occ) 

and visitor (Vis) estimates are needed as part of the water, energy, waste and recycling, and 

transportation metrics. 

Table 4. Key building and site characteristics 

Region 

Year 

Occupied GSF RSF # Occ 

Occ-Vis 

Equiv 

Hours/ 

week 

# 

Comps 

Ogden (L) FB 8 2004 105,000 102,579 514 521 120 745 

Lakewood (L) FB 8 2004 128,342 122,225 318 336 70 383 

Omaha DHS (L) FB 6 2005 86,000 73,459 65 360 112 80 

Omaha NPS (L) FB 6 2004 68,000 62,772 125 134 70 140 

Knoxville FB 4 2005 172,684 120,171 285 310 65 285 

Santa Ana FB 9 2005 280,365 205,378 409 459 70 424 

Denver CH 8 2002 327,103 256,718 170 370 65 185 

Davenport CH 6 2005 79,872 68,391 45 63 70 60 

Cleveland CH 5 2005 251,314 185,105 105 143 60 120 

Greeneville CH 4 2001 160,975 136,104 85 103 70 100 

Youngstown CH & FB 5 2002 52,240 44,476 45 243 60 60 

Fresno CH & FB 9 2005 495914 393243 235 510 68 250 

Building Name 

10
 
In addition to the building and site characteristics, the research team also captured the 

following information about the buildings that was of general interest (Table 5) 

• Four of the buildings are leased, eight are GSA-owned. 

• Five of the buildings had major renovations, seven are new construction. 

• Half of the buildings are 4 stories tall or fewer. 

• Three of the buildings have GSA personnel co-located with the occupants. 

• Four buildings have underfloor air distribution systems. 

• Four buildings purchase central steam. 

• Three buildings purchase central chilled water. 

Table 5. Additional building and site characteristics 

GSA Underfloor Purchased 

Owned or # of Personnel Air HVAC Purchased Chilled 

Building Name Leased Renovation Stories On Site Distribution Steam Water 

Ogden (L) FB Leased Yes 5 No Yes No No 

Lakewood (L) FB Leased No 3 No No No No 

Omaha DHS (L) FB Leased No 1 No No No No 

Omaha NPS (L) FB Leased No 3 No Yes No No 

Knoxville FB Owned Yes 8 No No No No 

Santa Ana FB Owned Yes 10 No No Yes Yes 

Denver CH Owned No 13 No Yes -Partial Yes Yes 

Davenport CH Owned Yes 4 Yes No No No 

Cleveland CH Owned Yes 6 Yes No Yes Yes 

Greeneville CH Owned No 4 No No No No 

Youngstown CH & FB Owned No 4 No No Yes No 

Fresno CH & FB Owned No 11 Yes Yes -Partial No No 

The assumption that these items of general interest would offer observable trends did not 

materialize. Future studies will continue to collect data on these general interest items to see 

if more data points offer additional information. 

11
 
 

Water 

Many communities periodically experience droughts and some are in the 

situation of an ever decreasing availability of potable water. Commercial 

buildings use 12% of potable water in the U.S.14 Tracking water use offers 

opportunities for identifying possible strategies for water use reduction. In addition to the 

resource management benefits, there is a monetary incentive to track and decrease water 

consumption. 

The water metric used for comparing domestic water use (i.e., toilets, urinals, and faucets) to 

the industry baseline is indoor potable water in gallons per year. The potable water use data 

for some buildings included a combination of domestic water use, landscape water use, 

and/or process water use. The metric determined the most representative of domestic 

potable water use was the DOE FEMP water use indices, which provides guidance for the 

calculation of water use values per building occupant. Eight of the buildings in the study 

have water data that included process and/or landscape water use that needed to be 

excluded from the water use values in order for the buildings to be fairly compared to the 

baseline. The buildings that required estimation of outdoor potable water use and/or 

process potable water include 

• Ogden (L) FB 

• Lakewood (L) FB 

• Omaha DHS (L) FB 

• Knoxville FB 

• Denver CH 

• Davenport CH 

• Greenville CH 

• Fresno CH & FB 

Details on how water use was estimated can be found in Appendix C. In general the PNNL 

research team estimated the annual domestic water use for those buildings based on a review 

of monthly water use to identify a base water load. 

The water baseline for each building is unique to the building based on occupancy. Water 

use is normalized to number of building occupants. The ratio of female-to-male occupants 

and the number and type of visitors provides additional detail for understanding water use. 

For the water analysis, a visitor-occupant equivalent was developed (calculation details are in 

Appendix C). 

Domestic water consumption depends 

on human operation and fixed 

equipment efficiency. Therefore, typical 

indoor water consumption is best 

expressed as per occupant. For water 

use comparisons to the baseline, water 

use intensity (WUI) is defined as gallons 

per occupant per year. 

12
 
Given the estimated domestic water use, half of the buildings are using less domestic water 

than the calculated baseline. Of the three buildings using significantly more than the water 

baseline, two focused on energy performance during design, rather than sustainable design, 

and the third has evaporative cooling and an irrigated park area that may be impacting the 

water base load. When landscape and process water uses are included, the buildings use 

significantly more water. 

The top diagram in Figure 2 offers a detailed representation of only the calculated baseline 

for domestic water. Domestic water use per occupant type and water cost per occupant type 

are also shown (in the second and third diagrams) to provide water use perspective outside 

of the baseline assumptions. Although on average the top third of the buildings in the study 

are performing 39% better than their baselines, all the buildings in the study averaged only 

3% better than baseline performance expectations. 

Figure 2. Water use per occupant compared to the water use baseline 

The research team investigated why the domestic water use was not “better than the 

baseline.” Although some speculation about the water use could be made, a detailed 

investigation into the water use for each building would be needed to establish, with any 

confidence, an accurate understanding of water use. Based on the information the PNNL 

research team has, the speculation regarding higher than baseline water use includes the 

following 

13
 
•	 Estimates for domestic water use base load are not accurate, and/or not compatible 

with the baselines. 

•	 Occupant and/or visitor use is higher than average or the estimate of visitors is not 

reflective of domestic water use, thus impacting the baseline. 

•	 Maintenance and operations challenges, such as leaks or clogging, are impacting the 

water use. 

•	 Lower cost of water is a disincentive to minimize use. 

In some cases, this may be an outcome of operational changes in the building. For example, 

the Ogden FB was designed to be operated during normal business hours, but is being 

operated 22 hours, six days a week to accommodate shift work. Some building maintenance 

records indicated regular lavatory issues. Those records were not provided in a uniform 

format for each building, so the research team cannot definitively indicate maintenance as a 

reason for high water use. Without separately metered domestic water use, the inferences 

are speculative. Additional investigation into the design strategies and building operations 

offers additional information on why the domestic water use appears to be higher than the 

water baseline for some buildings. 

Table 6 shows the number of LEED points 

received for water efficiency credits. Half of 

the buildings pursued indoor water use 

reduction strategies (WEc3). Eight of the 

twelve buildings, all that had LEED 

documentation, attempted some water use 

reduction with either efficient landscape or 

LEED® Water Efficiency credit 3, Water Use 

Reduction, is achieved by reducing potable 

water use by 20% or more than a baseline 

design. Two WEc3 points can be achieved if 

potable water is reduced by 30%. An 

Innovation in Design point can be achieved 

for exemplary performance of potable water 

use reduction greater than 40%. 

innovation wastewater technologies. One of the buildings received an Innovation in Design 

credit for exemplary performance in water efficiency and thus has 3 credits listed. 

Table 6. LEED Water Efficiency credits pursued 

14
 
For the buildings in this study, there is a 48% correlation between water use and the overall 

LEED score (Figure 3). When looking at the Water Efficiency credit 3 (WEc3; Figure 4) 

there is no significant correlation (16%) when the LEED buildings are considered. If all of 

the buildings in the study are included, the correlation jumps to 28%. 

Figure 3. LEED overall score and water usage 

Figure 4. LEED WEc3 points and water usage 

15
 
For Figure 5, the units are water cost per rentable square foot (rsf) rather than by occupant. 

The baseline value for the water cost per gross square foot is based on office building values 

from the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) and Building Owners and 

Managers Association (BOMA) International15,16,17. None of the buildings in this study has 

annual water cost per gross square foot higher than the baseline range. Four buildings were 

within the range and the remainder cost less than the baseline range. The four buildings 

within the range and the two closest to the bottom of the range have process and/or 

irrigation water costs included. 

Figure 5. Water cost per rentable square foot compared to industry baseline 

Another frequently used metric is total water use per gross square foot. For the buildings 

that have evaporative cooling, cooling towers, and/or irrigation potable water use, this 

metric provides an opportunity to compare total building water use to an industry baseline 

and agency expectations. This metric does not address the water use of a densely occupied 

building, as it ignores the number of building occupants in a building. At the same time it is 

easier to collect consistently because daily occupancy variation does not need to be 

considered. IFMA18 offers an average water use per gross square foot as 19.1 gallons for 

office and headquarters building types. GSA has developed a water baseline and water 

reduction goals to meet the requirements in Executive Order 13423. 

Figure 6 shows that most of the GSA buildings in this study use less water than the industry 

baseline. The two buildings above the industry baseline have the two highest occupancy 

densities of the buildings in the study, which, as mentioned previously, impacts water use. 

16
 
The building with the lowest water use per gross square foot has the lowest occupancy 

density. Approximately one-third of the buildings are already below the GSA 2007 baseline 

and the GSA 2015 water reduction goal. 

Figure 6. Water use per gross square foot 

When considering domestic water use, the LEED Gold buildings in this study performed 

the best. Both of the LEED Gold buildings emphasized water use reduction in their design 

and on average they used 54% less than the water use per occupant baseline. Additionally, 

both buildings had a lower water cost per rentable square foot and were below the industry 

baseline for water use per gross square foot. One of the LEED Gold buildings is using 

more water than the GSA 2007 baseline and the GSA 2015 goal, but the non-domestic water 

use for that building is likely to decrease because the rainwater capture system is functioning 

and will reduce irrigation water needs. 

Overall the water use will not offer a valid comparison to the industry baseline without the 

irrigation and process water use separately metered. For the cost of water use per rentable 

square foot it appears, even with the additional water costs, the buildings are fitting within 

the typical water cost for office buildings. Further analysis of how the total building water 

use relates to energy use is discussed in the energy and the observations sections. 

17
 
 

 

Energy 

Commercial buildings in the U.S. consume about 18% of the total energy.19 

Energy costs tend to be the largest utility cost for a building and with the 

current emphasis on global climate change there is an even greater interest to reduce energy 

use and modify energy sources in order to reduce the building’s environmental impact. 

The buildings in this study were selected because 

they were sustainably-designed or they were 

designed with energy efficiency as a goal. Table 

7 shows that nine buildings documented the 

sustainable design aspects of their building while 

the remaining three had a heavy emphasis on 

energy efficiency. All but one of the buildings 

achieved an Energy Star rating of 75 or greater, 

which qualifies a building for an Energy Star 

certification. The remaining building still scored 

above the 50th percentile, and although it was 

LEED-certified, it did not earn any “Optimize 

Energy Performance” points. 

Table 7. “Green” design certification by building 

Energy Star® Portfolio Manager is a 

benchmarking tool that ranks the annual 

energy use of a building compared to 

average commercial buildings data. 

Each building receives a score between 

zero and 100. Buildings with scores 

above 50 can be considered better than 

average. Buildings with scores above 75 

can receive an Energy Star Buildings 

Label that recognizes the building as 

performing in the top 25% of 

nationwide energy performance. 

The research team chose Energy Star as the primary mechanism for comparison because it 

offers an easy to understand performance compared to similar building types and geographic 

18
 
locations. Other mechanisms for comparison In California, compliance is mandatory include a national and regional CBECS and with Title 24, Part 6, of the California 

national GSA averages, as well as average costs Code of Regulations: California's Energy 

from BOMA and IFMA. Efficiency Standards for Residential and 

Nonresidential Buildings.

The unofficial Energy Star scores for each 

building were calculated using the following data DOE’s Building Energy Codes Program 

from each site deems Title 24 more stringent than the 

ASHRAE 90.1-2004. • building type 

• building location 

• 12 to 24 months of energy use data LEED® Energy and Atmosphere credit • number of occupants 1, Optimize Energy Performance, allows 

• occupancy hours for up to 10 points for reducing energy 

• number of computers. consumption by 42% or more. 

In addition to the LEED Optimize Energy Performance credits, key energy management 

credits are documented in Table 8. Note that the Youngstown FB & CH has zero energy 

credits. 

Table 8. LEED Energy and Atmosphere Credits pursued 

LEED® Energy Points

Optimize Energy Additional Measurement & 

Performance Commissioning Verification Green Power 

Building Name EAc1 EAc3 EAc5 EAc6 

Ogden (L) FB 5 011 

Lakewood (L) FB 4 111 

Omaha DHS (L) FB 10 011 

Omaha NPS (L) FB 3 111 

Knoxville FB 8 n/a n/a n/a 

Santa Ana FB - --­

Denver CH 2 011 

Davenport CH n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Cleveland CH 3 000 

Greeneville CH - --­

Youngstown CH & FB 0 000 

Fresno CH & FB - --­

The next two figures display the correlation between the Energy Star rating to the total 

number of LEED points and to the LEED Optimize Energy Performance points. LEED19
 
certified buildings are now required to achieve a minimum of two Optimize Energy 

Performance points20, thus Youngstown would not have received certification under the 

current system. 

Figure 7 shows that 20% of the change in the Energy Star rating can be correlated to the 

change in the overall LEED score. 

Figure 7. Correlation between Energy Star rating and total LEED credits 

20
 
The trend line in Figure 8 shows that 50% of the change in then Energy Star rating can be 

correlated to the change in the LEED Optimize Energy Performance points. The 

correlation between the total LEED Energy and Atmosphere points and the Energy Star 

rating is very similar to Figure 8 and thus is not shown separately. 

Figure 8. Correlation between Energy Star rating and LEED energy credits 

21
 
 

 

Although the Energy Star rating is a useful baseline for comparison, there are other 

commonly used references for comparison that provide useful benchmarks. Table 9 offers a 

summary of the energy performance measurement data collected for each building in this 

study. These data were used to derive the Energy Star rating as well as for the energy 

intensity analysis and the energy cost comparison. 

Table 9. Energy use and cost by building 

Chilled Electric Electric Total 

Electricity Nat Gas Steam Water Demand Demand Energy 

Building Name (MWH) (1000 ft3

) (MLB) (Ton Hr) (MW) Cost Cost 

Ogden (L) FB 2,252 1,699 0 0 4.5 $54,181 $146,877 

Lakewood (L) FB 1,983 2,225 0 0 5.8 $69,879 $256,060 

Omaha DHS (L) FB 1,270 0 0 0 3.7 included $79,464 

Omaha NPS (L) FB 840 16,011 0 0 3.9 included $83,177 

Knoxville FB 1,867 1,878 0 0 0.0 $0 $165,181 

Santa Ana FB 2,351 0 1,383 518,210 0.0 $0 $528,772 

Denver CH 3,140 0 12,170 480,144 0.0 $0 $802,692 

Davenport CH 923 1,829 0 0 0.0 $0 $76,949 

Cleveland CH 1,633 0 9,822 477,249 5.2 included $449,509 

Greeneville CH 1,682 2,173 0 0 0.0 $0 $151,679 

Youngstown CH & FB 735 0 1,153 0 0.0 $0 $98,343 

Fresno CH & FB 5,379 5,136 0 0 0.0 $0 $810,745 

The Omaha DHS achieved the highest number of total LEED EA credits but had similar 

energy performance as Omaha NPS, which achieved half of the total points Omaha DHS 

achieved. Acknowledging the importance of commissioning, it is worth noting that Omaha 

NPS achieved a credit for Additional Commissioning (EAc3) while Omaha DHS did not. 

22
 
 

Figure 9 compares the Energy Star scores to energy use per occupant, energy use per hours 

of occupancy, and energy use per gross square foot. Energy use per gross square foot trend 

shows that with an increase in Energy Star scores 

there is a decrease in energy use intensity (EUI). 

The buildings with higher energy use per work hour 

also tended to have higher energy use per occupant. 

There doesn’t appear to be a correlation between 

the energy use per work hour or number of 

occupants and the Energy Star score. 

EUI is a commonly used metric 

calculated when the annual energy use 

divided by the building square footage. 

EUI does not consider the impact of the 

occupants with respect to how occupant 

density and plug load use may impact 

the energy use. 

Figure 9. Energy Star rating compared to energy intensity 

Table 10 summarizes the EUI data available for each building. 

•	 “Current EUI” is the EUI calculated in Energy Star from data provided by the sites 

and GSA’s EUAS database. 

•	 “FY06 and FY07 GSA EUI” values were provided by GSA energy professionals, 

which is why there is no leased building information in those columns. The most 

23
 
 

likely reason for these values being different is that different date ranges were used 

for the data sets. In most cases, the study used data from April 2005 to March 2007, 

rather than by fiscal year. 

•	 “Energy Star Baseline” is the 50th percentile value calculated within Energy Star 

based on the buildings’ specific information. 

•	 “CBECS by Region” includes the average 

EUI for all building types within specific 

geographic regions, correlated to GSA 

regions. 

•	 “CBECS Office” is the national average 

EUI for office buildings using 2003 data 

for office buildings built between 1990 – 

2003.21 

•	 “GSA FY07 Target” is the EUI goal documented in the Public Buildings Service 

(PBS). It represents the average EUI expected for all GSA buildings in order to 

meet GSA’s energy efficiency goals under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

•	 “Estimated CO2 Equiv/Bldg” is the Energy Star calculated carbon dioxide 

equivalents per building based on quantity and type of energy use. 

Table 10. Various EUI values of interest 

CBECS is a publicly available database 

comprised of national survey data on US 

commercial building energy 

consumption. CBECS data can be 

sorted by building type, age, region, size, 

fuel type, and various other parameters. 

24
 
Figure 10 represents the EUI compared to the 

CBECS national average, regional average and GSA’s 

national average target. All of GSA’s buildings in this 

study perform better than or equivalent to the 

CBECS averages. Of the three of the buildings that 

are not performing better than the GSA national 

average target, two are courthouses, one is operated 

22 hours a day, and all three are in cold climate zones. 

GSA has established national baseline 

averages and targets in order for the 

GSA building stock to meet the energy 

and water reduction goals in Executive 

Order 13423, the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, and the Energy and Infrastructure 

Security Act or 2007. 

More detailed energy use analysis would be needed to determine how energy performance in 

any of these buildings could be improved or optimized. 

Figure 10. Study building EUIs compared to the GSA national average and CBECS 

national and regional EUIs 

25
 
The energy performance for all of the buildings in this study is noticeably better than average 

and the water use per gross square foot is better than average for most of the buildings. In 

many of the buildings the water performance contributes to the energy efficiency of the 

buildings. Figure 11 shows the EUI in relationship to the water use per gross square foot. 

The black dots are the buildings with domestic and process water use, the black triangles are 

buildings with domestic, process water and landscape water use, the clear box is a building 

with domestic and landscape water use, and the black squares are the buildings with 

domestic water use only. 

All of the buildings that used water for only domestic water purposes are performing above 

the industry baseline. As mentioned previously, a better understanding of the water use in 

these buildings is needs to be derived from metering and detailed data collection regarding 

typical water use. 

Figure 11. EUI and water use per GSF performance 

26
 
One key environmental impact of energy use is emissions. The carbon dioxide (CO2) 

equivalents for the buildings are calculated using the Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Figure 

12 shows the relative baselines for each building given the energy use and utility. All of the 

buildings studied are below the industry average and all but one is below the Energy Star 

buildings expected CO2 equivalent emissions. Five of the buildings also have contracts to 

purchase green power, not represented in this figure, which would result in lower emissions. 

Figure 12. CO2 equivalents compared to Energy Star baseline 

27
 
Given the information provided in the preceding figure, Figure 13 shows the percent of 

building CO2 equivalent emissions under the industry baseline, identified as the Energy Star 

50th percentile. The buildings with the best Energy Star scores have the best CO2 equivalent 

emissions performance. 

Figure 13. Building CO2 equivalent emissions compared to baseline 

28
 
The baseline value for energy costs per gross square foot is based on office building values 

from IFMA and BOMA.22,23,24,25 All of the buildings in the study had energy costs that were 

either below or within the energy cost baseline (Figure 14). 

Figure 14. Energy cost per gross square foot 

The LEED Gold buildings in the study had an average Energy Star score of 85.5 and an 

average EUI 35% better than the industry baseline. Based on the Energy Star rating baseline 

and CBECS baselines, the energy use of the study buildings can be classified as better than 

the average building and, in many cases, noticeably better than the baselines. On average the 

office buildings in the study performed 29% better than the CBECS national average for 

office buildings. If the CBECS office buildings average is used as the baseline for all of the 

buildings, the buildings in the study performed 26% better than average office buildings. 

When compared to the GSA national goal for energy performance, these buildings perform 

14% better. Given the better energy performance, the CO2 equivalents are also below the 

baseline for these buildings. Additionally, the cost of energy use per gross square foot 

appears to fit within the typical energy cost range for office buildings. 

29
 
Maintenance and Operations 

Interdependence in building systems means that a cost effective and highperforming operations and maintenance (O&M) program may cost more in 

training, monitoring, and preventative maintenance, but reduces the costs of occupant 

satisfaction and productivity, energy, water, materials, and repair costs. For this study, an 

attempt was made to compare the same maintenance costs for each building as those 

addressed in the industry baseline. The details provided for each building’s maintenance 

records varied and thus, when details were not available, it was assumed that the 

maintenance costs represented equivalent activities. The O&M data available for each 

building are summarized in Table 11. The italicized values highlight the sites where 

maintenance records were not tracked consistently with the other sites. 

Table 11. O&M data and cost by building 

Green Maint Calls Prev Maint 

House- / Total / Total General Janitorial Grounds 

Building Name keeping Maint Maint Maint Cost Maint Cost Maint Cost 

Ogden (L) FB Some n/a n/a $39,068 $125,892 $3,584 

Lakewood (L) FB No 0.05 0.95 $103,644 $83,220 $7,394 

Omaha DHS (L) FB Some 0.38 0.62 n/a $70,800 $8,200 

Omaha NPS (L) FB Yes 0.62 0.38 $41,600 $56,400 $9,050 

Knoxville FB Some 0.16 0.84 $237,836 $220,948 $5,300 

Santa Ana FB No 0.43 0.57 $366,483 $290,888 $15,018 

Denver CH No 0.44 0.56 $804,051 $220,046 $29,791 

Davenport CH Some 0.31 0.69 $155,892 $133,026 $6,421 

Cleveland CH Yes 0.46 0.54 $111,329 $270,476 $3,100 

Greeneville CH Some 0.14 0.86 $214,100 $227,620 $4,000 

Youngstown CH & FB Yes 0.29 0.71 $174,182 $140,767 $37,300 

Fresno CH & FB No 0.20 0.80 $1,188,000 $759,402 $24,236 

Notice that eight of the buildings have some form of green housekeeping. For the buildings 

in this study, there does not appear to be a janitorial cost impact for employing green 

housekeeping strategies. 

30
 
Figure 15 shows general maintenance costs per 

rentable square foot. The baseline values for the 

general, grounds, and janitorial maintenance 

costs were collected from IFMA and BOMA 

26,27,28,29 resources. More than half of the buildings 

fell within or below the baseline range. Several 

buildings have noticeably higher general 

maintenance costs per square foot. Again, 

although an attempt was made to compare 

similar costs for each building, it is possible that 

the data contain unique items or omit common 

items. Additionally, because these data only 

represent 1 year of building O&M costs, they 

should not be assumed to represent an average 

or expected cost for the building. 

The International Facilities Management 

Association (IFMA) and the Building 

Owners and Managers Association 

(BOMA) provide the main source of 

statistics on the state of commercial 

buildings. 

Each organization publishes 

benchmarking reports on a variety of 

development, operations and 

maintenance topics. Their data are 

obtained primarily through surveys of 

their members which exceeds 15,000 in 

each organization. 

Figure 15. General maintenance cost per rentable square foot 

31
 
Figure 16 shows grounds maintenance costs per rentable square foot. All but one of the 

buildings fell within or below the baseline range. The building significantly above the 

baseline has manually weeded native prairie grass for landscaping, which may contribute to 

the higher grounds maintenance costs. Because this study only includes 1 year of data, more 

information is needed to know if this is a typical grounds maintenance cost or a one-time 

cost. 

Figure 16. Grounds maintenance cost per rentable square foot 

32
 
The janitorial costs for a third of the buildings were above the baseline costs (Figure 17). 

The remaining two-thirds of the buildings were at or below the baseline. The 1 year of costs 

does not address the quality of work, potential regional cost differences, or the uniqueness of 

the year’s janitorial needs. For example, one of the buildings with higher-than-baseline 

janitorial cost dealt with multiple floods during the building’s lifetime, which may have 

increased janitorial costs. Note that IFMA and BOMA include different tasks within 

janitorial costs. The janitorial activities undertaken for each GSA building were not 

investigated and may also offer an explanation as to why there is a wide range of costs per 

rentable square foot. 

Figure 17. Janitorial cost per rentable square foot 

According to the IFMA research, a building less than 5 years old would spend 73% of 

maintenance funds on preventative maintenance and 27% on regular maintenance.30 For 

buildings 5 to 10 years old the ratio changes to 63% to 37%. The averaged ratio for the 

buildings in this study is 69% for preventative maintenance and 31% for regular 

maintenance. Five of the buildings in the study were built in the last 5 years. Five of the 

buildings have had major renovations in the last 5 years. The remaining two buildings are 5 

and 6 years old. Given the age of the study buildings, the ratio appears to be comparable to 

the IFMA baseline. 

The LEED Gold buildings had lower than or within baseline maintenance costs, where data 

were available. Omaha DHS was not able to provide a general maintenance cost. 

33
 
 

Waste Generation and Recycling 

Waste disposal is a utility cost incurred by buildings that is an indicator of 

resource use by the building occupants. Although occupant waste generation 

is not typically seen as having a connection to a building, LEED requires recycle bins as part 

of the building design. This performance measure is being used to investigate whether the 

occupants of green buildings recycle at a greater rate than the industry baseline. 

Although the building designer, manager and/or owner can offer space, services, and 

encouragement to recycle, recycling programs are more commonly successful when they are 

promoted by the building occupant’s employer. In other words, recycling goals and/or 

incentives offered by the federal agencies that occupy these buildings, and coordinated with 

the building management would offer the greatest opportunity to reduce solid sanitary waste. 

Although some buildings had exemplary recycling programs, the research team did not 

observe a consistent emphasis to reduce solid sanitary waste or to increase recycling at all of 

the buildings in the study. Table 12 provides a summary of the waste and recycling quantity 

and cost data available for each building. 

Table 12. Waste generation and recycling data and cost by building 

Waste per Recycle 

Year Waste Recycled per year Recycle % Recycle 

Building Name (Tons) Cost Material (Tons) Cost to Waste 

Ogden (L) FB 220.0 $3,940 Paper & Cardboard 67.0 $16,081 30% 

Lakewood (L) FB 374.1 $3,600 Paper 204.2 $0 55% 

Omaha DHS (L) FB 112.5 $2,400 Paper 23.5 $0 21% 

Omaha NPS (L) FB 561.6 $1,500 Paper & Cardboard 11.0 $1,020 2% 

Knoxville FB 40.5 $4,380 Paper & Metal 20.3 n/a 50% 

Santa Ana FB 561.6 $18,360 Paper 10.7 $1,600 2% 

Denver CH 38.5 n/a Paper n/a n/a -

Davenport CH 59.4 $907 Paper 2.4 $0 4% 

Cleveland CH 24.0 $3,067 Paper & Metal 2.8 -$101 12% 

Greeneville CH 39.0 $900 Paper 2.4 -$71 6% 

Youngstown CH & FB 16.8 $1,530 Paper 28.8 $0 171% 

Fresno CH & FB 16.2 $24,236 Paper 18.0 $0 111% 

34
 
 

Figure 18 represents the recycling to waste ratio for each building. The waste and recycling 

data were not consistently available for each building. Some buildings shared services with 

other buildings and some estimated the quantity of waste or recycled material based on the 

frequency of service rather than measured quantities. However, based on the site visits it 

was clear that recycling was not a strong expectation of the building occupants for at least 

some of the buildings. Although paper was recycled in all of the buildings, other commonly 

recycled items — glass, aluminum, and cardboard — were not consistently collected. In at 

least one building the PNNL research team was told how the building management gave up 

on recycling anything but paper because the occupants used the recycle bins as trash cans. 

Figure 18. Recycling to waste generation ratio 

35
 
Figure 19 shows the waste cost per occupant per year. All of the buildings are below the 

baseline with only one building approaching the baseline. 

Figure 19. Waste generation cost per occupant 

To better understand the impact the building design and operation have on the quantity of 

materials recycled, the building occupant employer programs would need to be equivalent. 

Additionally, the cost and availability of recycling programs in the community and the 

willingness of the building manager to manage a recycling program might impact the ability 

of building occupants to recycle. 

36
 
Occupant Satisfaction 

A primary aim of sustainable design is maximizing the occupant comfort and 

satisfaction, while minimizing the environmental impact and costs. Indoor 

environmental quality (IEQ) is the commonly used term to describe the building features 

that directly impact the occupants. The IEQ of a workplace reflects the interaction of air, 

lighting, and surroundings with occupants in a holistic sense. IEQ effects include occupant 

health, productivity, and satisfaction. Occupant satisfaction is crucial to staff retention. 

Studies have shown that employees planning to leave an organization were 25% less satisfied 

with their physical workplace than those that planned to stay.31 

Occupant surveys are the typical mechanism used to gather occupant satisfaction data. This 

study used the Center for the Built Environment’s (CBE) occupant satisfaction survey. The 

CBE core survey questions fit within the 

following categories 

• Office Layout 

• Office Furnishings 

• Thermal Comfort 

• Air Quality 

• Lighting 

• Acoustic Quality 

• Cleanliness and Maintenance 

• General Comments. 

The University of California Berkeley’s 

Center for the Built Environment (CBE) 

has developed an occupant satisfaction 

survey that has had over 48,000 survey 

responses. Occupants in 335 buildings 

have taken the CBE survey, with 

approximately 215 of them being GSA 

buildings and 44 being LEED buildings. 

The survey is distributed via the internet, 

takes approximately 10 minutes to 

complete, and protects the 

confidentiality of the respondents. 

CBE allows for customization of the core survey. Previously, GSA has used a modified 

version of the CBE survey. This project started with the GSA modified survey and then 

added questions related to occupant commute. The additional questions increased the 

estimated time to complete the survey to 20 minutes. A copy of the key questions provided 

in the survey can be found in Appendix E. 

The industry baseline for the occupant satisfaction metrics is the CBE core survey 

responses. The survey questions offer a numerical response of between -3 and 3. CBE 

prepares building specific survey summary reports. These reports provide the average scores 

for each of the key elements addressed in the survey. The average response score and the 

average responses within the CBE database are compared. For example, if a building scored 

at the 50th percentile, 50% of the buildings in the database would have a lower score and 

50% would have a higher score. 

The tool used to measure building occupant satisfaction survey for this study is called SPOT 

(Sustainable Places and Organizational Trends). This survey is a GSA modified version of 

the CBE core survey that removes the office furnishings and office layout questions and 

37
 
adds occupant commute questions. The SPOT survey was distributed to building occupants 

electronically. For a few buildings the electronic distribution, via an internet site, was 

unsuccessful because of limited access to the internet. In those cases, a paper version of the 

survey was distributed, collected, and the resulting data were entered by GSA representatives 

into the electronic survey. The CBE preferred response rate for the survey is greater than 

50%. Half of the buildings in the study had response rates lower than desired. 

Table 13 provides a summary of the SPOT survey response rates and the percentile ranking 

for each building. 

Table 13. SPOT Survey scores ranked against CBE database 

38
 
The building results for key summary survey In the next set of figures, the orange line 

questions have been compared to the full CBE represents the average survey responses 

survey database. Figure 20 shows that the by question category in the CBE 

occupants of more than half of the buildings in the database and the blue dots are the 

study were more satisfied with their acoustical average scores for the 12 buildings in 

this study. quality than the 50th percentile of those surveyed 

by CBE. 

Figure 20. Acoustic quality rating from the occupant survey 

Figure 21 illustrates that occupants of all the buildings in the study were satisfied with 

building air quality. Occupants from all but one of the buildings were more satisfied with 

the air quality than the 50th percentile of those surveyed by CBE. 

Figure 21. Air quality rating from the occupant survey 

39
 
Figure 22 illustrates that occupants in all of the buildings in the study identified cleanliness 

and maintenance as being better than the 50th percentile of the CBE database. A cluster of 

buildings scored at the 75th percentile and above. When considering the cost data, the 

maintenance costs of some of the buildings in the study are high, yet the building occupants 

are pleased with the service they are receiving. 

Figure 22. Cleanliness and maintenance rating from the occupant survey 

Figure 23 illustrates that occupants of about half of the buildings in the study identified 

lighting as being better than the 50th percentile and the other half were below the 50th 

percentile of the CBE database, yet all of the buildings averaged a positive lighting score. 

The lighting occupant satisfaction rating needs to be considered in context with energy use. 

Figure 23. Lighting quality rating from the occupant survey 

40
 
For thermal comfort, most of the buildings scored above the 50th percentile (Figure 24). 

One of the buildings whose occupants stated they were very dissatisfied with the thermal 

comfort has a high female occupancy rate and has additional work spaces have been created 

from spaces that were not originally designed to be occupied. The building manager of this 

building commented that the additional occupant spaces negatively impacted ventilation. 

Figure 24. Thermal comfort rating from the occupant survey 

Overall building occupant satisfaction varied by building, yet as Figure 25 shows, all of the 

GSA buildings in the study scored above the 50th percentile in comparison to the industry 

baseline, and they are satisfied. 

Figure 25. General building satisfaction rating from the occupant survey 

41
 
2 

1.5 

Core Survey Average Score 

1 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

General

Building

Satisfaction

General

Workspace

Satisfaction

ThermalComfort

Air Quality

Lighting

Acoustic

Quality

Cleanliness

and

Maintenance 

LEED SPOT Non-LEED 

In comparison to all non-LEED buildings in the CBE database, the GSA buildings report 

higher average satisfaction scores in all categories. In comparison to the LEED buildings in 

the CBE database, the GSA buildings report higher average satisfaction scores in all 

categories except air quality (Figure 26). There were 44,174 individual responses in the nonLEED buildings data set, 4344 in the LEED buildings data set, and 664 in the SPOT survey 

data set. 

Figure 26. Study building occupants are more satisfied than the LEED and non-LEED 

building occupants in the CBE database. 

Both of the LEED Gold buildings scored above the baseline for general building 

satisfaction. The occupant satisfaction information compared to the CBE baseline offers a 

snapshot of the relative satisfaction of these buildings’ occupants at this point in time. More 

detailed building studies of why building occupants are responding as they are would offer 

additional insight. These data connect with the other building metrics, such as maintenance 

and janitorial costs compared to cleanliness and maintenance satisfaction scores and thermal 

comfort compared to EUI. Additional analysis can be found in the conclusion section. 

42
 
 

Transportation 

The occupant commute to a building reflects the impact of siting, agency 

incentives, and the environmental ethic of the building occupants. The 

information for the transportation metric was collected using the SPOT survey. The impact 

of the occupant transportation choices is represented by the average distance traveled and 

the CO2 equivalents. Table 14 shows the summary transportation data and CO2 equivalents 

based on responses to the questions about occupant commute distance and vehicle type 

questions. 

Table 14. Transportation data by building 

Avg Daily Estimated Estimated 

Roundtrip Avg Annual CO2 CO2 

Survey Miles Gallons Equiv/Occ Equiv/Bldg 

Building Name N-Value # Occ Traveled Used/Occ (metric tons) (metric tons) 

Ogden (L) FB 151 514 19.6 202 1.9 961 

Lakewood (L) FB 103 318 23.1 201 1.9 592 

Omaha DHS (L) FB 16 65 29.7 225 2.1 136 

Omaha NPS (L) FB 82 125 21.4 184 1.7 213 

Knoxville FB 98 285 28.9 232 2.2 613 

Santa Ana FB 118 409 29.7 237 2.2 898 

Denver CH 58 170 24.4 102 0.9 160 

Davenport CH 22 45 26.5 308 2.9 128 

Cleveland CH 55 105 25.8 86 0.8 83 

Greenville CH 55 85 22.4 276 2.6 217 

Youngstown CH & FB 28 45 28.8 192 1.8 80 

Fresno CH & FB 64 235 n/a n/a n/a 0 

Although occupant commute is not typically seen as having a connection to a building, 

LEED encourages the consideration of the occupant commute during the building design. 

LEED points can be earned for siting the building near public transportation, providing 

preferred parking for carpools and alternative vehicles, and offering space and services for 

bicycle riders. This performance measure is being used to investigate whether the roundtrip 

commute of green building occupants has a lower environmental impact than the industry 

baseline. 

In addition to the strategies used during building design, the building manager and/or owner 

can offer space, services and encouragement to alter commute practices. For example, the 

43
 
cost and availability of parking and/or public transportation may have a greater impact on 

occupant commute choices than preferential parking spaces for carpoolers. Other incentives 

provided by the occupant’s employer, such as public transportation vouchers or the ability to 

telecommute, will also have an impact on occupant transportation decisions. Of course 

there is also the personal decision of vehicle type, and housing location that is not being 

addressed in this study. The economics of single occupant vehicle transportation has 

changed, which may impact the baseline in the future. 

One reference point for the impact of occupant commute is the average roundtrip commute. 

The average commute distance is compared to the size of the community in Figure 27. In 

this study, there is no correlation between the size of the community and the average length 

of commute. Sustainable design siting considerations would ideally show a decrease in 

commute distance traveled, but there would also be a CO2 emission shift because of 

preferential parking incentives to carpool and access to public transportation. 

Figure 27. Average commute distance and community size 

44
 
Figure 28 indicates that only two of the buildings are above the commute emissions baseline 

and that there is a 40% correlation that as population size increases, the CO2 equivalent 

emissions will decrease. Note that Santa Ana was removed from the fit equation because of 

the community size being more than double all of the other buildings. As stated previously, 

there are three buildings included in this study that focused on building energy efficiency 

rather than sustainable design. If those three buildings are removed from the study, the 

correlation between population size and CO2 equivalent emissions is 75%. 

Figure 28. CO2 equivalent emissions by community size 

Less than half of the buildings have an average commute distance less than the industry 

average and only two buildings have CO2 equivalent emissions greater than the baseline. 

From this, it can be observed that more people in these buildings use mass transit, nonmotorized transportation, or more fuel efficient vehicles. 

45
 
Figure 29 combines the CO2 equivalent emissions of the building energy use and the 

occupant commute. All of the buildings are better than the industry baseline, primarily 

because of the building energy efficiency. 

Figure 29. Aggregate CO2 equivalent emissions compared to the baseline 

Both of the LEED Gold buildings resulted in CO2 equivalent emissions lower than the 

industry baseline. When considering the impact of CO2 equivalent emissions from these 

buildings, the commute played a small part. Given that less than half of the buildings had a 

roundtrip commute lower than the industry average, and that all but two had emissions 

lower than the industry baseline, the results imply that occupants are choosing to 

telecommute, carpool, walk, bicycle, or use public transportation more than the general 

population. It is unclear whether this can be attributed to sustainable design practices, or is 

just a coincidence. More detailed roundtrip commute data from sustainably designed 

buildings may offer an opportunity to understand the relationship between the building and 

occupant commute practices. 

46
 
 

 

Conclusions: What We Learned 

The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of measured whole building 

performance as it compares to an industry baseline. The PNNL research team found the 

data analysis illuminated strengths and weaknesses of individual buildings and as a group of 

buildings. This section includes summary data, observations that cross multiple performance 

metrics, discussion of lessons learned from this research, and opportunities for future 

research. 

The following two summary tables provide the costs and performance for each whole 

building performance metric. A summary of the total first cost and total operating costs is 

provided in Table 15. The total operating cost provided in this table is a summation of the 

costs collected for the selected set of metrics. 

Table 15. Annual costs and total project cost by building 

Annual Costs (US$) 

Project Project 

Cost Cost 

New Renov Aggregate Waste & Total Total Aggregate 

Building Name ($M) ($M) Maintenance Recycle Water Energy Ops Cost 

Ogden (L) FB $11.4 $168,544 $20,020 $6,849 $146,877 $342,290 

Lakewood (L) FB $25.1 $194,258 $3,600 $18,056 $256,060 $471,974 

Omaha DHS (L) FB n/a n/a $2,400 $3,765 $79,464 n/a 

Omaha NPS (L) FB $27.9 $107,050 $2,520 $839 $83,177 $193,586 

Knoxville FB $0.3 $464,084 - $15,302 $165,181 $644,567 

Santa Ana FB $27.9 $672,389 $19,960 $11,569 $528,772 $1,232,691 

Denver CH $99.1 $1,053,889 - $16,604 $802,692 $1,873,185 

Davenport CH $20.0 $295,338 $907 $3,942 $76,949 $377,135 

Cleveland CH $44.6 $384,905 $2,966 $1,330 $449,509 $838,709 

Greeneville CH $31.1 $445,720 $829 $5,468 $151,679 $603,696 

Youngstown CH & FB $16.5 $352,248 $1,530 $3,426 $98,343 $455,547 

Fresno CH & FB $132.7 $1,971,638 $24,236 $11,227 $810,745 $2,817,847 

47
 
The summary of annual data for each of the performance metrics is provided in Table 16. 

The data represent 1 year of data and are not associated with any specific design features or 

strategies. When multiple years of data for these buildings become available, it would be of 

interest to track the changes in performance for the individual buildings and the buildings as 

a group. Investigating what the connection is between the building performance and the 

design intent would offer potential design guidance and possible insight into building 

operation strategies. 

Table 16. Summary values for each performance metric 

Metric 

Energy Total Aggregate General Tons of 

Star® Water Maintenance Waste Bldg % CO2 

Building Name GSF Score (1000 gal) Cost Cost Satisfaction equivs/Occ 

Ogden (L) FB 105,000 79 3,435 $168,544 $3,940 72% 1.87 

Lakewood (L) FB 128,342 80 4,340 $194,258 $3,600 82% 1.86 

Omaha DHS (L) FB 86,000 85 1,392 n/a $2,400 100% 2.09 

Omaha NPS (L) FB 68,000 86 246 $107,050 $1,500 81% 1.70 

Knoxville FB 172,684 91 2,027 $464,084 $4,380 89% 2.15 

Santa Ana FB 280,365 92 3,071 $672,389 $18,360 72% 2.20 

Denver CH 327,103 77 4,039 $1,053,889 n/a 74% 0.94 

Davenport CH 79,872 78 516 $295,338 $907 89% 2.85 

Cleveland CH 251,314 82 538 $384,905 $3,067 89% 0.79 

Greeneville CH 160,975 87 800 $445,720 $900 98% 2.56 

Youngstown CH & FB 52,240 58 402 $352,248 $1,530 70% 1.78 

Fresno CH & FB 495,914 92 7,706 $1,971,638 $24,236 92% 2.40 

48
 
The “aggregate operating cost” metric used in this study is not the same as “total building 

operating cost.” It represents the costs that were available for developing a comparative 

industry baseline for office buildings. The aggregate operating cost represents the costs that 

were available for developing a comparative industry baseline for office buildings. The costs 

include water utilities, energy utilities, general maintenance, grounds maintenance, waste and 

recycling, and janitorial costs. All three of the buildings that cost more than the baseline in 

Figure 30 have higher maintenance costs than the baseline, and one has higher energy costs. 

Figure 30. Aggregate operational costs compared to the baseline 

Observations 

Whole building performance measurement (WBPM) brought forward the interaction 

between the different metrics. Many comparisons can be made between energy, water, 

maintenance, and occupant satisfaction. Additional comparisons could include waste 

generation and commute data, but for this data set no significant findings were evident. 

Based on the LEED credits and Energy Star ratings, it was observed that when projects had 

incorporated sustainable design principles from the start and had included energy savings 

goals, the overall performance of the building was better than the industry standard. 

Additionally, the LEED Gold buildings performed consistently well in each metric. 

49
 
Looking at the detailed SPOT survey results we have 

already discussed how almost all of the buildings 

have better than average thermal satisfaction and all 

of the buildings’ energy performance was above the 

baseline. Figure 31 shows that the building with the 

lowest thermal comfort satisfaction is the one with 

the lowest EUI and with maintenance costs more 

than 50% greater than the baseline. 

In the next set of figures, the color of 

the dot represents the aggregate 

maintenance cost. The length of the 

dashed line to the right of the dot 

represents the general building 

satisfaction score for the building. 

Performance better than the baseline by 

the metrics on the x and y axis are 

placed to the right and above the 

baseline lines. 

Figure 31. Thermal comfort compared to EUI and maintenance costs 

50
 
Occupant satisfaction for cleanliness and maintenance was higher than the baseline for all 

but one building (Figure 32). The building with the lowest satisfaction level had the highest 

janitorial costs, and maintenance costs that were greater than 50% over the baseline. The 

operational challenges of the buildings that have lower satisfaction levels and higher costs 

need to be investigated further before they are judged as good or bad performers. 

Figure 32. Janitorial cost compared to cleanliness satisfaction score and maintenance costs 

51
 
Half of the buildings had lighting satisfaction survey responses that were higher than the 

baseline. The building with the lowest lighting satisfaction level has an aggregate 

maintenance cost under the baseline by 50% or more. The other building with the low 

maintenance cost had a lighting satisfaction level above the 50th percentile. Based on the 

data for the buildings in this study, there does not appear to be a correlation between the 

energy performance, maintenance cost, and lighting satisfaction scores (Figure 33). 

Figure 33. Lighting satisfaction compared to EUI and maintenance costs 

52
 
Figure 34 offers a summary representation of the energy, water, occupant satisfaction, and 

aggregate maintenance costs for each of the buildings investigated. All of the energy use 

intensity (EUI, energy use per gross square foot) values were better than the baseline typical 

building, two-thirds of the water use intensity (WUI, gallons/occupant) values were better 

than or at the baseline, all of the occupant satisfaction scores were higher than the 50th 

percentile (the length of the line represents the percentage satisfaction), and more than half 

of the buildings have aggregate maintenance costs that are below the baseline. 

Figure 34. WUI compared to EUI and aggregate maintenance costs 

Overall, the GSA sustainably designed buildings investigated under this study cost less to 

operate, have excellent energy performance, and have occupants who are more satisfied with 

the overall building than the occupants in typical commercial buildings. On average the 

office buildings in the study performed 29% better than the CBECS national average for 

office buildings. All of the buildings performed 29% better than the CBECS regional 

averages. If the CBECS office buildings average is used as the baseline for all of the 

buildings, the buildings in the study performed 26% better than average office buildings. 

When compared to the GSA national goal for energy performance, these buildings perform 

14% better. Among the many informative observations derived from the data analysis are 

the following findings 

•	 Water performance needs further investigation, but estimates have the average 

domestic water use 3% below the baseline. 

53
 
•	 Maintenance, grounds, and janitorial costs vary by location. When combined, average 

maintenance for these buildings cost 13% less than the average baseline cost. 

•	 Waste disposal costs are less than the baseline. 

•	 Carbon dioxide equivalents for commute miles traveled are lower than the baseline 

for most buildings. 

Lessons Learned and Future Research Opportunities 

This study includes almost half of GSA’s LEED buildings. This is a respectable 

representation of the buildings that have been officially identified as being sustainably 

designed. However, because the sample size of this study is small, it doesn’t lend itself to 

broader inferences for the entire GSA building stock. Nevertheless, the lessons learned may 

be helpful for future design, construction, and operation of GSA buildings. Measuring the 

performance of more buildings will allow for a greater understanding of how sustainably 

designed buildings perform as a group. 

Based on the data collection and analysis experiences the following includes future research 

opportunities and observations of the current data set 

•	 A detailed investigation into the water use for each building would be needed to 

determine, with any confidence, an accurate understanding of water use. 

•	 Inferences from the regular maintenance and preventative maintenance ratio should 

be considered speculative unless the more consistent data and details are provided 

for each metric. 

•	 A more detailed study of individual buildings could be used to determine which 

design features offer the best value. This type of investigation may be able to show 

the difference between early design expectations, as-built expectations, and 

operations. For example, with energy, compare design modeled data, number of 

LEED credits received, measured energy data, and Energy Star score. 

•	 The ability to collect consistent data from each site is critical for building-to-building 

comparisons to industry baselines and for building to building comparisons. 

•	 The potential building performance impact needs to be accounted for when there are 

occupancy changes and/or unplanned uses of the buildings. 

•	 Occupant employer programs for recycling and commute may impact the metric’s 

performance. Therefore, ideally, those programs would be accounted for in the 

analysis. 

The snapshot view of these sustainably designed buildings provides a valuable picture of the 

overall performance for 1 year’s use. This study is an important first step to making 

inferences about whole building performance. Future work to identify year-to-year variation 

in whole building performance could improve the accuracy and depth of this assessment. 

Future analysis would benefit from multiple years of data for each metric in order to be able 

to average the data and investigate potential trends. 

54
 
 

Appendix A: Site Summaries 

Members of the research team visited the 14 buildings reviewed under this study and 

collected a considerable amount of data for each building. The site summaries in this 

appendix provide an overview for each building and offer site-specific observations. Each 

site summary includes the following 

• building photo 

• general building description 

• table listing building and site characteristics data 

• operation costs compared to baseline costs (graphed) 

• occupant satisfaction survey summary results (graphed) 

• table summarizing building performance data. 

The site summaries are presented in the following order 

Region Building Full Name Abbreviation 

Federal Buildings 

8 Scowcroft Internal Revenue Service Building Ogden (L) FB 

8 Department of Transportation Office Building Lakewood (L) FB 

6 Department of Homeland Security/INS Omaha DHS (L) FB 

Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional Headquarters of the 

6 National Park Service Omaha NPS (L) FB 

4 John J. Duncan Federal Building Duncan FB 

9 Santa Ana Federal Building Santa Ana FB 

Courthouse 

8 Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse Denver CH 

6 Davenport United States Courthouse Davenport CH 

5 Howard M. Metzenbaum United States Courthouse Cleveland CH 

4 James H. Quillen United States Courthouse Greeneville CH 

Courthouse and Federal Building 

Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building Youngstown CH & 

5 and United States Courthouse FB 

Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse and Federal 

9 Building Fresno CH & FB 

Port of Entry 

5 Port of Entry, Sault Sainte Marie, MI Sault Ste. Marie Port 

8 Shared Port-of-Entry, Sweetgrass, MT; Coutts, AB Sweetgrass Port 

55
 
The table above shows both the official building name and the name used within the body 

of this report, which includes building location and type. In this appendix, each site 

summary is titled using the same name as the body of the report and then the official 

building name is used throughout the text so that the site is recognizable to those who 

occupy each building. 

The research team derived the majority of the information summarized in this appendix 

from site or other General Services Administration (GSA) contacts and databases. For each 

site, the general building characteristics are summarized in the first table, and the operational 

data are summarized in the final table. 

The costs associated with whole building performance are represented as a percentage above 

or below the baseline for each metric. The baseline is the industry standard for each metric’s 

cost per gross square foot or occupant. The aggregate operational cost compares the 

summation of the building’s costs to the aggregate baseline costs. “Below the baseline” 

suggests it costs less to operate the building than the industry standard. The different colors 

for different buildings are the same colors used in the body of the report. 

GSA representatives modified the University of California Berkeley’s Center for the Built 

Environment’s (CBE’s) occupant satisfaction survey to address the occupant commute 

questions and GSA specific interests. The survey for this study was called the GSA 

Sustainable Places and Organizational Trends (SPOT) survey. GSA representatives 

distributed the survey to building occupants electronically, providing an internet link, and 

provided a hard copy of the SPOT survey at a few of the buildings where electronic 

distribution was not available to all occupants. GSA representatives manually entered the 

hard copy SPOT survey responses into the CBE database so that a summary report could be 

generated. 

The SPOT survey questions offer a numerical response of between -3 and 3. CBE prepares 

building-specific survey summary reports. These reports provide the average scores for each 

of the key elements addressed in the survey. In this appendix, the average scores for each 

key element are provided. 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

Ogden Federal Building 

Description 

Prior to its transformation to a four-story office 

building, the Scowcroft Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) Federal Building was a warehouse. The 

original main staircase and middle stairs have been 

preserved, and an office suite has been restored. 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Built 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 105 23rd Street 

Ogden Utah 84401-1306 

Renovation 5 floors 

1900 2004 

Federal Building 

LEED-NC, v.2/v.2.1--Level: Silver (33 

points) 

105,000 

102,579 

renovated: 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 745 

120 

514 

521 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: n/a 

$11,442,705 

The original stone 

foundation is visible 

in the basement. 

The renovation cost 

included costly 

earthquake 

prevention upgrades 

and tenant specific 

requests. The 

building had been 

abandoned for years, 

had two previous 

fires, and had 

become a 

“sanctuary” for the 

homeless and birds. 

The fire damage was 

removed using cornmeal as a “sand blaster” to eliminate dust issues. Upon reconstruction 

of the facility, the tenant needed to transform unconditioned storage space into usable office 

space. 

The Scowcroft Federal Building remodel incorporated improved roof insulation, radiant 

baseboard heating, variable speed condensers, and improved lighting power density. The 

underfloor air distribution system was coupled with indirect/direct evaporative cooling. 

These systems allowed for increased ventilation effectiveness and temperature controllability 

for nonperimeter spaces. Presently, the building and operates 22 hours a day, 350 days a 

year. Office space includes a high number of cubicles with varying heights (6 to 10 feet). 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

57
 
•	 Based on the CBE survey results, it appears that issues exist with thermal comfort, 

daylighting, lighting, cleanliness and maintenance, and acoustics. Interviews of 

occupants regarding these issues may result in a more detailed understanding of how 

operations might be adjusted to improve occupant satisfaction. 

•	 Separately metering the process water would allow for the comparison of Scowcroft 

Federal Building domestic water use to a comparable baseline. Once measured 

domestic water use data are available, potential water conservation opportunities 

could be identified. 

•	 The building landscaping is minimal, but attractive. The size of the landscaped space 

and the choices of plants offer a balance between attractive and environmentally 

sensitive landscaping. 

Whole Building Performance 

The costs of operating the Scowcroft Federal Building are lower than the industry baseline 

for energy, water, waste, general maintenance, and janitorial costs. The recycling costs are 

slightly higher than the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs less to operate than a 

baseline building. 

58
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

All 514 of the Scowcroft Federal Building occupants were surveyed and 151 responded. In 

addition to the electronic survey, GSA representatives issued the survey in hardcopy form 

because many staff did not have electronic access to the survey. The results indicated that 

occupants are generally more satisfied with their building than occupants in the CBE 

baseline (52nd percentile). The acoustic quality, thermal comfort, and lighting all scored 

below the 50th percentile of the CBE buildings surveyed. Cleanliness and maintenance 

scored above the 50th percentile, but it was the lowest score for all of the GSA buildings in 

the study. Frequently clogged toilets were identified as a persistent maintenance issue, and a 

large number of snack tables located throughout the building may be impacting the occupant 

satisfaction ratings. 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 3,434,800

Process Water (gal) 927,396

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $6,849 

Gallons per occupant 2,465

Water Cost per occupant $6.62

Gallons per GSF 24.30

Water Cost per GSF $0.07

Energy Star Score 79 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 88

Energy Cost $7,857 Energy Cost per GSF $1.40

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,161

General Maintenance Cost $39,068 General Maint Cost per RSF $0.38

Janitorial Services Cost $125,892 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.23

Grounds Maintenance Cost $3,584 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.03

Quantity of Maint Requests 148 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs n/a Maintenance Jobs n/a

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 220

Solid Waste Cost $3,940

Quantity Recycled (tons) 67

Recycling Cost $16,081

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 3.42

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.04

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $7.56

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.30

Survey # of Invitees 517

Survey # of Respondents (n) 62 Survey Return Rate 12%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 20

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 202

Commute Emissions per occ 

 (metric tons CO2 equiv) 1.87

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared the whole building performance 

data for the Scowcroft Federal Building to industry baselines. The following table 

summarizes the annual performance data that were collected and normalized. The facility 

uses evaporative cooling for its air conditioning system; therefore, the amount of water used 

for evaporative cooling was estimated using the “rule-of-thumb” that 27% of total water use 

is process water. 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

Lakewood Federal Building 

Description 

The Lakewood Department of Transportation 

(DOT) Federal Building is a leased facility 

designed by Opus Architects and Engineers, 

Incorporated. This LEED Silver-certified 

building incorporated low-emitting materials, 

adhesives, and sealants; daylight and views in 

91% of regularly occupied spaces; and recycled 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 12300 W. Dakota Ave. 

Lakewood Colorado 80228-2583 

New 3 floors 

2004 

Federal Building 

LEED-NC Silver 2004 

128,342 

122,225 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 383 

70 

318 

336 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: n/a 

$25,108,301 

content materials. 

Seventy-two percent 

of the building 

materials were 

manufactured locally, 

and 41% of the 

materials were 

harvested locally. 

Additional features 

include light and 

motion sensors, airside economizers, and 

carbon dioxide (CO2) 

monitors. Although 

the building is located 

on a large plot of land 

in a suburban community outside of Denver, a portion of the landscape is xeriscape. 

All building occupants received a booklet about the design and operations of the building. 

The building was designed to house 400 occupants and currently has 318 occupants. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 The educational booklet for the building occupants was a noteworthy approach to 

engaging the occupants in assessing the performance of the building. 

61
 
•	 The formal system for tracking service calls is not being regularly utilized. Using the 

service call tracking system is recommended to identify maintenance trends, and to 

anticipate future maintenance needs. 

•	 Based on the CBE survey results, issues appear to exist with acoustics, air quality, 

and lighting. Interviews of occupants regarding these issues may result in a more 

detailed understanding of how operations might be adjusted to improve occupant 

satisfaction. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Lakewood Federal Building energy and water costs are slightly higher than the industry 

baseline; however, the aggregate maintenance and waste costs are lower than the industry 

baseline. There is no direct cost associated with the recycling program. Overall, the building 

costs less to operate than a baseline building. 

62
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 318 occupants in the building, 250 were surveyed and 103 responded. The result 

indicated that occupants of the Lakewood Federal Building are more satisfied with their 

building than occupants in the CBE baseline (79th percentile). Acoustic quality, air quality, 

and lighting all scored below the 50th percentile of the CBE buildings surveyed. Note that 

daylighting and access to views was a design highlight, yet the occupant satisfaction survey 

results do not indicate the daylighting and views is perceived as above average. Cleanliness 

and maintenance and thermal comfort scored above the 50th percentile. 

63
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 4,340,000

Process Water Use (gal) 1,171,800

Outdoor Water Use (gal) 868,000

Water Cost $18,056

Gallons per occupant 5,185

Water Cost per occupant $27.61

Gallons per GSF 26.42

Water Cost per GSF $0.15

Energy Star Score 80 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 70

Energy Cost $6,992 Energy Cost per GSF $2.00

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2,150

General Maintenance Cost $103,644 General Maint Cost per RSF $0.85

Janitorial Services Cost $83,220 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $0.68

Grounds Maintenance Cost $7,394 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.06

Quantity of Maint Requests 25 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 528 Maintenance Jobs 0.05

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 374

Solid Waste Cost $3,600

Quantity Recycled (tons) 204

Recycling Cost $0

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 9.41

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.03

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $10.71

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.55

Survey # of Invitees 250

Survey # of Respondents (n) 103 Survey Return Rate 41%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 23

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 201

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1.86

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared the whole building performance 

data for the Lakewood DOT Federal Building to industry baselines. The following table 

summarizes the annual performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses watercooled chillers for its air-conditioning system; therefore, the cooling tower water use was 

estimated using the “rule-of-thumb” that 27% of total water use is process water. Outdoor 

water use was estimated using the “rule-of-thumb” that 20% of total water use is for 

landscaping. 

64
 
 

 

 

 

 

Omaha DHS Federal Building 

Description 

The Omaha Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal 

Building was designed to accommodate the varying needs of 

multiple DHS agencies and is the central facility for all 

immigration services. The LEED Gold certified building uses 

a ground source heat pump system, and in combination with 

the building envelope and daylight-harvesting system, the building energy model predicted a 

66% energy reduction 

over ASHRAE 90.1­

1999. The use of 

rainwater-harvesting 

system, and low-flow 

and auto-flow 

lavatory fixtures 

resulted in a projected 

an aggregate water use 

reduction of 77% as 

compared to the 

Energy Policy Act of 

1992 requirements. 

Green Seal janitorial 

products are used 

consistently 

throughout the building. The building recently won the 2007 American Council of 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 1717 Avenue H 

Omaha Nebraska 68110-2752 

New 1 floors 

2005 

Federal Building 

LEED-NC Gold 

86,000 

73,459 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 80 

112 

65 

360 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: n/a 

n/a 

Engineering Award for its design. 

The majority of the building square footage is devoted to detention, courthouse, public, or 

unoccupied space. The occupied office portion of the building consumes approximately 

40% of the gross square footage. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 The rainwater-harvesting system is an innovative concept that has the potential of 

eliminating potable water use for landscaping and water closets. Erosion from the 

construction fill and clogged filters from the roof runoff have resulted in 

maintenance challenges with the system. Investigating strategies to address the 

65
 
current maintenance and operations issues and communicating the lessons learned 

from this design and operations challenge will improve future implementation of 

rainwater-harvesting systems. 

•	 The ground source heat pump system (GSHP) is innovative as well, resulting in a 

low energy use intensity for the building. Connecting the high level of satisfaction 

with the building’s thermal comfort (90th percentile on the CBE Survey) enhances 

that success. Communicating this operational success improves the chances of the 

GSHP technology being implemented effectively on future building projects. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Omaha DHS Federal Building operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for 

energy, water, waste, janitorial, and grounds maintenance costs. The general maintenance 

and recycling costs were not provided for the study. Overall, the building costs less to 

operate than a baseline building. 

66
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 65 regular occupants in the Omaha DHS Federal Building, 18 were surveyed and 16 

responded. It is unknown why such a small percentage of the occupants were invited to take 

the survey. The survey results indicated that building occupants are significantly more 

satisfied with their building than occupants in the CBE baseline (95th percentile). Acoustic 

quality, air quality, cleanliness and maintenance, and thermal comfort scored in the 85th 

percentile or above. Occupant satisfaction with lighting scored in the 68th percentile, which 

is in the top half of the buildings in this study. 

67
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 1,392,123

Cooling Tower Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $3,765 

Gallons per occupant 3,276

Water Cost per occupant $8.86

Gallons per GSF 16.19

Water Cost per GSF $0.05

Energy Star Score 85 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 50

Energy Cost $4,333 Energy Cost per GSF $0.92

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,168

General Maintenance Cost n/a General Maint Cost per RSF n/a

Janitorial Services Cost $70,800 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $0.96

Grounds Maintenance Cost $8,200 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.11

Quantity of Maint Requests 150 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 240 Maintenance Jobs 0.38

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 113

Solid Waste Cost $2,400

Quantity Recycled (tons) 24

Recycling Cost n/a

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 13.85

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.03

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $6.67

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.21

Survey # of Invitees 18

Survey # of Respondents (n) 16 Survey Return Rate 89%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 30

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 225

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2.09

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared the whole building performance 

data for the Omaha DHS Federal Building to industry baselines. The following table 

summarizes the annual performance data that were collected and normalized. The 

rainwater-harvesting system that was intended for landscaping and nonpotable water use, 

was not functioning properly at the time of the site visit. No outdoor potable water use was 

estimated because researchers assumed that the system was functioning during the period of 

time that water use data were collected and that the system would be repaired. 

68
 
 

 

 

 

 

Omaha NPS Federal Building 

Description 

The Carl T. Curtis Midwest Regional National Park Service 

(NPS) Headquarters Federal Building in Omaha was built on 

a brownfield as part of an urban redevelopment effort. This 

LEED Gold-certified building uses passive solar design; 

daylighting for 75% of building occupants; daylight 

harvesting; lightshelves; high-efficiency windows; heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) occupancy sensors; 

and underfloor air distribution. Use of native and adaptive vegetation eliminated the need 

for irrigation water, 

and use of a 

composting toilet, 

waterless urinals, lowflow fixtures, and 

water-efficient 

appliances resulted in 

a projected reduction 

of 39% of potable 

water use. 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 601 Riverfront Drive 

Omaha Nebraska 68102-4226 

New 3 floors 

2004 

Federal Building 

LEED --NC, v.2/v.21 --Level: Gold (40 

points) 

68,000 

62,772 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 140 

70 

125 

134 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: $8,500,000 

n/a 

The building 

occupants are aware 

of the “green” 

building features and 

were involved in 

selecting the office 

furniture. To minimize materials during construction, the building has exposed concrete 

interior walls and beams. Operation of the facility incorporates green janitorial practices. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 In an open office layout, it is important to offer small meeting spaces for staff to 

schedule and conduct impromptu meetings. The acoustic quality CBE score for the 

Omaha NPS was the lowest of all the buildings in the study and well below the 

average building at the 9th percentile. Identifying opportunities to increase alternative 

69
 
locations for staff to convene and investigating sound-masking technologies may 

improve the occupants’ perception of the building’s acoustic quality. 

•	 Reclaiming a brownfield site and contributing to Omaha’s riverfront redevelopment 

efforts were impressive land-use strategies. Staff may have initially commented that 

the location was not as convenient as the downtown location from a transportation 

perspective, but the use of mass transit and carpooling is less than the industry 

average and on par with the expectations for a community of Omaha’s size. 

•	 Although considerable thought went into the daylighting design features, the CBE 

survey lighting score was below the 50th percentile. Interviews of the occupants 

regarding these issues may result in a more detailed understanding of how operations 

might be adjusted to improve occupant satisfaction. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Omaha NPS operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for all of the key 

metrics except grounds maintenance. Overall, the building costs less to operate than a 

baseline building. 

70
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 125 regular occupants in the Omaha NPS Federal Building, 120 were surveyed and 

82 responded. The results indicated that building occupants are more satisfied with their 

building than occupants in the CBE baseline (72nd percentile). Acoustic quality scored at the 

9th percentile of the CBE buildings database, which was the lowest score of all the buildings 

in the study. Lighting scored at the 30th percentile, which was one of the lowest of the 

buildings in the study. Thermal comfort, air quality, and cleanliness and maintenance scored 

at or above the 50th percentile. 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 246,092

Process Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $839 

Gallons per occupant 950

Water Cost per occupant $3.24

Gallons per GSF 3.62

Water Cost per GSF $0.01

Energy Star Score 86 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 65

Energy Cost $3,023 Energy Cost per GSF $1.08

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 872

General Maintenance Cost $41,600 General Maint Cost per RSF $0.66

Janitorial Services Cost $56,400 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $0.90

Grounds Maintenance Cost $9,050 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.14

Quantity of Maint Requests 180 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 109 Maintenance Jobs 0.62

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 562

Solid Waste Cost $1,500

Quantity Recycled (tons) 11

Recycling Cost $1,020

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 35.94

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.02

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $11.19

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.02

Survey # of Invitees 120

Survey # of Respondents (n) 82 Survey Return Rate 68%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 21

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 184

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1.70

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared the whole building performance 

data for the Omaha NPS Federal Building to industry baselines. The following table 

summarizes the annual performance data collected and normalized. 

72
 
cy 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knoxville Federal Building 

Description 

The John J. Duncan Federal Building was remodeled in 2005, 

incorporating a new energy management system, high-efficien

lighting, motion sensors, variable frequency drives, enhanced 

metering, low-flow fixtures, and a 1400-gallon rainwater catchment 

system to increase both energy and water efficiency in the facility. The roof meets emissivity 

requirements to reduce heat the island effect, and houses solar lighting panels to power the 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Built 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 710 Locust Street 

Knoxsville Tennessee 37902-2540 

Renovation 8 floors 

1986 renovated: 2005 

Federal Building 

LEED EB Silver 2007, Energy Star 

2005, 2007, BOMA - Southern Region 

Earth Award 

172,684 

120,171 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 285 

65 

285 

310 

Renov Project Cost: 

Renov Construction Cost: n/a 

$269,000 

roof lights. The steelframed building has a 

curved front that 

includes a generous 

amount of glass in 

and above the 

entrance. The 

interior has an 

acoustic-tile ceiling 

and recessed 

fluorescent lighting, 

marble floors in the 

public areas and 

carpet in the private 

offices. 

The facility is located 

in downtown 

Knoxville and currently houses eight federal agencies. A small café is on the first floor and 

is used by many of the tenants. Operation of the facility incorporates a low-impact cleaning 

and pest-management policy and management encourages tenants to use public transit and 

alternative forms of transportation. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 Although the Duncan Federal Building structure blends in with the other federal and 

state buildings it is near, the landscaping was very attractive with trees, shrubs, 

groundcover, and minimal grass. In addition to the landscaping being attractive, it is 

environmentally sensitive because it uses no potable water. 

73
 
•	 The proximity of the bus stop to the building offers staff an opportunity not seen at 

many of the other buildings in this study: an easy commute via public 

transportation. Only 4% of those responding to the survey claimed they use the 

public transportation system. The availability of underground parking may have an 

impact on the incentive to use public transportation. 

•	 The fact that many of the building occupants are not in the building every day may 

offer energy-management opportunities for the unoccupied spaces. Investigating 

whether occupant computers can be turned off when occupants are not present 

could reduce plug load and heat gain within the building. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Duncan Federal Building operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for 

energy, water, and waste costs, and slightly higher for general maintenance and janitorial 

costs. When personnel from the Office of Surface Mines are working in the field and 

returning to the building, there are increased janitorial responsibilities because of dirty floors. 

There is no cost for operating the recycling program. Overall, the building costs less to 

operate than a baseline building. 

74
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 285 occupants in the Duncan Federal Building, 275 were surveyed and 98 responded. 

In addition to the electronic survey, GSA representatives issued the survey in hard-copy 

form to increase the response rate. Survey results indicated that the occupants of the 

Duncan Federal Building are more satisfied with their building than occupants in the CBE 

baseline (84th percentile). The acoustic quality score is at the 50th percentile of all buildings 

surveyed by CBE. In the remainder of the categories, the Duncan Federal Building rated 

above the buildings in the CBE database. 

75
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 2,027,222

Process Water Use (gal) 547,350

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $15,302

Gallons per occupant 1,769

Water Cost per occupant $25.72

Gallons per GSF 6.09

Water Cost per GSF $0.13

Energy Star Score 91 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 48

Energy Cost $6,559 Energy Cost per GSF $0.96

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,516

General Maintenance Cost $237,836 General Maint Cost per RSF $1.98

Janitorial Services Cost $220,948 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.84

Grounds Maintenance Cost $5,300 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.04

Quantity of Maint Requests 660 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 3,541 Maintenance Jobs 0.16

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 41

Solid Waste Cost $4,380

Quantity Recycled (tons) 20

Recycling Cost -

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 1.14

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.04

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $14.13

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.51

Survey # of Invitees 275

Survey # of Respondents (n) 96 Survey Return Rate 35%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 29

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 232

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2.15

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Duncan Federal Building to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the 

annual performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses water-cooled chillers 

for its air-conditioning system; therefore, the cooling tower water use was estimated using 

the “rule-of-thumb” that 27% of total water use is process water.32 

76
 
 

 

 

 

 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Built 1975 renovated: 2005 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 34 Civic Center Plaza 

Santa Ana Californi 92701-4025 

Renovation 10 floors 

Federal Building 

None 

280,365 

205,378 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 424 

70 

409 

459 

Renov Project Cost: 

Renov Construction Cost: $26,875,000 

$27,864,000 

Santa Ana Federal Building 

Description 

The Santa Ana Federal Building was 

remodeled in 2005, incorporating new lighting 

and HVAC systems, a new roof, variable 

frequency drives, energy-efficient elevators, 

occupancy temperature control, and light-level 

sensors. All major commodities used in the 

building are recycled, including plastic, glass, cans, 

batteries, paper, and cardboard. A concrete and steel highrise building originally built in 1975, the Santa Ana Federal Building is located in the heart of 

the civic center 

district. The 

landscaping requires 

minimal 

maintenance and 

attractive. 

The building 

currently houses five 

federal agencies. 

One of those offices 

serves approximately 

300 customers daily 

and another office 

processes 75 to 100 

detainees daily. The 

family-owned, full-service restaurant has an estimated 250 to 300 customers per day. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 The Santa Ana Federal Building has a low energy use intensity and thus is 

performing well from an energy performance perspective. Applying for an Energy 

Star rating and/or LEED Existing Building certification would formally document 

the impact of this building. 

77
 
•	 Thermal comfort scored high (88th percentile) and acoustic quality, cleanliness and 

maintenance, and lighting scored below the 50th percentile on the CBE buildings 

survey. Interviews of occupants regarding these issues may result in a more detailed 

understanding of how operations might be adjusted to improve occupant satisfaction 

and what to communicate regarding the thermal comfort success. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Santa Ana Federal Building operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for 

water, grounds maintenance, janitorial, waste, and recycling costs. Overall, the building costs 

slightly less to operate than a baseline building. 

78
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 409 occupants in the building, 336 were surveyed and 118 responded. The results 

indicated that occupants of the Santa Ana Federal Building are generally more satisfied with 

their building than occupants in the CBE baseline (59th percentile). The Acoustic quality, 

cleanliness and maintenance, and lighting scored below the 50th percentile of the CBE 

buildings surveyed. Thermal comfort and air quality scored above the 50th percentile, with 

thermal comfort at the 88th percentile (one of the highest scoring buildings in the study). 

79
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared the whole building performance 

data for the Santa Ana Federal Building to industry baselines. The following table 

summarizes of the annual performance data collected and normalized. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 3,070,741

Cooling Tower Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $11,569

Gallons per occupant 3,538

Water Cost per occupant $13.33

Gallons per GSF 10.95

Water Cost per GSF $0.06

Energy Star Score 92 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 56

Energy Cost $15,625 Energy Cost per GSF $1.89

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,344

General Maintenance Cost $366,483 General Maint Cost per RSF $1.78

Janitorial Services Cost $290,888 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.42

Grounds Maintenance Cost $15,018 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.07

Quantity of Maint Requests 327 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 438 Maintenance Jobs 0.43

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 562

Solid Waste Cost $18,360

Quantity Recycled (tons) 11

Recycling Cost $1,600

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 10.98

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.09

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $40.00

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.02

Survey # of Invitees 336

Survey # of Respondents (n) 118 Survey Return Rate 35%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 30

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 237

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2.20

80
 
r air 

 

 

 

 

 

Denver Courthouse 

Description 

The Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse is the U.S. 

District Courthouse of Colorado, and it houses 

15 courtrooms. The Arraj Courthouse uses the 

Green Building Challenge system to evaluate 

the sustainable design features of the building, 

which GSA has equated to a LEED Silvercertified building. The building has an underfloo

distribution system on the first floor and in the courtrooms on the second floor, occupancy 

sensors for HVAC 

and lighting in the 

courtrooms, indirect 

T-5 fluorescent 

lamps, photocell 

controls, and 

electronic dimming 

ballasts. Photovoltaic 

solar power panels are 

on the building roof, 

but they generate a 

low amount of 

energy. 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 901 19th Street 

Denver Colorado 80294-2500 

New 13 floors 

2002 

Courthouse 

Green Building Challenge --Level: 

Total Weighted Building Score: 2.0 

327,103 

256,718 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 185 

65 

170 

370 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: $83,086,000 

$99,088,000 The Court gives its 

occupants passes for 

mass transit and 

despite the availability of inexpensive parking within two blocks, the occupants have a 

smaller CO2-equivalent than the baseline and a smaller than would be expected based on the 

size of the community. The sanitary waste and recycling programs are combined with other 

federal buildings in the neighborhood. Currently, 900 tons of central chilled water per 

month must be purchased regardless of the quantity used. The values provided and used for 

this study were for only the quantity used, not the total purchased. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

81
 
•	 In addition to using central chilled water, the Arraj Courthouse has onsite 

evaporative cooling and an irrigated grassy park area. Although the research team 

attempted to estimate domestic water use, separately metering these water uses 

would allow for a greater understanding of why courthouse water use is almost 60% 

greater than the industry baseline. 

•	 Energy use intensity (EUI) for the Arraj Courthouse is better than the Energy Star 

baseline; however, the courthouse has the highest EUI of the courthouses in the 

study, and its EUI is higher than expected when considered against GSA’s National 

Baseline. Sub-metering end uses and/or performing a re-commissioning study could 

be used to investigate and optimize building operations. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Arraj Courthouse operating costs are higher than the industry baseline for energy and 

general maintenance costs. No building-specific recycling and waste costs were available for 

this courthouse, because waste and recycling services are combined with other nearby 

buildings. Overall, the building costs more to operate than a baseline building. 

82
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 170 building occupants, 100 were surveyed and 50 responded. The results indicated 

that occupants of the Arraj Courthouse are more satisfied with their building than occupants 

in the CBE baseline (65th percentile). For all of the survey categories that were the primary 

focus of this study—acoustic quality, air quality, lighting, cleanliness and maintenance, and 

thermal comfort—the Arraj Courthouse scored at the 50th percentile or better. 

83
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Arraj Courthouse to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the annual 

performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses evaporative cooling for its 

primary air-conditioning system; therefore, the evaporative cooling water use was estimated 

using the “rule-of-thumb” that 27% of total water use is process water. Outdoor water use 

was estimated using the “rule-of-thumb” that 20% of total water use if for landscaping. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 4,039,000

Process Water Use (gal) 1,090,530

Outdoor Water Use (gal) 807,800

Water Cost $16,604 

Gallons per occupant 7,480

Water Cost per occupant $30.75

Gallons per GSF 12.35

Water Cost per GSF $0.06

Energy Star Score 77 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 88

Energy Cost $28,648 Energy Cost per GSF $2.45

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 4,668

General Maintenance Cost $804,051 General Maint Cost per RSF $3.13

Janitorial Services Cost $220,046 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $0.86

Grounds Maintenance Cost $29,791 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.12

Quantity of Maint Requests 684 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 881 Maintenance Jobs 0.44

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 38

Solid Waste Cost -

Quantity Recycled (tons) -

Recycling Cost -

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 1.81

Solid Waste Cost per RSF -

Solid Waste Cost per occupant -

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste -

Survey # of Invitees 100

Survey # of Respondents (n) 58 Survey Return Rate 58%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 24

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 102

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 0.94

84
 
 

 

 

 

 

131 E. 4th Street 

Davenport Iowa 52801-1516 

Building Function: 

Project Type: Renovation 4 floors 

Design Recognition: 

Year Built 1933 2005 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 60 

Renov Project Cost: 

Renov Construction Cost: 

renovated: 

Building Location: 

n/a 

Courthouse 

70 

$20,000,000 

LEED registered 

79,872 

68,391 

45 

63 

Davenport Courthouse 

Description 

The Davenport Courthouse is on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The renovation was completed in 2005 and increased the 

number of courtrooms, improved security by building new holding 

cells and a vehicle sally port, and updated the mechanical systems and

controls in the 

building. 

The remodel retained 

the historic integrity 

of the original the 

courtroom, the main 

lobby, staircases, 

windows, and 

hallways throughout 

the building. 

The new courtrooms 

incorporate 

daylighting and the mechanical systems use variable frequency drives. The HVAC system 

consists of water-cooled chillers, boilers, and air handling units. The mailroom was 

specifically remodeled with high-efficiency particulate air filters for HAZMAT purposes. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 Two third-party commissioning studies have been performed at the Davenport 

Courthouse to investigate operational challenges related to the mechanical 

equipment. Reevaluating the energy performance, maintenance costs, and occupant 

satisfaction following the implementation of the studies’ recommendations would 

offer tangible evidence of the impact. 

•	 Mechanical equipment is difficult to access. Future Federal design projects should 

carefully evaluate mechanical room space to enable easy access for maintenance. 

85
 
•	 Based on the CBE survey results and site visit, it appears that issues exist with 

lighting, acoustics, and some security features. Interviews of the occupants and 

design team regarding these issues may result in a more detailed understanding of 

how future designs might be adjusted to improve occupant satisfaction. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Davenport Courthouse operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for water, 

energy, grounds, and waste costs. The general maintenance, and janitorial costs are higher 

the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs less to operate than a baseline building. 

Because parts of the facility are still original (dating back to 1933) and the building flooded in 

April 2006, maintenance and janitorial cost could be more than industry baseline. 

86
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

All 45 of the Davenport Federal Building occupants were surveyed and 22 responded. The 

results indicated that the occupants of the Davenport Courthouse are generally more 

satisfied with their building than occupants in the CBE baseline (80th percentile). Lighting 

quality scored below the 50th percentile of the CBE buildings surveyed. Acoustic quality, 

thermal comfort, cleanliness and maintenance, and air quality all scored above the 50th 

percentile. 

87
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Davenport Courthouse to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the 

annual performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses water-cooled chillers 

for its air-conditioning system; therefore, the cooling tower water use was estimated using 

the “rule-of-thumb” that 27% of total water use is process water. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 516,000

Process Water Use (gal) 139,320

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $3,942

Gallons per occupant 1,923

Water Cost per occupant $36.50

Gallons per GSF 2.60

Water Cost per GSF $0.06

Energy Star Score 78 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 63

Energy Cost $3,333 Energy Cost per GSF $0.96

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 945

General Maintenance Cost $155,892 General Maint Cost per RSF $2.28

Janitorial Services Cost $133,026 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.95

Grounds Maintenance Cost $6,421 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.09

Quantity of Maint Requests 520 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 1,179 Maintenance Jobs 0.31

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 59

Solid Waste Cost $907

Quantity Recycled (tons) 2

Recycling Cost n/a

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 10.56

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.01

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $14.39

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.04

Survey # of Invitees 36

Survey # of Respondents (n) 22 Survey Return Rate 61%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 27

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 308

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2.85

88
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Cleveland Courthouse 

Description 

The Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. 

Courthouse is located in the hub of 

Cleveland’s central business district. This 

LEED Certified facility maintained 96% of 

the existing shell and 59% of interior elements 

during its renovation. 

To increase the energy efficiency a 15 % 

energy reduction from the ASHRAE 90.1­

1999 standard was built into the design. The facility uses city’s central steam and chilled 

water system. 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Built 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 201 Superior Ave 

Cleveland Ohio 44114-1203 

Renovation 6 floors 

1910 renovated: June 2005 

Courthouse 

LEED-NC v2.1 certified - 29points 

251,314 

185,105 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 120 

60 

105 

143 

Renov Total Project Cost: 

Renov Construction Cost: $37,925,000 

$44,613,000 

Due to its urban 

location, alternative 

transportation is 

used widely and 

encouraged by 

management. 

No new landscaping 

was added during the 

building renovation. 

The existing trees do 

not require 

irrigation, and the 

building’s low-flow 

fixtures increase its 

water efficiency. 

The Metzenbaum Courthouse won GSA’s Environmental Award for Recycling because of 

its seven-material collection system. The building has low-emitting carpets, CO2 sensors, 

and practices green housekeeping to maintain high indoor environmental quality standards 

for its occupants. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

89
 
•	 During one of the site visits, researchers observed rust on new mechanical 

equipment caused by water leaking into the basement from the sidewalk. Addressing 

the leak will minimize maintenance costs in the future. 

•	 The high level of occupant satisfaction on all categories implies that Metzenbaum’s 

building systems are working well. Identifying and communicating the causes of 

these operational successes offers successful building operations strategies for other 

Federal buildings and courthouses. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Metzenbaum Courthouse operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for all 

metrics other than energy, which was only slightly above baseline. Overall, the building 

costs less to operate than a baseline building. 

90
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 105 occupants in the building, 95 were surveyed and 54 responded. The results 

indicated that occupants of the Metzenbaum Courthouse are more satisfied with their 

building than occupants in the CBE baseline (86th percentile). In all of the key 

measurements—acoustic quality, air quality, cleanliness and maintenance, thermal comfort 

and lighting—Metzenbaum occupants scored above the 50th percentile of the CBE buildings 

surveyed. 

91
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Metzenbaum Courthouse to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the 

annual performance data collected and normalized. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 537,849

Process Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $1,330

Gallons per occupant 2,169

Water Cost per occupant $5.36

Gallons per GSF 2.14

Water Cost per GSF $0.01

Energy Star Score 82 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 84

Energy Cost $21,123 Energy Cost per GSF $1.79

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2,440

General Maintenance Cost $111,329 General Maint Cost per RSF $0.60

Janitorial Services Cost $270,476 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.46

Grounds Maintenance Cost $3,100 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.02

Quantity of Maint Requests 684 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 805 Maintenance Jobs 0.46

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 24

Solid Waste Cost $3,067

Quantity Recycled (tons) 3

Recycling Cost -$101

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 1.83

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.02

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $21.45

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.12

Survey # of Invitees 95

Survey # of Respondents (n) 54 Survey Return Rate 57%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 26

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 86

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 0.79

92
 
 

 

 

 

 

Greeneville Courthouse 

Description 

The James H. Quillen U.S. Courthouse was 

completed in 2001 and received Energy Star recognition 

in 2007. The Quillen Courthouse replaced a smaller, 

historic courthouse, from which the occupants reclaimed 

the quality furniture. Some of the energy-efficiency 

features in the building include use of occupancy sensors, 

a well-insulated white roof, and Energy Management Control System (EMSC) control of 

lighting and 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 220 W. Depot Street 

Greeneville Tennessee 37743-1100 

New 4 floors 

2001 

Courthouse 

Energy Star 2007 

160,975 

136,104 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 100 

70 

85 

103 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: $25,672,000 

$31,068,600 

occupancy sensors. 

During the site visit, 

researchers noticed 

that occupants had 

their office lights 

turned off if they had 

sufficient daylight 

from a window. 

The landscape 

includes a large grassy 

area. Some green 

cleaning products are 

being used, but not all 

products would have 

been considered “green.” The building has auto-flush toilets, but the building engineer 

wants them removed because of the maintenance challenges of this technology. 

The building houses four courtrooms and sees a significant fluctuation in visitors depending 

on the need for those courtrooms. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

• Consider pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings Certification. 

93
 
Whole Building Performance 

The Quillen Courthouse operating costs are lower than the industry baseline for water, 

energy, general maintenance, grounds maintenance, waste, and recycling costs. The janitorial 

costs are higher than the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs less to operate than a 

baseline building. 

94
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

All 85 of the Quillen Courthouse occupants were surveyed and 54 responded. In addition to 

the electronic survey, GSA representatives issued the survey in hardcopy form as many staff 

did not have electronic access to the survey. The results indicated that occupants of the 

Quillen Courthouse are significantly more satisfied with their building than occupants in the 

CBE baseline (98th percentile), with the highest occupant satisfaction score for all of the 

buildings in the study. The Quillen Courthouse also had the highest occupant satisfaction 

scores in the study for acoustic quality, air quality, cleanliness and maintenance, and lighting. 

Thermal comfort was the lowest scored occupancy metric, yet it scored in the 84th percentile 

when compared to the CBE building database. 

95
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Quillen Courthouse to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the 

annual performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses water-cooled chillers 

for its air-conditioning system; therefore, the cooling tower water use was estimated using 

the “rule-of-thumb” that 27% of total water use is process water. Outdoor water use was 

estimated using the “rule-of-thumb” that 20% of total water use if for landscaping. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 800,414

Process Water Use (gal) 216,112

Outdoor Water Use (gal) 160,083

Water Cost $5,468 

Gallons per occupant 1,230

Water Cost per occupant $29.09

Gallons per GSF 1.44

Water Cost per GSF $0.04

EnergyStar Score 87 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 49

Energy Cost $5,958 Energy Cost per GSF $0.94

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,397

General Maintenance Cost $214,100 General Maint Cost per RSF $1.57

Janitorial Services Cost $227,620 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.67

Grounds Maintenance Cost $4,000 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.03

Quantity of Maint Requests 180 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 1,078 Maintenance Jobs 0.14

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 39

Solid Waste Cost $900

Quantity Recycled (tons) 2

Recycling Cost -$71

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 3.67

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.01

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $8.74

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.06

Survey # of Invitees 100

Survey # of Respondents (n) 54 Survey Return Rate 54%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 22

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 276

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2.56

96
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Youngstown Courthouse and Federal Building 

There are five primary federal agency tenants in the building. Unique features of the 

Youngstown CH & FB include a native landscape and stormwater management 

demonstration adjacent to the building, and use of a white membrane roof and light-colored 

pavement to reduce the heat island effect. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 The Youngstown CH & FB was the lowest scoring in the thermal comfort category 

of the CBE survey (1st percentile). Building management is aware of problems with 

its cooling system and plans exist to upgrade the system. 

•	 Although the building was designed with no irrigation system, the plants and grass 

require staff to apply potable water to the landscaping. The other water conservation 

Description 

The Frank J. Battisti and Nathaniel R. Jones Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse (Youngstown CH & 

FB) is a part of the urban revitalization of the city’s downtown 

district. The building houses one bankruptcy courtroom and 

various types of office space to accommodate a variety of tenants. 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 10 East Commerce Street 

Youngstown Ohio 44503-1677 

New 4 floors 

2002 

Federal Building and Courthouse 

LEED -- NC, v.2/v.21 --Level: 

Certified (27 points) 

52,240 

44,476 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 60 

60 

45 

243 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: $10,594,831 

$16,465,331 

The facility is GSA’s 

first courthouse to 

achieve LEED 

certification. The 

facility was built on a 

brownfield and 

incorporates building 

controls, combined 

with air-cooled 

chillers and municipal 

utility steam, and 

daylighting to over 

75% of occupied 

spaces into building 

operations. 

97
 
features in the building are attributable to the building using less water than the 

industry baseline. 

•	 Youngstown CH & FB was one of the highest scoring buildings in the cleanliness 

and maintenance category of the CBE survey (97th percentile). The facility also had 

the highest maintenance, janitorial, and grounds costs on a per square-foot basis. 

•	 Native prairie grass landscaping is manually weeded, which may contribute to the 

higher grounds maintenance costs. 

Whole Building Performance 

The costs of operating the Youngstown CH & FB are lower than the industry baseline for 

water and waste costs. The energy, general maintenance, janitorial, and grounds 

maintenance costs were higher than the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs more 

to operate than a baseline building. The building’s mechanical systems have been 

malfunctioning, and the basement has flooded five times since its commissioning, potentially 

affecting the maintenance and janitorial costs. 

98
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

All 45 of the Youngstown CH & FB occupants were surveyed and 28 responded. The results 

indicated that occupants of the Youngstown CH & FB are generally more satisfied with their 

building than occupants in the CBE baseline (59th percentile). Thermal comfort and lighting 

quality scored below the 50th percentile of the CBE buildings surveyed. Acoustics, air 

quality, and cleanliness and maintenance all scored above the 50th percentile. 

99
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Youngstown CH & FB to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the 

annual performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses potable water for its 

landscaping upkeep; therefore, the outdoor water use was estimated using the “rule-ofthumb” that 20% of total water use is outdoor water. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 402,484

Process Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) 80,497

Water Cost $3,426 

Gallons per occupant 1,398

Water Cost per occupant $11.89

Gallons per GSF 7.70

Water Cost per GSF $0.08

Energy Star Score 58 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 67

Energy Cost $3,662 Energy Cost per GSF $1.88

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 655

General Maintenance Cost $174,182 General Maint Cost per RSF $3.92

Janitorial Services Cost $140,767 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $3.17

Grounds Maintenance Cost $37,300 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.84

Quantity of Maint Requests 232 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 579 Maintenance Jobs 0.29

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 17

Solid Waste Cost $1,530

Quantity Recycled (tons) 29

Recycling Cost n/a

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 2.99

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.03

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $6.30

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 1.71

Survey # of Invitees 75

Survey # of Respondents (n) 28 Survey Return Rate 37%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 29

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 192

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1.78

100
 
 

 

 

 

 

Fresno Courthouse and Federal 

Building 

Description 

The Fresno Courthouse and Federal Building is a part of 

the urban revitalization of the city’s downtown district. 

There are 14 courtrooms that house district, magistrate and 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 2500 Tulare Street 

Fresno California 93721-0000 

New 11 floors 

2005 

Federal Building and Courthouse 

none 

495,914 

393,243 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 250 

510 

68 

235 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: $119,589,000 

$132,718,000 

bankruptcy courts, 

and eight elevators in 

the tallest building in 

Fresno. 

The facility was 

designed under 

California’s Title 24 

energy standards and 

incorporates highefficiency lighting 

(T5s, T8s and CFLs), 

underfloor air 

distribution systems 

for floors 1 through 

4, water-cooled 

chillers, natural gas boilers, and variable speed drives. The lighting controls operate both on 

occupancy and time-of-day routines. 

There are five primary federal agency tenants in the building. Unique features include a 

nurse’s station that is supported by the tenants, a fitness room, underground parking, a 

public garden, and a library with original Ansel Adams photographs of the Yosemite Valley. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 The building landscaping is attractive, but water intensive. There is a large public 

garden (1.5 acres of the total 3.9-acre property size). The outdoor pond and 

waterfall, native plants, and conifers along with the indoor water feature offer a 

gathering space and a key attribute to the urban revitalization. 

101
 
•	 A project is underway to purchase new window blinds with reflective backing to 

block heat and glare. 

Whole Building Performance 

The costs of operating the Fresno CH & FB are lower than the industry baseline for water, 

energy, grounds, and waste costs. The general maintenance and janitorial costs were higher 

than the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs more to operate than a baseline 

building. 

102
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

All 235 of the Fresno CH & FB occupants were surveyed and 73 responded. The result 

indicated that occupants of the Fresno CH & FB are more satisfied with their building than 

occupants in the CBE baseline (90th percentile). Acoustic quality, air quality, and cleanliness 

and maintenance scored in the 80th percentile or above. Occupant satisfaction with lighting 

and thermal comfort scored above the 50th percentile. 

103
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Fresno CH & FB to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the annual 

performance data collected and normalized. The facility uses water-cooled chillers for its airconditioning system; therefore, the cooling tower water use was estimated using the “rule-ofthumb” that 27% of total water use is process water. Outdoor water use is separately 

metered. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 7,705,663

Process Water Use (gal) 1,392,607

Outdoor Water Use (gal) 2,547,858

Water Cost $9,421 

Gallons per occupant 1,459

Water Cost per occupant $12.65

Gallons per GSF 2.19

Water Cost per GSF $0.02

Energy Star Score 92 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 48

Energy Cost $18,870 Energy Cost per GSF $1.63

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2,666

General Maintenance Cost $1,188,000 General Maint Cost per RSF $3.02

Janitorial Services Cost $759,402 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $1.93

Grounds Maintenance Cost $24,236 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.06

Quantity of Maint Requests 1,200 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 4,932 Maintenance Jobs 0.20

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 16

Solid Waste Cost $24,236

Quantity Recycled (tons) 18

Recycling Cost incl

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 0.55

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.06

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $47.52

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 1.11

Survey # of Invitees 232

Survey # of Respondents (n) 64 Survey Return Rate 28%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 26

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 259

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 2.40

104
 
 

 

 

 

 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 

Description 

The Sault Ste. Marie Port-of-Entry is located on the U.S. 

side of the northern international border and operates 24 

hours a day, 365 days a year. The building has primary and 

secondary vehicle inspection bays and two commercial 

truck lanes and three car lanes for in-bound inspections. 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: 989 W. Portage Ave 

Sault Sainte Michigan 49783-0000 

New 2 floors 

2005 

Port of Entry 

LEED registered, but not verified 

63,874 

39,709 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 80 

84 

168 

74 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: $10,653,500 

$13,711,500 

The facility’s steelframe construction 

with glass curtainwall 

offers daylighting to 

the interior space, and 

the facility sits on top 

of an at-grade parking 

garage. 

The facility houses an 

indoor firing range, a 

fitness room and 

locker facilities, 

holding cells and 

customs related laboratories. The multi-pitched roof features vegetative cover. The facility 

operates three boilers, a chiller, and three air-handling units. Lighting is controlled by both 

occupancy and daylight sensors. 

Because of the facility’s security function, the space houses various types of monitors, 

screening machines, and cameras. The screening booths and inspection bays are mostly 

open to the outside and pose a challenge for temperature control during the winter months. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

•	 For both the Sault Ste. Marie and Sweetgrass Port facilities, this study used an office 

building baseline, because there is nothing equivalent to a Port in the publically 

available industry baseline data. To fairly assess the performance of these buildings, 

an alternative baseline is needed. 

105
 
•	 The vegetative roof has been a challenge to keep up due to potential installation 

flaws and the less-than-average annual rainfall over the past two years. Maintenance 

personnel training on upkeep of this feature may improve the health of the roof. 

•	 Based on the CBE survey results, issues appear to exist with thermal comfort, 

daylighting, lighting, and acoustics. Interviews of occupants regarding these issues 

may result in a more detailed understanding of how operations might be adjusted to 

improve occupant satisfaction. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Sault Ste. Marie Port’s operating costs are higher than the industry baseline for general 

maintenance, janitorial, and grounds costs. The water, energy and waste costs are lower than 

the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs more to operate than a baseline building. 

The baseline used for this analysis was an office building, because there is no equivalent to 

Ports available for comparison. Significant consideration must be given to the building’s 

operational function when reviewing these costs. 

106
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

All 74 of the Sault Ste. Marie Port occupants were surveyed and 16 responded. The results 

indicated that occupants of the Sault Ste. Marie Port are generally less satisfied with their 

building than occupants in the CBE baseline (9th percentile), and the building scored the 

lowest of all of the GSA buildings surveyed in this study. The acoustic quality, thermal 

comfort, and lighting all scored below the 50th percentile of the CBE buildings surveyed. 

Cleanliness and maintenance and air quality scored above the 50th percentile. Problems with 

glare and temperature due to the daylighting were identified as a persistent lighting and 

thermal comfort issue. 

107
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Sault Sainte Marie Port to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the 

annual performance data collected and normalized. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 13,000

Process Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $1,858

Gallons per occupant 155

Water Cost per occupant $22.12

Gallons per GSF 0.20

Water Cost per GSF $0.03

Energy Star Score 17 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 166

Energy Cost $6,943 Energy Cost per GSF $1.54

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,727

General Maintenance Cost $109,962 General Maint Cost per RSF $2.77

Janitorial Services Cost $206,281 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $5.19

Grounds Maintenance Cost $64,860 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $1.63

Quantity of Maint Requests 278 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 375 Maintenance Jobs 0.43

Solid Waste Generated (tons) 70

Solid Waste Cost $3,182

Quantity Recycled (tons) 0

Recycling Cost $0

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant 5.20

Solid Waste Cost per RSF $0.002

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $37.89

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste 0.00

Survey # of Invitees 74

Survey # of Respondents (n) 16 Survey Return Rate 22%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 17

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 211

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1.95

108
 
 

 

 

 

 

Building Function: 

Project Type: 

Design Recognition: 

Year Occupied 

Gross Square Foot: 

Rentable Square Foot: 

Building Location: Main Port Building 

Sweetgrass Montana 59485-9707 

New 3 floors 

2003 

Port of Entry 

LEED -- NC, v.2/v.21 --Level: 

Certified (27 points) 

98,196 

84,928 

Hours of Operation: 

Regular Occupants: 

Occupant Visitor Equiv. 

Electronic Equipment: 320 

253 

168 

190 

Total Project Cost: 

Construction Cost: n/a 

$31,200,000 

Sweetgrass Port 

Description 

The Shared Port-of-Entry, bordering the towns of 

Sweetgrass, Montana and Coutts, Alberta, Canada was 

constructed as a facility jointly shared between GSA, 

the Canada Border Services Agency, and the regional 

U.S. and Canadian highway departments. This is the nation’s first LEED Certified Port, and 

it has won GSA’s 

Environmental 

Award because of its 

water-efficiency 

features, indoor air 

quality, sustainable 

siting, and green 

housekeeping 

features. 

The site is located 

directly on the 

US/Canadian border. 

This study included 

the main port 

building as well as 

two commercial 

inspection bays, two vehicle inspection bays, and two hazardous materials inspection bays. 

Half of these facilities are located in the United States and half are in Canada, resulting in 

contracting challenges for the maintenance and operations of the facilities. 

The design incorporated the security function of the building with the goal of 96% of all 

occupants having a direct line of sight to the outdoors. The building also uses low-emitting 

paints, carpets, and composite wood to further increase the indoor environmental quality for 

its occupants. The landscaping incorporates native and adaptive vegetation, and the building 

has low-flow fixtures and equipment to increase its water efficiency. Because of Sweetgrass’ 

northern location and function, snow removal is critical to building operations. Glycol loops 

are used to heat the traffic areas and inspection facilities during the winter season. 

Each building in the study had operational highlights and potential opportunities for 

improvement. Although it was not the focus of this study to investigate and/or document 

operational highlights and opportunities, the research team observed the following: 

109
 
•	 The primary challenge facing the Sweetgrass Port is available labor for operations 

and maintenance tasks such as snow removal and window washing. Joint ownership 

by Canada and the United States requires that employees and contractors working on 

the respective sides of the border must be citizens of the country in which they are 

working. The challenge of needing two contracts for each task is further 

complicated by the remoteness of the location. An agreement between the two 

governments to resolve the citizenship related contracting requirements would 

decrease operating costs and improve operations. 

Whole Building Performance 

The Sweetgrass Port operating costs are generally higher than the industry baseline for 

energy, general maintenance, janitorial, and grounds maintenance. The water, waste, and 

recycling costs were lower than the industry baseline. Overall, the building costs more to 

operate than a baseline building. The baseline used for this analysis was an office building, 

because no equivalent to Ports is available for comparison. Significant consideration must 

be given to the building’s operational function and remote location when reviewing these 

costs. 

110
 
Occupant Satisfaction Survey 

Of the 190 building occupants, 70 were surveyed and 40 responded. The results indicated 

that occupants of the Sweetgrass Port are less satisfied with their building than occupants in 

the CBE baseline (34th percentile), yet all of the major satisfaction metrics scored above the 

CBE baseline buildings. Acoustic quality and lighting scored in the 58th and 56th percentile 

respectively, while air quality, cleanliness and maintenance, and thermal comfort all scored in 

or above the 75th percentile.. 

111
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Data Summary 

The research team collected, normalized, and compared whole building performance data 

for the Sweetgrass Port to industry baselines. The following table summarizes the annual 

performance data collected and normalized. 

Metrics Annual Performance Measurements Annual Reporting Metrics 

Water Use (gal) 123,144

Process Water Use (gal) -

Outdoor Water Use (gal) -

Water Cost $8,073

Gallons per occupant 487

Water Cost per occupant $31.91

Gallons per GSF 1.25

Water Cost per GSF $0.08

Energy Use (MBTU) 16 Energy Use (kBTU) per GSF 19

Energy Cost $1,193 Energy Cost per GSF $1.02

Energy Emissions per building 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 1,783

General Maintenance Cost $308,055 General Maint Cost per RSF $3.63

Janitorial Services Cost $240,630 Janitorial Services Cost per RSF $2.83

Grounds Maintenance Cost $40,035 Grounds Maint Cost per RSF $0.47

Quantity of Maint Requests 9 Ratio of Maint Requests to Total 

Quantity of Prev Maint Jobs 228 Maintenance Jobs 0.04

Solid Waste Generated (tons) n/a

Solid Waste Cost $5,770

Quantity Recycled (tons) n/a

Recycling Cost $1,260

Solid Waste (lb) per occupant n/a

Solid Waste Cost per RSF n/a

Solid Waste Cost per occupant $22.80

Ratio of Recycled to Solid Waste n/a

Survey # of Invitees 70

Survey # of Respondents (n) 42 Survey Return Rate 60%

Commute Miles per occ (avg) 39

Commute fuel per occ (avg gal) 386

Commute Emissions per occ 

(metric tons CO2 equiv) 3.57

112
 
Appendix B: Port of Entry Data 

Initial analysis of the Port of Entry data demonstrated that none of the commonly used 

baselines for office buildings would apply to Ports of Entry. Some of the reasons for 

removing the Port of Entry buildings from the body of the report include the following: 

•	 Port of Entry buildings operate 24 hours a day for 365 days a year. 

•	 Ports of Entry contain a considerable amount of electronic equipment (e.g., 

monitoring equipment, computers, etc.). 

•	 A considerable number of public visitors impact the water use, energy use, and 

janitorial costs. 

•	 The remote location of Ports of Entry tends to increase their associated labor costs. 

•	 A portion of the space includes large heated garages for vehicle inspections. 

For these reasons, the Port of Entry building data for Sweetgrass and Sault Sainte Marie are 

provided in this appendix. 

General Building Information 

The Sault Sainte (Ste.) Marie Port of Entry is on the US-side of the US-Canadian border 

surrounded by a small community. The Sweetgrass, Montana/Coutts, Alberta (Sweetgrass) 

Port of Entry straddles the US-Canadian border in a remote location. Appendix A offers a 

detailed site summary for both of these facilities. 

For each of the key metrics in this study, the following table offers the summary results. 

The remainder of the tables in this appendix provide detail for each individual metric. 

Metric 

Energy Total Aggregate General Tons of 

Star® Water Maintenance Waste Bldg % CO2 

Building Name GSF Score (1000 gal) Cost Cost Satisfaction equivs/Occ 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 63,874 17 13 $381,104 $3,182 47% 1.95 

Sweetgrass Port 98,196 16 123 $588,720 $5,770 61% 3.57 

113
 
 

 

The Sweetgrass Port of Entry is larger than the Sault Sainte Marie Port of Entry and has 

more daily visitors that stopped to use the facilities. 

Occ-Vis Hours/ # 

Building Name Region Vintage GSF RSF Occ Equiv week Comps 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 5 2005 63,874 39,709 74 84 168 80 

Sweetgrass Port 8 2003 98,196 84,928 190 253 168 320 

Sweetgrass is LEED-NC certified (i.e., certified by the U.S. Green Building Council as 

representing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction) with 

no Energy & Atmosphere (EA) Optimize Energy Performance (EAc1) points and only one 

Water Efficiency (WE) Water Use Reduction (WEc3) point. Both buildings had Energy Star 

scores below 20. Although not shown in this table, Sweetgrass also has one EA point for 

Green Power (EAc6) and two points for Water-Efficient Landscaping (WEc1). 

® LEED

Total 

LEED® 

EAc1 

LEED® 

WEc3 

Energy 

Star® 

Building Name Certification Level Points Points Points Score 

Sault Ste. Marie Port LEED Registered n/a n/a n/a 17 

Sweetgrass Port LEED-NC Certified 27 0 1 16 

Water 

Neither site uses process water for cooling or potable water for landscaping. Sault Ste. Marie 

has a vegetated roof, but no significant landscaping. Sweetgrass has minimal trees and native 

plants that require no additional water once they are established. 

Water Use (thousand gallons) 

Water 

Consuming Total Estimated Estimated Domestic Total 

Building Name Equipment Water Landscape Process Portion Water Cost 

Sault Ste. Marie Port - 13 0 0 13 $1,858 

Sweetgrass Port - 123 0 0 123 $8,073 

114
 
 

Energy 

Neither Port of Entry building has access to central steam or chilled water. Both buildings 

use natural gas and electricity. 

Chilled Electric Electric Total 

Electricity Nat Gas Steam Water Demand Demand Energy 

Building Name (MWH) (1000 ft3

) (MLB) (Ton Hr) (MW) Cost Cost 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 1,918 3,982 0 0 0.0 $0 $98,472 

Sweetgrass Port 2,420 11,934 0 0 8.7 $42,904 $146,877 

The most comparable information for the energy use intensity (EUI) is information specific 

to the GSA information. When all GSA Port of Entry energy use is averaged the EUI is 109 

kBTU/gsf. When only the northern Port of Entry energy use is averaged, the EUI is 132 

kBTU/gsf, which is closer to the measured use than the Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS) values by region. 

EUI (kBTU/gsf) 

Estimated 

CO2 

Energy Star GSA Equiv/Bldg 

Current FY06 FY07 Baseline (50 CBECS GSA Port Northern (metric 

Building Name EUI GSA GSA Percentile) by Region Average Port Avg tons) 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 166 155 174 114 108 109 132 888 

Sweetgrass Port 190 n/a n/a 134 104 109 132 917 

Maintenance and Operations 

The site personnel at the Sweetgrass Port of Entry indicated that they had considerable 

difficulty getting reasonably priced contractors on site because of their remote location of 

the site. The site does not routinely track maintenance calls, thus the estimated ratio of 

maintenance calls to preventative maintenance provided by site personnel is shown in italics. 

Green Maint Calls Prev Maint 

House­ / Total / Total General Janitorial Grounds 

Building Name keeping Maint Maint Maint Cost Maint Cost Maint Cost 

Sault Ste. Marie Port Some 0.43 0.57 $109,962 $206,281 $64,860 

Sweetgrass Port Yes 0.04 0.96 $308,055 $240,630 $40,035 

115
 
Waste Disposal and Recycling 

Sault Ste. Marie did not have a recycling program, and although a recycling program exists at 

Sweetgrass, the PNNL research team was not able to obtain the numbers related to 

quantities of waste and recycled materials to enable a performance comparison. 

Waste per Recycle 

Year Waste Recycled per year Recycle % Recycle 

Building Name (Tons) Cost Material (Tons) Cost to Waste 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 70.2 $3,182 None 0.0 $0 0% 

Sweetgrass Port n/a $5,770 Paper n/a $1,260 n/a 

Transportation 

The occupants of the Sault Ste. Marie Port of Entry building have the shortest average 

commute distances of all the buildings in the study, while Sweetgrass building occupants 

have the longest average commute distance. For both buildings, the majority of the building 

occupants drive trucks or sport utility vehicles. 

Avg Daily Estimated Calculated 

Roundtrip Avg Annual CO2 CO2 

Survey Miles Gallons Equiv/Occ Equiv/Bldg 

Building Name N-Value # Occ Traveled Used/Occ (metric tons) (metric tons) 

Sault Ste. Marie Port 16 74 16.7 211 2.0 187 

Sweetgrass Port 43 190 38.6 386 3.6 480 

As more Port of Entry buildings are designed and built, the need to understand how to 

optimize the design and operation of this building type will become greater. A detailed 

analysis of a Port of Entry building’s performance would offer additional insight into factors 

impacting the water and energy use, maintenance and waste costs, occupant commute, and 

occupant satisfaction considerations. This level of analysis would require sub-metered 

energy and water use and more detailed investigation into costs and occupant-related factors. 

116
 
 

Landscaping 

20% 

Domestic 41% 

Misc/Leaks 9% 

Once-through
 

cooling 2%
 

Kitchen 1% 

Cooling/ 

Heating 27% 

Appendix C: Baseline Development Documentation 

For each of the major whole building performance metrics, an industry baseline was 

determined for comparison purposes. These baselines were developed for the selected 

General Services Administration (GSA) buildings in this study and should therefore be 

evaluated for applicability if they are considered for use with other building sectors. How 

each baseline was developed is provided below. 

Water 

Water consumption in a commercial office building typically consists 

primarily of domestic use (i.e., faucet, toilet, and urinal use), landscape 

irrigation, and process water (i.e., cooling and/or heating processes).33 

Water Distribution in a Typical Office Building 

These three primary uses of water were separated for each building. Domestic water 

consumption depends on human operation and fixed equipment efficiency. Therefore, 

typical indoor water consumption is best expressed as per occupant. For water use 

comparisons to the baseline, gallons per occupant per year is used. Occupancy gender data 

allow for a more accurate comparison of indoor water use, because the quantity and type of 

water-using fixtures vary by gender. Many of these buildings also have a large number of 

visitors, who are likely to contribute to the total domestic water consumption. To address 

this, an estimate of visitor water use was added to the total based on expected quantities of 

visitors and an appropriate gallon also compared to a visitor-adjusted baseline in gallons used 

per occupant and visitor per year value. 

117
 
For water use analysis, the indoor potable water use data had to be estimated from the water 

utility bills. The baselines for comparison include indoor potable water use per occupant per 

day, total water use per gross square footage, and water cost per rentable square foot. 

Process and landscape water analysis were not performed as detailed water use information 

was not available. 

Indoor Water Use Per Occupant 

The reference data used for calculating the water use baseline was the federal Water Use 

Indices (Indices).34 The Indices provide basic guidance on typical water usage for different 

building types. Indoor water use for office buildings is estimated at an average of 15 gallons 

per occupant per day (gpd/occupant), with a range of 8 to 20 gpd. 

When landscape irrigation water and process water have been removed from the total water 

consumption, the majority of the building water consumption is from “domestic uses.” Due 

to the difference in fixture type (i.e., urinals and toilets), occupant gender plays a role in the 

quantity of water used in a typical federal building, courthouse, or port of entry building. 

However, the federal Indices do not provide detail on use for male and female building 

occupants. The following assumptions were made to support the adjustment of the Indices 

and develop a gender-specific water use baseline: 

•	 The federal Indices were developed with a 50-50 ratio of male-to-female building 

occupants. 

•	 In an office building, 61% of the domestic water use is for toilets, 17% for urinals, and 

22% for faucets. 

•	 On average, females use toilets three times per day with males only once per day plus 

urinals two times per day. 35 

•	 Faucet use is equal for males and females. 

•	 15 gpd/occupant is the average between male and female water use. 

Based on these assumptions, the following calculations were made: 

Domestic Water Use = Female Toilet Use + Male Toilet Use + Female Faucet Use + Male Faucet 

Use + Male Urinal Use 

Toilet Use = Female Use (75%) + Male Use (25%) 

Faucet Use = Female Use (50%) + Male Use (50%) 

Female Use = [(75% Toilet) * (61% Water Use for Toilets)] + [(50% Faucets) * (22% Water use 

for Faucets)] 

Female Use = 57% Total Water Use or 17.1 gpd/occupant 

118
 
Male Use = [(25% Toilet) * (61% Water Use for Toilets)] + [17% Urinal] + [(50% Faucets) * 

(22% Water use for Faucets)] 

Male Use = 43% Total Water Use or 12.9 gpd/occupant 

Thus, the quantity of male and female occupants was used to adjust the Indices for the 

Indoor Water Use baseline as follows: 

Water Use Baseline (gpd/occupant) = (Total Occupants * % Female * 17.1 gpd/occupant) + (Total 

Occupants * % Male * 12.9 gpd/occupant) 

The baseline also includes water use associated with visitors to the buildings. This added 

value is based on data on visitors to the buildings. For each building, the number and type 

of visitors was requested in order to estimate visitor impact on water use. The building 

contacts typically provided the number of visitors per day, the typical length of stay for each 

visitor, and reason for visit. Some buildings offered estimates of restroom visits per visitor. 

Depending on the type and length of visit, the visitors were assumed to use the restroom the 

equivalent of zero to 100% of a regular building occupant use. 

The Port of Entry buildings, the Department of Homeland Security federal building, and the 

Santa Ana courthouse and federal building also included inmates. Inmate water use was 

assumed to be 120 gpd/occupant. Although several buildings had showers and one building 

had a small restaurant, those water usages were not included in the baseline calculations. 

And finally, in all but the Port of Entry buildings, it was assumed the water use would occur 

250 days per year (i.e., five workdays a week and fifty workweeks per year). The following 

table provides the baseline values for each of the buildings. 

119
 
Building 

Number Building Name 

# Regular 

Occupants 

Water Baseline 

gal/occupant/ 

year 

Occupant & 

Visitor Use 

Water Baseline 

gal/person/year 

UT1434ZZ Ogden (L) FB 514 2,143,380 521 2,172,570 

CO1923ZZ Lakewood (L) FB 318 1,159,110 336 1,222,898 

NE1430ZZ Omaha DHS (L) FB 65 243,750 139 864,455 

NE1425ZZ Omaha NPS (L) FB 125 462,188 134 494,726 

TN0076ZZ Knoxville FB 285 1,158,900 310 1,248,285 

CA0200ZZ Santa Ana FB 409 2,152,500 459 2,371,286 

CO0061ZZ Denver CH 170 637,500 370 1,387,500 

IA0027ZZ Davenport CH 45 168,750 63 236,250 

OH0033ZZ Cleveland CH 105 393,750 143 534,375 

TN0012ZZ Greenville CH 85 318,750 103 386,250 

OH0302ZZ Youngstown CH & FB 45 168,750 107 400,313 

CA0309ZZ Fresno CH & FB 235 881,250 510 1,912,500 

MI0724SB Sault Ste. Marie Port 74 258,075 84 292,950 

MT0767AI Sweetgrass Port 190 662,625 253 880,594 

Visitor Calculations 

For each building, the number and type of visitors were requested in order to estimate visitor 

impact on water use. The building contacts typically provided the number of visitors per 

day, the typical length of stay for each visitor, and the reason for the visit. Some buildings 

offered estimates of restroom visits per visitor. Depending on the type and length of visit, 

the visitors use of the restroom was assumed to be the equivalent of zero to 100% of a 

regular building occupant use. 

120
 
 

Regular Visitor Occupant 

Building Occupants % % Detainees Detainees Detainees Visitors Visitors Hrs/visitor Occupant & Visitor 

Number /day Female Male /year /week /day /year /day Estimate Equivalent Use 

UT1434ZZ 514 90% 10% - - - 1,800 7 equiv to occ 7 521 

CO1923ZZ 318 40% 60% - - - 9,900 40 

1 use for 7500 

+ meetings 

for 2400 18 336 

NE1430ZZ 65 50% 50% 2860 55 7.9 65,250 250 - 74 139 

NE1425ZZ 125 45% 55% - - - 8,800 35 1 use 9 134 

TN0076ZZ 285 30% 70% - - - 25,250 101 1 use 25 310 

CA0200ZZ 

CO0061ZZ 

409 

170 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

260 

-

5 

-

0.7 50,000 

- 100,000 

200 1 use 

400 half 

50 

200 

459 

370 

IA0027ZZ 45 50% 50% - - - 9,000 36 half 18 63 

OH0033ZZ 105 50% 50% - - - 18,750 75 half 38 143 

TN0012ZZ 

OH0302ZZ 

85 

45 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

-

-

-

-

- 9,000 

- 61,750 

36 half 

247 1 use 

18 

62 

103 

107 

CA0309ZZ 

MI0724SB 

235 

74 

50% 

25% 

50% 

75% 

-

-

-

-

- 275,000 

- 36,500 

1,100 1 use 

100 1 use 

275 

10 

510 

84 

MT0767AI 190 25% 75% - - - 91,250 250 1 use 63 253 

Indoor Water Use Baseline Observations 

The Indices have not been updated since 1996. The last federal ruling on flow rates of 

water-consuming technologies was in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992. As buildings 

update their faucets, toilets, urinals, and showerheads, it is conceivable that a savings of 50% 

could be achieved. When the Indices are updated, it is likely that the average use per 

occupant will decrease. Rather than updating the water baseline to an assumed use under 

the EPAct standard, the documented FEMP Water Use Indices baseline were used, which 

may represent a greater savings than current practice would offer. 

Outdoor Water Use 

Irrigation water use depends on the size of the irrigated area, as well as the climate and type 

of plants or turf being watered. A water-thirsty landscape (appropriate for climates with 40+ 

inches of annual precipitation) in a dry climate typically uses about 25 gallons of water per 

square foot per season. However, use of native and drought-tolerant plants can reduce 

irrigation needs to about 5 to 10 gallons per square foot per season.36 

Only one of the buildings in the study had separately metered landscape irrigation (Fresno 

Courthouse and Federal Building). Many of the buildings had minimal landscaping. For 

those it was easy to dismiss landscape water use as minimal (see Ogden FB, Cleveland CH, 

Davenport CH, and Santa Ana FB). Other buildings have rainwater capture systems that are 

used to store irrigation water (Knoxville FB and Omaha Department of Homeland Security 

FB), and Omaha National Park Service’s property only has native trees, plants, and grasses 

121
 
Greeneville CH - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

Apr-06

0.0 

May -06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07

Mar-07 

Cleveland CH - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf 

Mar-06Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oc t-06

Nov-06Dec-06

J an-07Feb-07 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

Youngstown CH &FB - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

2. 

1. 

1. 

0. 

0. 

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

0

Nov-06

5 

Dec-06

J an-07

0 

Feb-07

5 

Mar-07

0 

Apr-07

May-07 

Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07

May -07 

Omaha (L) DHS FB - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Davenport CH - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf 

1.

1.

0.

0.

Sep-05

t-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

an 06-eb 06-

Mar-06Apr-06

May-06

Jun-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

t-06

Nov-06Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07

Mar-07 

5 

0 

5 

0 

Oc 

J

F

Oc 

that do not require any irrigation. However, several buildings had enough water-intensive 

landscaping that it was necessary to examine seasonal water use in order to estimate 

landscape irrigation use. A FEMP estimate of 20 percent of a building’s water use being 

attributed to landscaping was applied to buildings with water-intensive landscaping. 

Seasonal water use can be observed for the Greenville CH, Knoxville FB, Davenport CH, 

Lakewood FB, Denver CH, Odgen FB, Omaha DHS FB, and Fresno CH & FB. These 

buildings have evaporative cooling and/or cooling towers and/or landscaping that cause 

spikes in water use. The following figures show the water use by month for each building, 

with the summer months shaded gray. Only 11 of the buildings are shown, because not all 

buildings have the necessary detail to represent the trend. 

Knoxville FB - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

Apr-06

May -06

J un-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06 Dec-06

J an-07

2.0 

Feb-07

1.5 

Mar-07 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

122
 
Ogden (L) FB - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07

May-07

Jun-07 

Santa Ana FB - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

gAu - 60

Se -p 60

Oc t- 60

No -v 06

cDe - 60

nJa 0- 7bFe 0- 7

r-Ma 70

1.5 

rAp - 70

May- 70

1.0 

Ju -n 70

Jul 0- 7

0.5 

ug-A 07

Se -p 7 0

0.0 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Mar-06

Fresno CH & FB - Monthly Water Use (gallons/gsf) 

Apr-06

May-06

J un-06

Jul-06

Aug-06

Sep-06

Oct-06

Nov-06Dec-06

Jan-07

Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07

May -07

Jun-07

Jul-07

Aug-07 

Water Use Trends by Building 

(Grouped by region; Gray shading indicates summer months) 

Process Water Use 

Seven of the fourteen GSA buildings included in this study use water for building cooling 

systems. Two methods were attempted to estimate this use, and neither were used. Initially, 

a Federal Energy Decision System (FEDS) which provided a modeled estimate of the water 

use for the cooling systems to allow for a normalized comparison. FEDS is a PNNLdeveloped tool used by multiple federal agencies to identify energy and water saving 

opportunities. FEDS uses actual weather data from the building location to estimate 

heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, and plug loads. The tool uses building characteristics 

such as envelope, geometry, occupancy hours, age and capacity of mechanical equipment, 

and lighting types to estimate all of the typical building end uses. Unfortunately the initial 

FEDS estimates did not yield realistic values based on the total water use values obtained 

from the sites. A second method was the application of a 27% cooling equipment use. For 

the purposes of this study process water estimates were obtained by applying a 27 percent 

factor FEMP. The process water estimates are shown below. The FEDS estimates are 

model based and therefore susceptible to varying inputs. It is clear that in at least one case 

the process estimate is over the total water use. 

The final approach that was chosen to estimate the domestic water use was to examine the 

monthly water data provided by the utilities and observe where changes in building 

processes (i.e., an increase in air conditioning) occurred. The high water use tended to occur 

from April to October. Those months were removed from the annual domestic water use 

calculation and an estimated domestic value was used for analysis. 

123
 
Water Use (thousand gallons) 

Water 27 % FEDS 

Building Name 

Consuming 

Equipment 

Estimated Estimated 

Total Process Process 

Ogden (L) FB Evap Cooling 3,435 927 1,066 

Lakewood (L) FB Cooling Towers 4,340 1,172 562 

Knoxville FB Cooling Towers 2,027 547 272 

Denver CH Evap Cooling 4,039 1,091 508 

Davenport CH Cooling Towers 516 139 440 

Greenville CH Cooling Towers 800 216 813 

Fresno CH & FB Cooling Towers 7,706 1,393 869 

Water Cost 

The water cost baseline was calculated from the International Facility Management 

Association (IFMA) Benchmarks IV Research Report and Operations and Management 

Benchmarks, as well as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) 

International Experience Exchange Report. The water cost baseline was provided in gross 

square footage from IFMA and rentable square footage for BOMA. The BOMA values 

tended to be lower than the IFMA values and had fewer buildings in the data set. The 

BOMA values were modified from a rentable square foot basis to gross square footage. 

Given these references, the water cost range is $0.05 to $0.19 per gross square foot. 

124
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Reporting Metrics Table
 

Metric Performance Measurement Reporting Metrics 

Categories 

Water Total Building Potable Water Use Annual Domestic Water Use 

gal $ 

year year gal $ 

Indoor Potable, Outdoor, and occupant occupant 

Process Water Use 

gal $ gal $

year year gsf gsf 

Energy Total Building Energy Use Annual Energy Use 

Btu 

$

year year 

Btu 

gsf 

$

gsf 

Gkg CO2 

year 

Maintenance Building & Grounds Maintenance Annual M&O 

& Operations Service Calls $ Service Calls Prev Maint Calls

year year Total Maint Total Maint

Preventative Maintenance Calls 

year Maint $ 

rsf 

Grounds $

rsf

Janitor $

rsf

Waste Solid Sanitary Waste Annual Waste & Recycled 

Generation & 

Recycling 

 ton $ 

year year 

lb $ 

occupant rsf 

$ 

occupant 

Recycled Materials 

 ton $ lb recycled 

year year lb sanitary waste 

Occupant Building Occupant Self-Reported 2007 Building Occupant 

Satisfaction Satisfaction and Productivity Satisfaction and Productivity 

Occupant Rating 

Survey Metric (CBE Baseline Percentile – Total Building 

Occupant Satisfaction) 

Transportation Regular Commute (from survey Annual Transportation Impacts 

data) 

 miles miles Gkg CO2 

gallon week year 

125
 
This page was left blank intentionally. 

126
 
 

Appendix E: Occupant Satisfaction Key Survey Questions 

This appendix includes the key questions included in the GSA adaptation of the CBE 

survey, which was named the Sustainable Places and Organizational Trends “SPOT” survey. 

Part 1 - Background Information 

1. How would you describe the work you do? 

2. Which organization do you work for? 

3. How many years have you worked in this building? 

4. How long have you been working at your present workspace? 

Part 2 – Commute 

1. On average, how many days per week do you travel to the office (i.e., 

commute)? 

2. How far is your typical daily commute to and from this building?______ 

Miles Roundtrip 

3. Please indicate the number of days 

per week you commute to and from 

this building for each mode of 

transportation that applies. 

Walk 

 Car, truck 

or van -

single 

occupant 

Bus 

Bicycle 

Car, truck or van -

multiple occupants (e.g. 

carpool, vanpool or 

rideshare) 

Train (including light rail) 

Combination of multiple modes (e.g., driving 

to ride share locations then taking mass 

transit) 

Other 

4. Please describe any other issues related to your commute to and from this 

building that are important to you; and/or provide additional detail on your 

modes of transportation as you see fit. 

Part 3 – Personal Workspace Location 

1. On which floor is your workspace located? 

2. In which area of the building is your workspace located? 

3. Are you near a window (within 15 feet)? 

4. Describe your personal workspace. 

127
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 4 – Your Workstation 

In this section, please note your level of satisfaction with features and attributes of your 

workstation. 

If any of these aspects are not important to you, please indicate so instead of answering 

with a level of satisfaction. 

1. How satisfied are you with the comfort of your office furnishings (chair, desk, 

computer, equipment, etc.)? This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

2. How satisfied are you with your ability to adjust your furniture to meet your 

needs? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

3. How satisfied are you with the colors and textures of flooring, furniture, and 

surface finishes? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

4. How satisfied are you with the amount of space available for individual work? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

128
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. How satisfied are you with the level of visual privacy in your workspace? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

6. Please describe any other issues related to your personal workspace that are 

of importance to you. 

Part 5 – Communication 

1. How satisfied are you with your ability to communicate with co-workers in 

person (face to face)? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

2. How satisfied are you with the ease of interaction with co-workers? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

3. How satisfied are you with your ability to communicate in privacy? 

This is not important to me ____ 

 Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

129
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4. How satisfied are you with the availability of space where you and your 

colleagues can talk into a speaker phone together? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

5. Please describe any other issues related to communication with others that 

are important to you. 

Part 6 – Meeting Facilities 

1. How satisfied are you with the availability of meeting rooms on short notice? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

2. How satisfied are you with the availability of equipment in meeting rooms? 

(white boards, speaker phone, computer access, LCD projectors, etc.) 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

3. How satisfied are you with the temperature of meeting rooms? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

130
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. How satisfied are you with the acoustic quality of meeting rooms? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

5. How satisfied are you with the variety of meeting rooms available to you? 

This is not important to me ____ 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

6. Please describe any other issues related to meeting facilities that are 

important to you. 

Part 7 – Work Experiences 

In this section, please rate your level of agreement with the following statements about 

experiences at work. 

1. I look forward to working in the building.

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

2. I am proud to show the office to visitors. 

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

131
 
 

 

 

3. The overall appearance of the workplace is consistent with the mission of the 

agency. 

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

4. There is a good sense of connection to the outdoors from inside the building. 

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

5. There is a definite space that is the 'heart' of the workplace.

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

6. It is easy to locate other people and spaces (offices, meeting rooms, etc.) even 

when I have not been there before. 

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

7. Communication within my group is good. 

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

8. I learn a lot about what is going on by seeing and hearing others. 

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

132
 
 

 

 

9. I often stop and talk to others in corridors or break areas. 

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

10. The security features of our building are adequate. 

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

11. I feel safe walking to and from the building. 

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

12. We have comfortable spaces to have lunch or takes breaks inside the 

building.

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

13. We have adequate restroom facilities in our offices. 

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

14. I use the building stairs rather than the elevator at least once a day.

 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

133
 
 

 

Part 8 – Indoor Environmental Quality 

The following section of the survey focuses on your satisfaction with indoor 

environmental quality in your workplace. How important is each of the following items to 

doing your job well? 

Thermal Comfort 

1. Which of the following do you Window blinds or Operable window 

personally adjust or control in your shades 

workspace? (check all that apply) 

Thermostat Portable heater 

Permanent heater Room airconditioning unit 

Portable fan Ceiling fan

 Adjustable air vent Adjustable air vent 

in wall or ceiling in floor (diffuser) 

Door to interior Door to exterior 

space space 

None of the above Other 

2. How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

Air Quality 

1. How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace (i.e. stuffy/stale air, 

cleanliness, odors)? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

134
 
 

 

Lighting 

1. Which of the following controls do Light switch for Dimmer switch for 

you have over the lighting in your ceiling lights ceiling lights 

workspace? (check all that apply) 

Window blinds or Desk (task) light 

shades 

None of the above Other 

2. How satisfied are you with the amount of light in your workspace? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

3. How satisfied are you with the visual comfort of the lighting (e.g., glare, 

reflections, contrast)? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

4. How satisfied are you with the degree of control you have over the lighting in 

your workspace? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

Windows and Daylight 

1. How satisfied are you with the amount of daylight in your general office area? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

135
 
2. How satisfied are you with your access to a window view? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

Acoustic Quality 

1. How satisfied are you with the noise level in your workspace? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

2. How satisfied are you with the speech privacy in your workspace (ability to 

have conversations without your neighbors overhearing and vice versa)? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

Cleanliness and Maintenance 

1. How satisfied are you with the cleanliness and maintenance of the building? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

Please describe any other issues related to Indoor Environmental Quality that are 

important to you. 

Part 9 – General Comments 

1. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your personal workspace? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

136
 
 

2. How satisfied are you with the building overall? 

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

3. To what extent does your workplace enhance or interfere with your individual 

work effectiveness? 

Enhances interferes 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

4. To what extent does your workplace enhance or interfere with your ability to 

work effectively with others? 

Enhances interferes 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

5. If you wanted to show a visitor around the building, but could only show one 

space, which space would you show? 

6. Any additional comments or recommendations about your personal workspace 

or building overall? 

137
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F: Conversion Factors 

Volume Conversions37 

Water: 

Dry: 

Energy Utility Conversions 

Electricity: 

Natural Gas:

Steam: 

Chilled Water: 

Material Conversions38 

Municipal Solid Waste: 

Recycled Computer Paper: 

Monetary Conversions 

 1 cubic feet = 7.48052 gallons 

1 cubic meter = 264.172 gallons 

1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet 

1 kwh = 3,413 Btu 

1 cubic feet average = 1000 Btu 

1 ccf = 100 cubic feet 

 1mcf = 1000 cubic feet 

1 gigajoule = 948 cubic feet 

 1 therm = 100,000 Btu 

 1 decatherm = 10 therms 

1 lb. steam = 1,000 Btu 

1 ton hour of chilled water = 12,000 Btu 

1 cubic yard = 450 pounds 

1 cubic yard = 655 pounds 

For purposes of this study, Canadian and American dollars were estimated to be at par. 

Currency Exchange: 1 U.S. $ = 1 CDN $ 

139
 
This page was left blank intentionally. 

140
 
 

 

Appendix G: Building Contacts
 

Many GSA site personnel assisted the PNNL research team with this study. The following 

is a list, in alphabetical order, of those that contributed time and data. 

Senior Property Manager, Iowa Office 

Paul Anderson Davenport CH 

Public Buildings Service 

Jonathan Bringewatt Lakewood DOT FB 

Building Engineer - Cottonwood 

Management Services 

Jim Brown Ogden FB 

Property Manager 

Diana Ciryak Cleveland CH 

IRS Real Estate and Facilities 

Management 

Pamela Coleman Ogden FB 

Cottonwood Management Services 

Scott Crews Ogden FB 

Michigan Service Center -Public 

Buildings Service 

Dan Fenner Sault Ste. Marie Port 

Lease Management Representative 

John Garner Omaha NPS FB and Omaha DHS FB 

Asset Management Services 

Christopher Grigsby Denver CH 

Building Engineer - Urban/Meridian 

Joint Venture 

Scott Hawkins Greeneville CH and Knoxville FB 

Public Buildings Service 

Sue Heeren Davenport CH 

Property Manager 

Tina Hingorani Santa Ana FB 

Property Manager 

Jason Hunt Fresno CH & FB 

Property Manager 

Nicholas Infantino Youngstown CH & FB 

Deputy Director - Nebraska Office 

Mary Ann Kosmicki Omaha NPS FB and Omaha DHS FB 

141
 
 

 

Senior Property Manager - Grubb & 

Ellis 

Kristina Lee Omaha NPS FB 

Asset Services - CBRE 

Jill McCormick Omaha DHS FB 

Public Buildings Service 

J. Michael Ortega Denver CH 

Property Manager, Montana Field Office 

Peter Pocius Sweetgrass Port 

Property Manager -Opus Northwest 

Management 

Wendy Schuman Lakewood DOT FB 

Program Analyst 

Sandy Sitton Fresno CH & FB 

Property Manager 

C. Johnathan Sitzlar Greeneville CH and Knoxville FB 

NPS Property Management & 

Office Services 

Don Smyth Omaha NPS FB 

Site Engineer – Public Works and 

Government Services Canada 

Mark Stanford Sweetgrass Port 

Property Manager - Public Works and 

Government Services Canada 

Christopher Wentzell Sweetgrass Port 

Property Manager – Cottonwood 

Management Services 

Stephen West Ogden FB 

142
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

13303 

Appendix H: References 

1

 U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). 2008. Public Buildings Service. Accessed: 

February 2008. 

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8199&channelId=­

2

 U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2007. “Green Building, USGBC, and LEED.” 

Accessed: August 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/showfile.aspx?DocumentID=1991 

3

 GSA. 2004. GSA LEEDTM Cost Study. Accessed: September 2007. http://www.wbdg.org/

4

 Heerwagen, J. 2001. Do Green Buildings Enhance the Well Being of Workers? Environmental 

Design+Construction. 3(4):24-30. Accessed August 2007. 

http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverStoryItem/0,41 

18,19794,00.html 

5

 Matthiessen, LF. 2004. Examining the Cost of Green. Greenbuild 2004 International 

Conference and Expo Proceedings, Portland, Oregon. 

http://www.dladamson.com/Attachment%20Files/Research/The%20full%20report.pdf

6

 Matthiessen, LF and P Morris. 2007. The Cost of Green Revisited. Davis Langdon, San Diego, 

California. http://www.davislangdon.com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2007-The-Costof-Green-Revisited/ 

7

 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal 

Facilities. Interagency Sustainability Working Group, Federal Energy Management Program 

(FEMP), Washington, DC. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/techassist/sustainability.html#business 

8

 Torcellini, P, S Pless, M Deru, B Griffith, N Long, and R Judkoff. 2006. Lessons Learned from 

Case Studies of Six High-Performance Buildings. NREL/TP-550-37542. National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado. 

9

 Diamond, R, M Opitz, B Von Neida, and S Herrera. 2006. Evaluating the Energy Performance 

of the First Generation of LEED-Certified Commercial Buildings. Published in the Proceedings of 

the 2006 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy, Washington DC, August, 2006. LBNL-59853. Accessed June 2007. 

http://epb.lbl.gov/homepages/Rick_Diamond/LBNL59853-LEED.pdf 

10 Turner, C, M Frankel, and B Owens. 2007. “The Energy Performance of LEED 

Buildings.” USGBC Greenbuild Conference 2007, Chicago, Illinois. 

11 Turner, C, and M Frankel. 2008. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings.
 

New Buildings Institute, White Swan, Washington. 

http://www.newbuildings.org/downloads/Energy_Performance_of_LEED-NC_BuildingsFinal_3-4-08b.pdf
 12 Doan, L. 2007. “Administration’s Response to Climate Change and Energy 

Independence.” Statement before the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, May 11, 2007. GSA, Washington, DC. 

143
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 Fowler, KM, AE Solana, and K Spees. 2005. Building Cost and Performance Metrics: Data 

Collection Protocol, Revision 1.0. PNNL-SA-15217. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/pnnl15217.pdf
 14 USGBC. 2008. “US Building Impacts.” US Green Building Council website. Accessed: 

May 2008. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1720
 

15 International Facility Management Association (IFMA). 2004. Benchmarks Research IV Report 

#25. IFMA. Houston, Texas.
 

16 IFMA. 2006. Operations and Management Benchmarks #26. IFMA. Houston, Texas.
 

17 Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International. 2006. Experience 

Exchange Report: Special Studies 2005, Agency Managed, Downtown all sizes, U.S. Government Sector.
 

BOMA International, Washington, DC.
 

18 IFMA. 2004. Benchmarks Research IV Report #25. IFMA. Houston, Texas.
 19 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. 

Government. Accessed: August 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/
 20 USGBC. 2007. “New Energy Credit Required for All LEED Projects.” USGBC Press 

Release, Washington, DC. Accessed: December 2007. http://greenlineblog.com/usgbcpress-release-new-energy-credit-required-for-all-leed-projects/
 21 EIA. "Table C12. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Year Constructed for Sum 

of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003." Accessed: October 2007. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html 

22 IFMA. 2004. Benchmarks Research IV Report #25. IFMA. Houston, Texas. 

23 IFMA. 2006. Operations and Management Benchmarks #26. IFMA. Houston, Texas. 

24 IFMA. 2007. Space and Project Management Benchmarks #28. IFMA. Houston, Texas. 

25 BOMA International. 2006. International Experience Exchange Report: Special Studies 2005, 

Agency Managed, Downtown all sizes, U.S. Government Sector. BOMA International, Washington, 

DC.
 

26 IFMA. 2004. Benchmarks Research IV Report #25. IFMA. Houston, Texas.
 

27 IFMA. 2006. Operations and Management Benchmarks #26. IFMA. Houston, Texas.
 

28 IFMA. 2007. Space and Project Management Benchmarks #28. IFMA. Houston, Texas.
 

29 BOMA International. 2006. International Experience Exchange Report: Special Studies 2005, 

Agency Managed, Downtown all sizes, U.S. Government Sector. BOMA International, Washington, 

DC.
 30 IFMA. 2006. Operations and Management Benchmarks #26. Page 38. IFMA. Houston, Texas. 

31 GSA. 2006. Innovative Workplaces: Benefits and Best Practices. GSA Office of Government-wide 

Policy Office of Real Property Management and Public Buildings Service Office of Applied 

Science, Washington, DC. 

33DOE FEMP. 2007. “U.S. Department of Energy – Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Federal Energy Management Program – Water Efficiency.” Accessed: October 28, 

2007 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/water/water_faqs.html
 34 DOE FEMP. 2007. “Federal Water Use Indices website.” Accessed: May 2007. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/water/water_useindices.html 

144
 
 35 McMordie Stoughton, KL Solana, AE Elliott, DB Sullivan, GP Parker, GB. Update of 

Market Assessment for Capturing Water Conservation Opportunities in the Federal Sector, PNNL15320 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington. 

36 New Mexico Office of State Engineer. 1999. A Water Conservation Guide for Commercial, 

Institutional and Industrial Users. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

37 Bell, AA, Jr.. 2000. HVAC Equations, Data, and Rules of Thumb. McGraw-Hill. Available 

at http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=585&VerticalID=0 

38 EPA. 1997. Measuring Recycling: Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. 

EPA530-R-97-011. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/recycle/recmeas/docs/guide_b.pdf 

145