June 5, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Buildings and Grounds Committee:
Timothy B. Robertson, Chair
Hunter E. Craig
Helen E. Dragas
Kevin J. Fay
Frank E. Genovese
William H. Goodwin Jr.
John A. Griffin
John L. Nau III
George Keith Martin, Ex Officio
Timothy Beatley, Faculty Consulting Member
and
The Remaining Members of the Board and Senior Advisor:
Frank B. Atkinson
Allison Cryor DiNardo
Marvin W. Gilliam Jr.
Margaret N. Gould
Victoria D. Harker
Bobbie G. Kilberg
Stephen P. Long, M.D.
Edward D. Miller, M.D.
Linwood H. Rose
Leonard W. Sandridge Jr.
FROM:
Susan G. Harris
SUBJECT:
Minutes of the Meeting of the Buildings and Grounds
Committee on June 5, 2014
The Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Visitors of
the University of Virginia met, in Open Session, at 3:05 p.m., on
Thursday, June 5, 2014, in the Auditorium of the Albert & Shirley
Small Special Collections Library of the Harrison Instute; Timothy B.
Robertson, chair, presided.
Hunter E. Craig, Kevin J. Fay, William H. Goodwin Jr., John A.
Griffin, John L. Nau III, and Leonard W. Sandridge Jr. were present.
Also present was Timothy Beatley, Faculty Consulting Member.
Buildings and Grounds Committee
June 5, 2014
2.
Present as well were Teresa A. Sullivan, Susan G. Harris, Patrick
D. Hogan, Penny Q. Cabaniss, R. Edward Howell, Patricia M. Lampkin,
Megan K. Lowe, David W. Martel, McGregor McCance, David J. Neuman,
William C. Palmer, Nancy A. Rivers, Pamela H. Sellers, Richard P.
Shannon, M.D., Colette Sheehy, Donald E. Sundgren, Robert D. Sweeney,
and Debra D. Rinker.
Mr. Robertson opened the meeting by asking Mr. Neuman to give his
report.
Report by the Architect for the University
Mr. Neuman presented the landscape plan for the Rotunda. Laurie
Olin, 2013 Thomas Jefferson medalist in architecture, has been engaged
to create the landscape design. The east courtyard will be named the
Colgate Darden courtyard and will have a new fountain and enhanced
landscaping. The west courtyard will be designed to be more active.
A fountain may be added, or the space may be used for events without a
fountain in the center. Trees will not grow above the balustrade.
The north terrace will be enhanced so that it is much more useful
to students, faculty, and staff on a daily basis. Plantings will
complement and enhance the view of the Rotunda.
Mr. Neuman’s second item was the University/Emmet/Ivy District
Planning Study. He described current conditions and recommendations
for improvements. The plan includes a suitability analysis which
indicates the characteristics of the land and designates suitable
areas for redevelopment. The Grounds Plan indicates redevelopment
zones in the area. A circulation study will be conducted by an
engineering firm to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
accommodations without degrading vehicular traffic. There are five
zones in the area with different characteristics and possibilities for
improvement.
The landscape plan for this district involves looking at
different typologies at other universities. Some university campuses
are organic and others are planned; some are urban and others are set
in the country. Princeton University is an example of an organic
development in a country setting, as is the University of Virginia.
The defining characteristics of entries to the University include
water and bridges, and they will be used in the landscape plan.
- - - - - - - - EXECUTIVE SESSION
After adopting the following motion, the committee met in
executive session at 3:40 p.m.:
That the Buildings and Grounds Committee go into closed session
to discuss a fundraising strategy and potential gifts from individual
Buildings and Grounds Committee
June 5, 2014
3.
donors for a potential building project, as provided for by Virginia
Code §2.2-3711 A(8).
At 3:50 p.m., the committee left closed session and, on motion,
adopted the following resolution certifying that the deliberations in
closed session had been conducted in accordance with the exemptions
permitted by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act:
That we vote on and record our certification that, to the best of
each Member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements and which were identified in
the motion authorizing the closed session, were heard, discussed or
considered in closed session.
- - - - - - - - Action Items
On motion, the committee approved the following resolution:
NAMING OF THE PARK AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE BATTLE BUILDING AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL
WHEREAS, the Medical Center has obtained significant support from
alumni, faculty, friends, and grateful parents for the new Battle
Building, an outpatient facility for comprehensive children’s health;
and
WHEREAS, Nancy E. Artis graduated from the Curry School of
Education in 1968 and received her doctorate from the Curry School in
1980. She is a certified Child Life Specialist who became affiliated
with the Children’s Hospital in 1972; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Artis, in addition to serving on the board of the
UVA Health Foundation and on the Children’s Hospital Committee, serves
as the Educational Director for the Hospital Education Program, a
state operated program that provides a broad range of school and
extracurricular services to help normalize hospital stays; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Artis and her husband, Mr. Douglas Caton, have been
major benefactors of the Children’s Hospital;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors names the park at the entrance to
the Battle Building at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital
the Nancy Artis & Douglas Caton Family Park.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Revision to the Major Capital Projects Program – McCormick Road
Residence Hall Renovation
Discussion ensued about whether the McCormick Road residence
halls should be renovated or torn down and rebuilt with more rooms.
Buildings and Grounds Committee
June 5, 2014
4.
Ms. Lampkin spoke to the advantage for the first year experience of
smaller dorms that create a residential community. She said the
McCormick Road dorms anchor the first year experience.
An alternative proposed was to add another floor to the current
buildings. Mr. Kovatch said structurally they are not able to carry
another floor without extensive strengthening. He said the cost to
tear down and rebuild is significantly more — about twice the cost of
renovating.
The President said a report would be provided to the committee in
September that analyzes the alternatives.
The following resolution was approved:
REVISION TO THE MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM – MCCORMICK ROAD
RESIDENCE HALL RENOVATION
WHEREAS, the University proposes the addition of the McCormick
Road Residence Hall Renovation to the Major Capital Projects Program;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors approves the addition of the
McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation, at an estimated cost between
$85.8 million and $104.7 million, to the University’s Major Capital
Projects Program.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Architect/Engineer Selection
The committee approved the following architect/engineer
selection:
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, GILMER HALL AND CHEMISTRY BUILDING
RENOVATION PROJECT
RESOLVED, Perkins + Will of Washington, D.C. is approved for
performance of architectural and engineering services for the Gilmer
Hall and Chemistry Building Renovation project.
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, MCCORMICK ROAD RESIDENCE HALL RENOVATION
PROJECT
RESOLVED, Clark Nexsen of Norfolk, Virginia is approved for
performance of architectural and engineering services for the
McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation Project.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
Mr. Neuman presented the concept, site, and design guideline
items. He explained the importance of renovating Gilmer Hall and the
Chemistry building to improve their utility. The curtain wall on
Buildings and Grounds Committee
June 5, 2014
5.
Gilmer Hall will not be replaced, and so the design of the façade will
come back to the committee for consideration, as will a balcony on the
Chemistry building. Other changes will be interior and will not come
to the committee for consideration.
The following resolution was approved:
CONCEPT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GILMER HALL AND CHEMISTRY BUILDING
RENOVATION
RESOLVED, the concept and design guidelines, dated June 5, 2014,
prepared by the Architect for the University for the renovation of
Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building, are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The following resolution was approved subject to the report,
requested by the committee, on alternatives to renovating the existing
residence halls:
CONCEPT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MCCORMICK ROAD RESIDENCE HALL
RENOVATION PROJECT
RESOLVED, the concept and design guidelines, dated June 5, 2014,
prepared by the Architect for the University for the renovation of the
McCormick Road Residence Halls, are approved.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Howell explained the need to renovate the Emergency
Department. He said the bed expansion part of the project is under
consideration, but if they conclude they will move forward with this,
it will come back to the committee for consideration.
On motion, the following resolution was approved:
CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT/
OPERATING ROOM/PATIENT BED EXPANSION
RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated June 5,
2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for the Emergency
Department/Operating Room/Patient Bed Expansion project, are approved;
and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Neuman showed slides of the planned site for the
Contemplative Sciences Center next to the Dell off of Emmet Street.
Buildings and Grounds Committee
June 5, 2014
6.
He said the scale of the building will not compete with neighboring
buildings.
On motion, the following resolution was approved:
CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTEMPLATIVE SCIENCES
CENTER
RESOLVED, the concept, site and design guidelines, dated June 5,
2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for the
Contemplative Sciences Center, are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ms. Sheehy said the Code of Virginia allows the Board of Visitors
to nominate a representative to the state Art and Architectural Review
Board, and the Governor makes the final selection. She said the
University would like to nominate Helen A. Wilson and Luis Carrazana,
both in the Office of the Architect.
On motion, the following resolution was approved:
NOMINATION TO THE ART AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 2.2-2400 of the Code of Virginia, the
Governor appoints five citizen members to the Art and Architectural
Review Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Code provides that one member may be appointed from
a list of persons nominated by the governing board of the University
of Virginia;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors recommends to the Governor that
Luis A. Carrazana and Helen A. Wilson be considered for appointment as
a citizen member to the Art and Architectural Review Board.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Report by the Vice President for Management and Budget
Ms. Sheehy said the University won a national engineering award
from Engineering News Record for the Medical Center hospital expansion
and helipad project. This is the first award of its kind that the
University has won. At the same time, the UVA Foundation’s
Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM) in Petersburg
won the best manufacturing project.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Robertson provided some final comments. He said the New
Cabell Hall renovation is quite impressive and those who have not seen
Buildings and Grounds Committee
June 5, 2014
7.
it should visit. The back of Old Cabell Hall, which is an homage to
the Rotunda and quite attractive, is now visible.
Mr. Craig thanked Mr. Robertson for his leadership on the Board
and with the committee. Mr. Robertson said it was a joy and delight
to work with such wonderful professionals, and there was a round of
applause.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
SGH
These minutes have been posted to the University of Virginia’s Board of
Visitors website: http://www.virginia.edu/bov/buildingsgroundsminutes.html
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
Buildings and Grounds Committee
University of Virginia
June 5, 2014
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2014
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2014
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2014
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2014
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2014
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2014
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS LESS THAN $5 MILLION
PERIOD ENDED May 14, 2014

There are no architect/engineer selections for capital projects $5M or less for
the period ending May 14, 2014.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
# Professional Contracts by FY
350
324
319
300
249
# of Contracts
250
256
255
211
197
200
150
136
Total Virginia Contracts
135
Total Out-of-State Contracts
89
100
82
78
61
54
50
0
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010 - 2011 2011 -2012 2012 - 2013
FY Period
07/01/13 03/31/14
(FYTD)
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
Professional Contract Fees by FY
$35.0
$30.2
$30.0
Million $'s
$25.0
$20.0
$18.9
Total Virginia Contracts (M)
$15.0
Total Out-of-State Contracts (M)
$10.4
$10.0
$8.3
$10.5
$10.1
$8.2
$7.2$7.4
$10.2
$6.7
$7.1
$5.2
$5.0
$2.4
$0.0
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
2010 2011
2011 -2012
FY Period
2012 2013
07/01/13 03/31/14
(FYTD)
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
PAVILION OCCUPANCY STATUS
AS OF APRIL 2014
Pavilion
Occupants
I
Robert Pianta
II
Meredith Woo
III
Harry Harding
IV
Larry J. Sabato
V & Annex
Patricia Lampkin
VI
Robert D. Sweeney
VII
Colonnade Club
VIII Upper
Apartment
John Colley
VIII Terrace
Apartment
Gerald Warburg
IX
Dorrie Fontaine
X
Nancy E. Dunlap, M.D.
Montebello
James H. Aylor
Sunnyside
Artificial Pancreas Project
Weedon
House
Carl P. Zeithaml
Assigne
d
Available
Comments
Novembe Occupied Pavilion III from
Winter
r
Spring 2008 until Winter
2010
2018
2010
Septemb Septembe
er
r
2009
2014
Spring January 1,
2010
2015
Extended an additional five
October Spring
years in November 2010,
2002
2018 from Spring 2013 to May 11,
2018
Occupied Pavilion III from
Spring August 1,
Summer 2005 until Spring
2008
2018
2008
Fall
Fall
2012
2017
April
2011
April
2016
March
2012
July
2011
March
2017
July
2016
Novembe
r
2014
August
2015
March
2015
July
2016
May
2013
April
2012
April
2013
July
2011
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
Smiddy Hall Renovation and Addition Project
Executive Summary
March 25, 2014
I. Background
As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review
Committee for Capital Development stipulated in April 2004 that Post-Occupancy
Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after occupancy.
II. Purpose
The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process is a “lessons learned” exercise to improve
the design, construction, operation, and user satisfaction of future buildings by providing
an assessment of completed projects. It identifies architectural, engineering, interior, and
other functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process
supports the University’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program
by addressing the LEED credit requiring a survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal
comfort.
III. Methodology
Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to faculty and staff,
and 2) a maintenance assessment. The survey team consisted of the Senior Program
Manager from the Office of the Architect for the University, the College’s Vice Chancellor for
Finance and Administration, and the College’s Director of Capital Operations and Planning.
Reviews were provided by the Architect for the University, the University’s Chief Facilities
Officer, and the University Building Official.
IV. Project Description
Smiddy Hall is a two story structure originally constructed in 1974 as a general classroom
and faculty office building. The building is located at the College’s main entrance. The
recent project had three components: 1) renovation of the main core; 2) demolition and
reconstruction of the west wing, and 3) the addition of an east wing for the Information and
Technology Department. The original GSF was 21,500. The current GSF is 30,000.
The building was reprogrammed and reconfigured to provide spaces that align with the
College’s projected needs. Program spaces include large and small classrooms; faculty
offices; office suites for the Provost and Academic Dean; and a data center. The project
addressed infrastructure, code, life safety, ADA, and energy efficiency issues. Construction
began in November 2008 and was completed in July 2011. The project’s LEED Certification
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
was delayed due to ongoing HVAC commissioning. Those items have been resolved and
certification is pending.
V. Survey Response Rate
The survey was distributed to 25 faculty and 21 staff. There were 21 respondents for a
46% response rate. Respondents included 13 faculty and 8 staff.
VI. Overall Project Assessment
95% of the respondents have an overall positive impression of the building. Response
rates to the individual questions vary significantly. Positive response rates range from a
low of 24% to a high of 95%. Negative response rates range from a low of 0% to a high of
71%.
The majority of the positive responses are below 80%. Only 27% are in the 80% to 100%
range. On the other hand, 85% of the negative responses are less than 20%.
Given that 73% of the positive responses are less than 80% one would expect to see a high
percentage of questions with negative response rates in excess of 20%. For this survey
only 15% of the questions have negative response rates exceeding 20%. This is due to the
fact that 46% of the questions have neutral response rates that are above 20%.
The survey focused on 5 program areas: 1) classrooms; 2) the psychology lab; 3) seminar
and conference rooms; 4) the IT conference room; and 5) offices/workstations.
The positive responses rates for the functioning of these spaces range from 91% (offices /
workstations) to 62% (psychology lab). Except for classrooms, negative response rates
range from 0% to 8%. The classroom negative rate is 27%. The classrooms may have
received a higher negative rate because of their proportions. Several comments note the
difficulty of teaching in spaces that are either long and narrow or excessively wide.
Except for the offices and workstations, sound privacy does not appear to be an issue. The
audio/visual system and furniture receive relatively high positive responses and low
negative responses.
VII. LEED Certification
The survey includes a question about the importance of a LEED certification. 70% of the
respondents indicate that it is important, 15% are neutral, and 15% indicate that it is not
important.
VIII. Building Temperatures and Thermal Comfort
The thermal comfort verification credit for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED
certification program stipulates that a corrective action plan is to be developed if more
than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the building’s thermal comfort. 53% of the
respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the temperatures, and 71% indicate
that the temperatures negatively impact their work. 19% are dissatisfied with the air
quality.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
Based on the negative response rate, the College must develop a corrective action plan.
IX. Summary Response Tabulation
A summary table of the survey responses is on the following page. The questions for each
of the principal survey areas are listed in order from the highest to lowest positive
response rates. Because of rounding, the percentages for some questions may not total
100%.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
Response Tabulation
All Respondents
November 29, 2013
Positive Responses
Total
+3
+2
Neutral
+1
Negative Responses
+1
+2
+3
Total
General Building Questions
Overall Assessment
95%
43%
43% 10%
0%
5%
0%
0%
5%
Adequacy of Lobby Seating
81%
24%
14% 43%
14%
5%
0%
0%
5%
Comfort of Lobby Seating
76%
14%
14% 48%
24%
0%
0%
0%
0%
74%
26%
37% 11%
21%
0%
5%
0%
5%
70%
30%
25% 15%
15%
10%
0%
5%
15%
Satisfaction with Air Quality
Satisfaction with the Building Temperatures
76%
43%
10%
14%
57% 10%
24% 5%
5%
5%
14% 5% 0%
24% 19% 10%
19%
53%
Impact of the Temperatures on Work
24%
10%
10%
5%
5%
33% 29% 10%
71%
Satisfaction with the Acoustics
81%
13%
63%
6%
19%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Adequacy of the Audio/Visual Systems
81%
13%
63%
6%
13%
6%
0%
0%
6%
Satisfaction with the Furniture
71%
12%
35% 24%
18%
6%
0%
6%
12%
Function
67%
7%
40% 20%
7%
20%
7%
0%
27%
Satisfaction with Sound Privacy
63%
6%
50%
6%
25%
13%
0%
0%
13%
Function
62%
15%
46%
0%
31%
0%
8%
0%
8%
Satisfaction with Sound Privacy
54%
15%
39%
0%
46%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Function
81%
13%
50% 19%
13%
0%
6%
0%
6%
Adequacy of the Audio/Visual Systems
75%
6%
50% 19%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Satisfaction with the Furniture
69%
6%
63%
0%
25%
0%
0%
6%
6%
Satisfaction with Sound Privacy
63%
13%
44%
6%
38%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Satisfaction with the Furniture
69%
23%
46%
0%
31%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Function
67%
33%
25%
8%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Satisfaction with Sound Privacy
64%
18%
46%
0%
36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Adequacy of the Audio/Visual Systems
42%
17%
25%
0%
42%
17%
0%
0%
17%
Function
91%
24%
52% 14%
5%
5%
0%
0%
5%
Satisfaction with the Layout
81%
19%
38% 24%
5%
14%
0%
0%
14%
Satisfaction with Sound Privacy
65%
20%
40%
5%
15%
5%
10%
30%
Safety
Sense of Safety in Areas Around the Building
LEED Certification
Importance of LEED Certification
Thermal Comfort
Classrooms
Psychology Lab
Seminar and Conference Rooms
IT Conference Room
Offices/Workstations
Note: Because of rounding percentages may not total 100.
5%
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
X. Maintenance Assessment
The number one problem we have encountered has been the boilers. There have been
ignition problems since the day of turnover requiring near daily manual restarts. Repeated
visits, analysis, and fixes were attempted. A recent alteration made in November, 2013
seems to have alleviated the issue to a great degree. While there have been three alarms
since then, there have been no actual boiler failures requiring a manual restart. The boilers
are now operating properly.
Several aspects of the HVAC design are commendable, including the inclusion of backup
pumps and two boilers. There is an instance of one thermostat serving two offices which
has brought about some conflict over room temperatures.
Outside, the metal tactile warning strips at the top of the main entrance stairs have proven
to be a maintenance issue, with several being dislodged and causing problems during ice
events, with the strips preventing efficient clearing and melting of the ice.
XI. Actions and Recommendations
A. Temperature: 53% of respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the
temperatures, and 71% indicate that the temperatures negatively impact their work.
19% are dissatisfied with the air quality.
Action (Corrective): To deal with the occupant dissatisfaction with thermal
comfort, the College has developed the following corrective action plan:
Background: The underlying cause of many of the temperature complaints is
undoubtedly rooted with the problems with the building’s boilers. Since the
turnover of the project, the boilers have had trouble with ignition failures, causing
daily alarms and necessitating manual restarts.
Corrective Actions Taken to Date: The design engineers as well as the contractors
and suppliers have been constantly and diligently analyzing and adjusting the
equipment and its systems in an effort to fix the problem. It appears that a recent
adjustment in early November 2013 has alleviated the problem, with only three
alarms having been reported since then, with none of them being actual failures of
the boilers to ignite.
Future Actions: The survey responses noted instances of hot and cold spots in the
building. The project’s commissioning agent was on site in January 2014 to
complete his analysis; these issues were discussed at that time with the appropriate
entities. Going forward, we can run reports to analyze fluctuations that may
indicate balance or programming issues. It is anticipated that with fully functioning
boilers, a test and balance adjustment, and final commissioning, the building’s
occupants will be much more satisfied with room temperatures.
Recommendation (For Future Buildings):
Not Applicable.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
B. Classroom Configuration: Three faculty comment that long and narrow or
extremely wide classrooms have a negative impact on teaching.
Action (Corrective): Corrective action is not feasible.
Recommendation (For Future Buildings):
Room proportions
should be carefully considered when designing classrooms
with the understanding that long and narrow or extremely
wide rooms can have a negative impact on teaching.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
David J. Prior Convocation Center
Executive Summary
March 25, 2014
I. Background
As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review
Committee for Capital Development stipulated in April 2004 that Post Occupancy
Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after occupancy.
II. Purpose
The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process is a “lessons learned” exercise to improve
the design, construction, operation, and user satisfaction of future buildings by providing
an assessment of completed projects. It identifies architectural, engineering, interior, and
other functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process
supports the University’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program
by addressing the LEED credit requiring a survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal
comfort.
III. Methodology
Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to coaches, facility
staff, and student athletes, and 2) a maintenance assessment. The process team consisted
of the Senior Program Manager from the Office of the Architect for the University, the
College’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and the College’s Director of
Capital Operations and Planning. Reviews were provided by the Architect for the
University, the University’s Chief Facilities Officer, and the University Building Official.
IV. Project Description
The David J. Prior Convocation Center is a 78,000 gross square-foot facility that seats 3,000
for sporting events and 3,600 for concerts or conventions. The Center enables the College
to host athletic tournaments and regional events. The building’s program includes 1) a
main event space, 2) concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces, 3) a Chancellor’s Lounge,
4) a catering space, 5) locker rooms, 6) a training room, and 7) offices. Construction began
in June 2009 and was completed in August 2011. The project received a LEED Silver
Certification.
V. Survey Response Rate
The survey was distributed to 58 building occupants. There were 11 respondents for a
19% response rate. Respondents included 3 coaches, 6 facility staff, and 2 student athletes.
VI. Summary Assessment
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
100% of the respondents have an overall positive impression of the building. Positive
response rates to the survey questions range from a low of 50% to a high of 100%.
Negative response rates range from a low of 0% to a high of 25% with 19 questions (73%)
receiving no negative responses. 19 questions receive neutral responses ranging from a
low of 20% to a high of 50%.
The survey addressed seven of the building’s main program areas: 1) a main event space,
2) concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces, 3) a chancellor’s lounge, 4) catering space, 5)
locker rooms, 6) training room, and 7) offices.
Of all of the program areas, the main event space receives the highest positive response
rates for functionality. These are for basketball / volleyball games (90%), large assemblies
(90%), and concerts / performances (80%). Response rates for lighting are 80% positive
and 20% neutral. The rates for the audio system are 70% positive, 10% neutral, and 20%
negative.
The concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces receive positive, neutral and negative
responses. Response rates for functionality are 60% positive and 40% neutral. Response
rates for the effectiveness of their layouts are 50% positive, 30% neutral, and 20%
negative.
The Chancellor’s Lounge receives positive and neutral responses. Response rates for
functionality are 70% positive and 30% neutral. Rates for furniture are 50% positive and
50% neutral.
The catering space receives positive and neutral responses. Response rates for
functionality and layout are 67% positive and a 33% neutral. One staff member states,
“This was a great design.”
The locker rooms receive positive and neutral responses. The rates for functionality are
78% positive and 22% neutral rate. The response rates for layout and lighting are 89%
positive and 11% neutral. Respondents note: “We always get compliments on them for
being above and beyond what other locker rooms look and feel like.” “Centerpieces of the
building.”
The training room receives positive, neutral, and negative responses. The rates for
functionality are 67% positive, 22% neutral, and 11% negative. The rates for its layout are
56% positive, 33% neutral, and 11% negative. The rates for lighting are 78% positive and
22% neutral.
The offices receive the lowest positive response rates and some of the higher negative
response rates. The rates for functionality are 50% positive, 38% neutral, and 13%
negative. The rates for layout are 50% positive, 25% neutral, and 25% negative. The rates
for sound privacy are 63% positive and 37% neutral.
Based on negative response rates, respondents are primarily dissatisfied with the layout of
the offices, the audio systems in the main event space, and the layout of the concessions,
retail, and ticket sales spaces.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
VII. LEED Certification
The survey includes a question about the importance of a LEED certification. 80% of the
respondents indicate that it is important; 20% are neutral.
VIII. LEED Thermal Comfort Verification
The thermal comfort verification credit for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED
certification program stipulates that a corrective action plan be developed if more than
20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the building’s thermal comfort. None of the
Convocation Center respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the building
temperatures. 70% are satisfied with the room temperatures; 30% are neutral. 80%
indicate that the temperatures have a positive impact on their use of the facility; 20% are
neutral. 80% are satisfied with the air quality; 20% are neutral. Based on the response
rates, a corrective action plan is not warranted.
IX. Summary Response Tabulation
A summary table of the survey responses is on the following page. The questions for each
of the main program areas are listed in order from the highest to lowest positive response
rates. Because of rounding, the percentages for some questions may not total 100%.
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
Response Tabulation
All Respondents
November 30, 2013
Positive Responses
Total
+3
+2
Neutral
+1
Negative Responses
+1
+2
+3
Total
General Building Questions
Overall Assessment
100%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Adequacy of Parking
80%
30%
20%
30%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
80%
20%
60%
0%
10%
10%
0%
0%
10%
80%
10%
20%
50%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
80%
80%
70%
30%
20%
20%
40%
30%
30%
10%
30%
20%
20%
20%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
60%
30%
30%
10%
10%
20%
40%
30%
40%
50%
10%
20%
20%
30%
10%
10%
10%
20%
20%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
60%
50%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
10%
40%
30%
0%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
20%
70%
50%
30%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
30%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
67%
67%
44%
44%
11%
11%
11%
11%
33%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
89%
89%
78%
56%
56%
44%
0%
11%
11%
33%
22%
22%
11%
11%
22%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
78%
67%
56%
44%
11%
11%
33%
33%
33%
0%
22%
11%
22%
22%
33%
0% 0%
11% 0%
0% 11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
11%
63%
50%
50%
25%
13%
13%
13%
25%
25%
25%
13%
13%
38%
38%
25%
0%
0%
13%
0%
13%
13%
0%
13%
25%
Safety
Sense of Safety in Areas Around the Building
LEED Certification
Importance of LEED Certification
Thermal Comfort
Satisfaction with Air Quality
Impact of Temperature on Use of Building
Satisfaction with Building Temperature
Event Space
Performance of Space for Basketball / Volleyball
Performance of Space for Large Assemblies
Performance of Space for Concerts / Performances
Satisfaction with Lighting
Satisfaction with Audio Systems
Concessions/Retail/Ticket Sales
Function
Satisfaction with Layout
Chancellor's Lounge
Function
Satisfaction with Furnishings
Catering Space
Function
Satisfaction with Layout
Locker Rooms
Satisfaction with Layout
Satisfaction with Lighting
Function
Training Room
Satisfaction with Lighting
Function
Satisfaction with Layout
Offices
Satisfaction with Sound Privacy
Function
Satisfaction with Layout
Note: Because of Rounding, Totals May not Equal 100
0%
0%
0%
Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services
Contracts
Quarter Ended March 31, 2014
X. Maintenance Assessment
Considering the tremendous amount of publicity this facility has garnered both on campus
and from outside the campus community, the overall design and functionality of this
building has proven to be a great success in most every area.
Backup boilers and pumps in the HVAC design are greatly appreciated while the generator
backup system has functioned well and is a welcome addition to campus emergency
planning.
The lifespan of some light bulbs have proven to be an issue, particularly over the practice
court area, which is a challenging area to access. Catwalks in the high ceilings would have
been a welcome addition to the design, although it is acknowledged that this was a
budgetary decision not to include them.
The wood athletic flooring has had some small, isolated issues with separation and
elevation. It is believed that building humidity issues have contributed to this, causing the
wood to shrink and crack.
There have also been some isolated instances of water infiltration through the window
glazing in the Chancellor’s Lounge although the location (corner of the building, subject to
strong winds and precipitation) and large size of the glass likely contributes to this.
In the site design, the fact that sod was used in many areas was a tremendous success and
one that should be included in future designs whenever possible. The lack of high quality
top soil availability in the area has contributed to some minor problems. Excessive plant
beds (considering the landscaping staff size) and the placement of beds on steep slopes,
which have caused continuous mulch erosion, are also a maintenance concerns.
XI. Actions and Recommendations
A. Main Event Space Audio System: The audio system receives a 20% negative
response rate, the second highest negative rate.
Action (Corrective): Upgrade the sound system when funding is available.
Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.
B. Main Event Space Lighting: One of the coaches expresses a desire to be able to
control the lighting in this space. “I wish there was a way for the coaches to control
the lights on the main court and on the practice court……”
Action (Corrective): Explore the feasibility of enhanced lighting controls.
Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.
C. Locker Room Lights: While the locker rooms receive only positive and neutral
responses, one coach notes that they should be able to control all of the lights when
they watch films. “Lighting is tough, because when we go to watch film I can never
turn off all the lights...only some, would like the ability to shut the lights off.”
Action (Corrective): Explore the feasibility of enhanced lighting controls.
Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.