Many of us are familiar with the Value Engineering (VE) project phase. Simply put, VE is a process to reduce the projected cost for construction. The goal is to refine systems while maintaining the original design intent. The VE process itemizes cost-saving opportunities for the Day 1 installation, but should also consider cost related to system operations and maintenance. In some cases, VE means reducing project scope or adjusting the design for a phased installation over time. We usually find ourselves in VE-mode out of necessity, when the project budget is at risk. For that reason, VE gets a bad rap.
Despite the cost reduction stigma, I highly recommend every project consider at least a short-version VE process. I suggest VE even if there is not a budget challenge. I say this because VE creates an opportunity to have detailed conversations that may not have surfaced in the design process. For example, a technical Owner Team may be interested in equipment maintenance intervals; or a less technical group may learn why the Design Engineer chose the more expensive Switchgear (UL 1558) instead of Switchboard (UL 891) construction. In this way, VE sessions are also an opportunity to pause and understand what value currently exists in the design.
Whether VE is initiated for cost reduction, or as a good-faith measure to create a better end product, the process requires close coordination across design disciplines. For example, a central lighting inverter may be considered to reduce maintenance costs compared to distributed battery packs and UL 924 devices at all emergency light fixtures. Depending on the design approach, an inverter system could require additional cost due to mechanical cooling and exhaust systems.
Every VE opportunity has trade-offs that must be evaluated thoroughly before proceeding with design changes. For example: with proper installation and attention to maintenance, changing from copper to aluminum usually results in cost savings; this is a common practice, even in healthcare and mission critical market sectors. Still, several considerations must be weighed before making the change to aluminum conductors, such as the number of parallel sets for ampacity, conduit trade sizes, total weight to be supported, approach for conductor termination/product listing, etc. Another VE example: adding commissioning, which sounds like a cost-adder. It can be, or in advanced building types, a qualified commissioning provider may catch significant design oversights that would otherwise have project schedule or system performance impacts. It is this outside-the-box thinking that makes VE applicable for every project.
The VE process is unique to every building design, but having a go-to list of VE items to consider is helpful to have a starting place. In no particular order, I have compiled a list of common electrical system cost reduction opportunities. As we noted above, all of them have trade-offs that need to be evaluated carefully.
If you have further thoughts on any of these or additional electrical VE items, please comment!
- Right-size system capacities
- Remove equipment pads
- Aluminum conductors instead of copper
- Aluminum wound transformers instead of copper
- Remove or add equipment Factory or Integrator Witness Testing (FWT/IWT)
- Remove or add commissioning
- Less expensive light fixture types
- Less complicated lighting control strategies
- Consider multi-wire branch circuits
- Allow more underground feeders
- Consider busway or cable bus for large feeders
- Centralize distribution for emergency back-up systems
- Direct buried conductors in place of in-conduit
- Direct buried duct bank in place of concrete-encased
- Reduce electrical metering/monitoring requirements
- Utilize cable trays in select locations instead of conduit
- Reconsider the percentage of future or spare system capacity
- Allow more general-purpose receptacles and lights on branch circuits
- Reconsider the branch circuit approach for powered furniture
- Reduce energy or fuel storage back-up times to code minimum
- Allow use of Flexible Metallic Conduit (FMC) in some locations
- For steel structures, utilize columns for lightning protection down-leads
- Change from UL 891 Switchboard to UL 1558 Switchgear construction
- Consider breaker types (insulated case, molded case, power circuit breakers)
- Review design voltages and determine if a higher voltage is a more economical install
- Utilize 100% rated circuit breaker assemblies to reduce equipment footprints and feeder sizes
- Remove optional systems when not required by code or Owner insurance, such as lightning protection
- If allowed by code, such as in Wisconsin (SPS 316.220), and appropriate for the design: size feeders/services based on historical demand of a similar type of building (other than one- and two-family dwelling units)