systems or technology contractor. That contractor, while proficient in
building automation systems, was not able to install all systems and
brought in subcontractors to supplement the installation. The single con-
tractor provided a single point of responsibility for the systems and their
integration. From an organizational perspective all relevant contracts were
“integrated” under the technology contractor. According to Mehaffey,
“Picking one contractor to do this project saved an enormous amount of
not only money, but something more costly, being time. That’s because
we were able to reach out to one partner, consolidate all of the project man-
agement, mobilization and overhead costs into one platform.”Adjustment of the Design Team—The design team used a “Division 17” con-
struction document as the vehicle for procuring the systems. The HVAC
control system, the lighting control system, the fire alarm system, and the
power management system, all of which traditionally would have been
procured from the contractors for Divisions 15 and 16, were procured in
Division 17. A single design engineering company was responsible for the
preparation of the Division 17 specifications and plans. A matrix of respon-
sibilities was prepared to identify responsibilities for contractors.
Single Cabling Contractor—In a traditional installation of 23 building systems,
each system contractor would install or subcontract for installation of sys-
tem cabling. The bulk of the construction cost savings from integrated
building systems is related to how this cable infrastructure is installed,
which in the case of Ave Maria was through a single contractor that was
a subcontractor to the technology contractor. Consolidating the installation
of the cable, the cable pathways, and the space for equipment resulted in
several efficiencies, including less labor being required, less project manage-
ment due to less coordination between contractors, and a reduction in cable
pathways. A single cable contractor was able to procure a larger volume of
materials at a lower per unit price, also reducing cost.
Organizational Consolidation—Ave Maria recognized that information tech-
nology infrastructure was evolving and penetrating other building systems,
also that facility management was taking on technical tools and technology
as a means to manage and operate buildings. In addition, it was acknow-
ledged that some of the services provided by IT and facility management
were identical; each had to monitor and manage systems, respond to users
and occupants, deal with university assets, provide reports, and so forth.
The university’s initiative to consolidate organizationally was based on such
knowledge and the savings and efficiencies to be gained. In addition, staff
members were provided tools that allowed them to view all system manage-
ment software from their Blackberries and smart phones.
206 Smart Building Systems for Architects, Owners, and Builders