Anexo A Tablas de puntuación

Tablas de puntuación 1

Carlota Mas Carrera

Anexo A

Tablas de puntuación

Este anejo recoge las tablas de puntuación que rigen los criterios de la certificación DGNB. En dichas tablas se especifican los requerimientos o valores a seguir y su correspondiente puntuación.

Criterio 15

2 Anexo A

Adaptación a nivel nacional del sistema de evaluación alemán DGNB

Tabla A.15


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 16

Tabla A.16

Criterio 17

4 Anexo A


Tabla A.17.1

Tabla A.17.3

Criterio 18 y 19

Tabla A.18. 1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.18.3

Tabla A.19.1

Criterio 21

Tabla A.21.1

6 Anexo A


Tabla A.21.2

Tabla A.21.3

Tabla A.21.4

Criterio 22

Tabla A.22.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.22.2

Tabla A.22.3

Tabla A.22.4

Tabla A.22.5

8 Anexo A


Tabla A.22.6

Tabla A.22.7

Criterio 23

Tabla A.23.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.23.2

Tabla A.23.3

Tabla A.23.4

Tabla A.23.5

10 Anexo A


Tabla A.23.6

Tabla A.23.7


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 24

Tabla A.24.1

Tabla A.24.2

12 Anexo A


Criterio 25

Tabla A.25.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.25.2

14 Anexo A


Criterio 26

Tabla A.26


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 27

Tabla A.27

Criterio 28

Tabla A.28.1

Tabla A.28.2.1

16 Anexo A


Tabla A.28.2.2

Tabla A.28.3.1

Tabla A.28.3.2

Tabla A.28.3.3

Tabla A.28.4.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.28.4.2

Tabla A.28.4.3

Criterio 29

Tabla A.29.1

Tabla A.29.2

Tabla A.29.3

18 Anexo A


Tabla A.29.4

Tabla A.29.5

Criterio 30

Tabla A.30.1

Tabla A.30.2


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 31

Tabla A.31.1

Tabla A.31.2

Tabla A.31.3

Tabla A.31.4

20 Anexo A


Criterio 32

Tabla A.32.2

Tabla A.32.3

Criterio 34

Tabla A.34.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.34.2

Tabla A.34.3

Tabla A.34.4

22 Anexo A


Criterio 35

Tabla A.35.1

Tabla A.35.2

Tabla A.35.3


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.35.4

Tabla A.35.5

Tabla A.35.6

Criterio 40

Tabla A.40.1

24 Anexo A


Tabla A.40.3.1

Tabla A.40.3.2

Criterio 42

Tabla A.42.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.42.2

Tabla A.42.3

Criterio 43

Tabla A.43.1

26 Anexo A


Tabla A.43.2


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.43.3

28 Anexo A


Tabla A.43.4

Criterio 44

Tabla A.44.3


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.44.4

30 Anexo A


Tabla A.44.5

Criterio 45

Tabla A.45.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.45.2

32 Anexo A


Tabla A.45.3


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.45.4

34 Anexo A


Tabla A.45.5


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.45.6

36 Anexo A


Tabla A.45.7


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.45.8

Tabla A.45.9

38 Anexo A


Tabla A.45.10

Criterio 46


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.46.1

40 Anexo A


Tabla A.46.2

Criterio 47

Tabla A.47.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.47.2

Tabla A.47.3

42 Anexo A


Tabla A.47.4


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 48

Tabla A.48.1

44 Anexo A


Tabla A.48.2


Carlota Mas Carrera

Tabla A.48.3

46 Anexo A


Tabla A.48.4


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 49

Tabla A.49

48 Anexo A


Criterio 50

Tabla A.50.1


Carlota Mas Carrera

Criterio 51

Tabla A.51

50 Anexo A


Tabla A.50.2

Organización

Metodología Checklist

Categorías Weighting Max Pionts Max Weighted % points Weighting

Sustainable sites 23,60% 26 Land Use & Ecology 10% Environmental Quality 22,50%

Water efficency 9,10% 10 Water 6% Economical quality 22,50%

Energy & Atmosphere 31,90% 35 Energy 19% Socio-cultural and functional quality 22,50%

Materials and Resources 12,70% 14 Materials 12,50% Technical quality 22,50%

Indoor Environmental Quality 13,60% 15 Health & Wellbeing 15% Process quality 10%

Innovation & Design Process 5,50% 6 Transport 8% Site quality independent

Regional Priority 3,60% 4 Waste 7,50%

Pollution 10%

Management 12%

Innovation (additional) 10%

Total 100% 110 Total 110%

Requerimentos 56 en total 51 en total 42 en total

Requerimentos

Obligatorios12 ( NO considerados para el análisis) 23 (considerados para el análisis)

Requerimentos

Optativos44 créditos optativos 28 créditos optativos

Sistema puntuación

Puntos variados determinados para cada

requerimento optativo y según la opción que se

cumpla

Puntos fijos (1, 2 o 3) para todos los

requerimentos, según la opción del

requerimento atendida

Máximo 10 puntos por criterio pero a

cada uno se le aplica un factor de

relevancia.

Sistema ponderación no existe ponderación

Valores definidos por un asesor

BREEAM según localización y contexto

geopolítico Valores definidos por DGNB

Sistema clasificación

4 Niveles:

LEED certificate ( 40 a 49 ptos)

LEED silver (50 a 59 ptos)

LEED gold (60 a 79 ptos)

LEED platinium (más de 80 ptos)

5 niveles:

Pass ( 25-39%)

Good (40-54%)

Very Good (55-69%)

Excellent (70-84%)

Outstanding (más del 85%)

3 niveles:

Bronze 50-64,9%

Silver 65-79,9%

Gold ≥ 80%

Certification phasesDesign

Construction

Design Stage

Post-Construction Stage review

Assessment

Project Development

Planning

Construction

Fortalezas

Cuenta con un marketing fuerte que potencia su

difusión

Mucha información disponible para aplicar el

método

No requiere de un certificador acreditado

Dispone de una auditoría independiente

Puede evaluar cualquier edificio con la

versión internacional

Debilidades

Basado en el sistema de unidades de EEUU

Requiere abundante documentación

Carece de auditoría independiente de la

evaluación

Cuando se mezclan funciones y técnicas

constructivas diferentes se complica la evaluación

Requerimientos muy exactos

Sistema de ponderación complejo

Adaptado a la legislación de UK

Numero de edificios certificados 5.000 y 26.500 registrados 200.000 170 certificados y 600 registrados

Aspectos Ecológicos 54,00% 65,00% 22,50%

Aspectos Económicos 0,00% 0,00% 22,50%

Aspectos sociales 13,50% 15,00% 15,00%

Aspectos Funcionales 0,00% 8,00% 7,50%

Aspectos Técnicos 0,00% 7,00% 22,50%

Anexo B: Tabla resumen de las certificaciones LEED, BREEAM y DGNB

DGNBLEED

USGBC - United States Green Building Council

Checklist

BREEAM

BRE Global

Checklist

Aspectos de planeamiento 0,00% 1,50% 7,40%

Aspectos de Construcción 0,00% 3,50% 2,60%

Aspectos de Innovación 5,50% 10,00% 0,00%

Aspectos de localización 27,00% 0,00% 0,00%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

Distibución de pesos LEED

Distibución de pesos LEED

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

Distribución de pesos BREEAM

Distribución de pesos BREEAM

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

Distribución de pesos DGNB

Distribución de pesos DGNB

LEED

LEED Impactos Indicadores

Carbon Footprint Building system

Fossil Fuel Depletion Transportation

Water Use Water

Land use Materials

Acidification Solid Waste

Eutrophication Land Use

Ozone Depletion

Smog Formation

Edotozicity

Particulates

Human Health-Cancer

Human Health-Non Cancer

Indoor Quality

Categorias evaluación LEED:Nº prerrequisitos

Puntos de

Creditos

% puntos

sistema

Smart Location & Linkage 5 27 24,55%

12

10

2

Neighborhood Pattern & Design 3 44 40%

Green Infraestructure & Building 4 29 26,40%

Innovation & Design Process 0 10 9,05%

Localización del desarrollo

Localizaciones preferidas

Reurbanización de áreas degradadas

los prerrequisitos no afectan a la certificación final

BREEAM

Categorias

evaluación BREEAM:Nº prerrequisitos Puntos de Creditos % puntos sistema

Clima y energía 6 27 17,65

Recursos 1 18 11,76

Transporte 5 33 21,57

Ecología 2 9 5,88

Negocios 0 15 9,8

Comunidad 3 12 7,84

Diseño del lugar 4 33 21,57

Edificación 2 6 3,92

Se ponderan las categorías según el contexto del objeto de certificación y la repercusión de

cada categoría puede variar

Los requerimentos obligatorios también repercuten en la certificación final con su

valoración (representan el 45% del total de los requerimentos

17,65

11,76

21,57

5,88

9,8

7,84

21,57

3,92

Clima y energía

Recursos

Transporte

Ecología

Negocios

Comunidad

Diseño del lugar

Edificación

LEED BREEAM DGNB

Aspectos Ecológicos y energéticos 54,00% 65,00% 22,50%

Aspectos Económicos 0,00% 0,00% 22,50%

Aspectos sociales 13,50% 15,00% 15,00%

Aspectos Funcionales 0,00% 8,00% 7,50%

Aspectos Técnicos 0,00% 7,00% 22,50%

Aspectos de planeamiento 0,00% 1,50% 7,40%

Aspectos de Construcción

0,00% 3,50% 2,60%

Aspectos de innovación 5,50% 10,00% 0,00%

Aspectos de localización

27,00% 0,00% 0,00%

100,00% 110,00% 100,00%

0,00%10,00%20,00%30,00%40,00%50,00%60,00%70,00%80,00%90,00%

100,00%

LEED

BREEAM

DGNB

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

80,00%

90,00%

100,00%

LEED BREEAM DGNB

Aspectos de localización

Aspectos de innovación


Aspectos deplaneamiento

Aspectos Técnicos

Aspectos Funcionales

Aspectos sociales

Aspectos Económicos

Aspectos Ecológicos yenergéticos

LEED BREEAM DGNB

Aspectos Ecológicos y

energéticos

Eficiencia del agua

Energía y atmósfera

Materiales y recursos

Energía

Agua

Suelo y ecología

Materiales

Residuos

Polución

Calidad Medioambiental

Aspectos Económicos Economical Quality

Aspectos socialesCalidad del

aire interiorSalud y bienestar

Criterios de Cualidad

sociocultural y funcional:

Salud, confort y satisfacción

del usuario

Calidad estética

Aspectos Funcionales Transporte

Criterios de cualidad

Sociocultural y Funcional :

Funcionalidad

Aspectos Técnicos

Criterios de

Management:

-Páctica de los

asociados

-Contratación

sostenible

Calidad técnica

Aspectos de planeamiento

Criterio de

Management:

-Planeamiento del

servicio en el ciclo de

vida

Criterios de calidad de

Proceso:

Calidad de planificación


Criterios de

Management:

-Responsabilidad en

la construcción

- Impactos de la

construcción

Criterios de calidad de

Proceso:

Calidad de la construcción

Aspectos de innovaciónInnovation & Design

Process

Innovación

(adicional)

Aspectos de localizaciónZonas sostenibles

Prioridad regionalEvaluación independiente

Assesment matrix NOA10

Legend:evaluation points to be entered

checklist points to be entered

fixed value

will be automatically calculated

cell without content

achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

1 Global warming potential

(GWP) 0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%

2 Ozone depletion potential

(ODP) 10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%

3 Photochemical ozone

creation potential (POCP) 10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%

4 Acidification potential (AP)

10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%

5 Eutrophication potential (EP)

10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%

6 Local environmental impact

0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%

8 Sustainable use of

resources / wood 0,00 10 0,00 10 1 0,00 10 0,0%

10 Nonrenewable primary

energy demand (Pnren) 0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%

11 Total primary energy

demand and proportion of

renewable primary energy 0,00 10 0,00 10 2 0,00 20 0,0%

11.1

Total primary energy

demand 0,00 10

11.2

Proportion of renewable

primary energy 0,00 5

14 Drinking water demand and

wastewater volume 3,50 10 3,50 10 2 7,00 20 35,0%

15 Land use

10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

Life c

ycle

costs

16Building-related life-cycle

costs2,00 10 2,00 10 3 6,00 30 20,0%

17 Suitability for third-party use

57,5 100 5,75 10 2 11,50 20 57,5%

17.1

Space efficiency

30,0 30

17.2

Suitability for conversion

27,5 50

17.3

Possibility of modification for

other types of use 0,0 20

18Thermal comfort in the

winter100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

18.1 Operative temperature 70,0 70

18.2 Drafts 10,0 10

18.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10

18.4 Relative humidity 10,0 10


summer100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%

19.1 Operative Temperatur 70,0 70

19.2 Drafts 10,0 10

19.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10


Anexo C: Puntuación según ponderación DGNB

Assesment matrix of the DGNB International Certification System / Occupancy Profile New Office and Administrative Buildings, Version 2010© Copyright 2010 German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB)

Project No.

Project Name

Auditor

Indicators

Score

checklist points / evaluation pointsCrieria points

Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Effects

on the

glo

bal and local

environm

ent

49,7%

Resourc

e c

onsum

ption a

nd w

aste

genera

tion

22,5%

Ec

on

om

ic q

ua

lity

17,50 50,00 35,0% 22,5%

Econom

ic d

evelo

pm

ent

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 22,5%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%20Indoor air quality 25,0 100 2,50 10 3 7,50 30 25,0%

20.1Volatile organic compounds

(TVOC, formaldehyde)0,0 50

49,7%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 22,5%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%20.4

Occupancy-based ventilation

rate25,0 50

21Acoustic comfort 75,0 100 (125) 5,00 10 1 5,00 10 50,0%

21.1

Individual offices and multi-

person offices with

areas of up to 40 m²

25,0 35

21.2 Multi-person offices 15,0 35

21.3 Conference rooms 35,0 35

21.4Cafeterias with an area of > 50

m²0,0 20

22Visual comfort 70,0 100 6,88 10 3 20,64 30 68,8%

22.1Availability of daylight

throughout the building0,0 16

22.2Availability of daylight in

permanently used work areas0,0 14

22.3 Views to the outside 14,0 14

22.4 Glare prevention in daylight 14,0 14

22.5 Preventing glare in artificial light 14,0 14

22.6Light distribution in artificial

lighting conditions14,0 14

22.7 Color rendering 14,0 14

23User influence on building

operation54,0 100 5,40 10 2 10,80 20 54,0%

23.1 Ventilation 14,0 14

23.2 Shading 0,0 14

23.3 Glare protection 0,0 14

23.4Temperatures during the

heating period14,0 14

23.5Temperatures outside of the


23.6Control of daylight and artificial

light0,0 14

23.7 Ease of use 12,0 16

24Quality of outdoor spaces 90,0 100 9,17 10 1 9,17 10 91,7%

24.1Quantitative evaluation

50,0 50

24.1.1 Roof area 20,0 20

24.1.2Façade-integrated outdoor

areas10,0 10

24.1.3Building-integrated outdoor

areas10,0 10

24.1.4Special areas around the

ground floor10,0 10

24.2Qualitative evaluation

40,0 50

24.2.1 Design concept 10,0 10

24.2.2 Roof plants 5,0 5

24.2.3 Maintenance contract 5,0 5

24.2.4 Roof area orientation 5,0 5

49,7%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 22,5%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%24.2.5 Socio-cultural use 5,0 5

24.2.6 Outdoor surface design 5,0 5

49,7%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 22,5%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%24.2.7 Features 5,0 15

25Safety and security 88,0 100 8,80 10 1 8,80 10 88,0%

25.1Subjective perception of safety

and protection against assault38,0 50

25.2Reduction of damage should an

accident occur50,0 50

26Handicapped accessibility 10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

27Efficient use of floor area 100,0 100 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%

28Suitability for conversion 60,0 100 6,00 10 2 12,00 20 60,0%

28.1 Building modularity 0,0 10

28.2.1Spatial structure:

conversion15,0 15


temporarily storing15,0 15

28.3.1Power and media supply:

power and media conduits10,0 10

28.3.2

Power and media supply:

capacity of the supply

shafts and ductwork

10,0 10


BUS system10,0 10

28.4.1

Flexibility of the dist. netw. and

connections for heating, water

supply and removal

0,0 10

28.4.2


connections for water supply

and removal

0,0 10

28.4.3


connections for ventilation and

AC

0,0 10

29Public access 84,0 100 8,46 10 2 16,92 20 84,6%

29.1General public access to the

building16,0 16

29.2External facilities open to the

public16,0 16

29.3

Opening interior facilities

(libraries or cafeterias) to

the public

16,0 16

29.4Possibility for third parties to

rent rooms in the building0,0 16

29.5

Variety of uses for areas inside

the building that are accessible

to the public

36,0 36

30Cycling convenience 0,0 100 0,00 10 1 0,00 10 0,0%

30.1 Qualitative evaluation 0,0 50

30.2 Quantitative evaluation 0,0 50

31Design and urban planning

quality through competition40,0 100 4,00 10 3 12,00 30 40,0%

31.1.1Implementation of planning

competitions20,0 20

31.1.2 Competition process 20,0 40

31.1.3Implementation of a prize-

winning design0,0 30

31.1.4 Contracting of planning team 0,0 10

31.2 OR: Architectural prize 0,0 100

32Integration of public art 110,0 100 0,00 10 1 0,00 10 0,0%

32.1 Minimum requirement 10,0 10

49,7%

Functionalit

y

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 22,5%

Aesth

etic q

ualit

y

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%32.2.1 OR:

Provision of funding as part of

the construction project20,0 20

32.2.2 Implementation of guidelines 40,0 40

32.2.3Implementation of measures

for public awareness40,0 40

33Fire prevention 75,0 100 7,50 10 2 15,00 20 75,0%

33.1Evidence of compliance with

fire-safety regulations50,0 50

33.2Combustion gas risk from

building materials / products10,0 10

33.3Realisation of increased fire-

resistance rating0,0 10

33.4Realisation of enlarged cross-

sections for smoke extraction0,0 10

33.5 Combustion gas detectors 0,0 5

33.6Smoke detectors or heat

detectors5,0 5

33.7Automatic fire extinguishing

system5,0 5

33.8 Structural fire safety 5,0 5

34Noise protection 75,0 100 7,50 10 2 15,00 20 75,0%

34.1Airborne sound insulation with

respect to exterior sound20,0 20

34.2

Airborne sound insulation with

respect to other working areas

and within a working area itself

30,0 30

34.3

Impact sound insulation with


and to personal working areas

15,0 30

34.4Insulation from sound created

by building services10,0 20

35Building envelope quality 32,0 100 0,00 10 2 0,00 20 0,0%

35.1

Median thermal transmittance

coefficients of building

components

15,0 30

35.2 Thermal bridges 2,0 15

35.3 Air permeability class 15,0 15

35.4Amount of condensation inside

the structure0,0 10

35.5 Air exchange 0,0 15

35.6 Solar Heat Protection 0,0 15

40Ease of cleaning and

maintenance60,0 100 6,67 10 2 13,34 20 66,7%

40.1 Load bearing structure 10,0 20

40.2Non-structural external

components0,0 20

40.3.1Non-load-bearing interior

structures: flooring20,0 20


structures: soil-capture zones10,0 20


structures: baseboards10,0 10


structures: floor plan10,0 10

42Ease of dismantling and

recycling32,0 100 3,29 10 2 6,58 20 32,9%

42.1 Effort for disassembly 8,0 38

49,7%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

182,83 280,00 65,3% 22,5%

Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

49,92 100,00 49,9% 22,5%

Aesth

etic q

ualit

y

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%42.2 Effort for sorting 24,0 38

42.3 Recycling / disposal concept 0,0 24

43Comprehensive project

definition86,0 100 8,16 10 3 24,48 30 81,6%

43.1 Demand planning 25,0 25

43.2 Agreement on objectives 18,0 25

43.3 Architectural competition 25,0 25

43.4

Influence on energy

consumption for user and

utilization needs

18,0 25

44Integrated planning 60,0 100 4,00 10 3 12,00 30 40,0%

44.1 Integral planning team 20,0 20

44.2 Qualification of planning team 20,0 20

44.3 Integral planning process 0,0 20

44.4 Participation of users 20,0 20

44.5 Public participation 0,0 20

45Comprehensive building

design82,5 100 7,81 10 3 23,43 30 78,1%

45.1 H&S (Health and Safety) plan 10,0 10

45.2 Energy concept 10,0 10

45.3 Water concept 5,0 10

45.4Optimization of daylight and

artificial lighting7,5 10

45.5 Waste concept 10,0 10

45.6 Measurement concept 10,0 10

45.7Concept for conversion,

dismantling, and recycling0,0 10

45.8Concept for ease of cleaning

and maintenance10,0 10

45.9Independent third-party review

of planning documents10,0 10

45.10Execution of variant

comparisons10,0 10

46Sustainability aspects in

tender phase100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

46.1Integration of sustainability

aspects in call for tenders50,0 50


aspects in the selection of firms50,0 50

47Documentation for Facility

Management100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

47.1

Compilation of project

documentation/energy

performance certificate

25,0 25

47.2

Instructions for servicing,

inspection, operation,

and care

25,0 25

47.3

Adaptation of plans,

verifications, and calculations

for the finished building

25,0 25

47.4 Compilation of a user manual 25,0 25

48 Environmental impact of

construction site /

construction process

75,0 100 6,71 10 2 13,42 20 67,1%

49,7%

Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

49,92 100,00 49,9% 22,5%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 10,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%48.1 Low-waste construction site 25,0 25

48.2 Low-noise construction site 25,0 25

48.3 Low-dust construction site 0,0 25

48.4

Environmental protection at the

construction site

(soil protection)

25,0 25

49Prequalification of

contractors10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

50Construction quality

assurance100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%

50.1

Documentation of materials,

auxiliary materials

and safety data sheets

50,0 50

50.2Measurements for quality

control50,0 50

51Systematic commissioning 10,00 10 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%

Site evaluation: accounted for separately; does not affect a building’s overall appraisal

56Site location risks 75,0 100 0,00 10 2 0,00 20 0,0%

56.1.1 Wildfire hazard 3,0 5

56.1.2Length of dry spell affecting

forest fires5,0 5

56.2.1Dry spell length affecting

drought potential4,0 5

56.2.2Precipitation deficit as drought

potential indicator4,0 5

56.3 Landslide Hazard 0,0 10

56.4 Tsunami/storm surge 10,0 10

56.5.1 Flood recurrence 2,0 5

56.5.2 Precipitation affecting floods 5,0 5

56.6 Earthquakes 7,0 10

56.7 Extreme temperature 10,0 10

56.8 Avalanches 10,0 10

56.9 Volcanic eruptions 10,0 10

56.10 Storm 5,0 10

57Site location conditions 51,5 100 5,15 10 2 10,30 20 51,5%

57.1 Outdoor air quality 2,0 16

57.2 Outdoor noise 12,0 20

57.3 Soil and building plot 0,0 16

57.4 Electromagnetic fields 12,0 16

57.5Appearance of the city and

landscape / visualrelationships9,5 16

57.6 Radon contamination 16,0 16

58Public image and social

conditions93,0 100 9,30 10 2 18,60 20 93,0%

58.1 Public Image, attractiveness 25,0 25

49,7%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 10,0%

Qualit

y o

f constr

uction

Sit

e q

ua

lity

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%58.2 Potential synergies 25,0 25

58,3 Crime 18,0 25

58.4 Upkeep and condition 25,0 25

59Access to transportation 82,0 100 8,20 10 3 24,60 30 82,0%

59.1Accessibility of the nearest train

station (rail)15,0 30

59.2

Accessibility of the nearest

public transportation stop (bus,

local train, tram, etc.)

27,0 30

59.3 Bike paths 40,0 40

60Access to specific-use

facilities97,0 100 9,70 10 2 19,40 20 97,0%

60.1 Gastronomy 10,0 10

Sit

e q

ua

lity

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 49,7%22,5%60.2 Local stores 10,0 10

60.3 Parks and open areas 20,0 20

60.4 Education 10,0 10

60.5 Public offices 7,0 10

60.6 Medical care 10,0 10

60.7 Sports facilities 10,0 10

60.8 Leisure 10,0 10

60.9 Service providers 10,0 10

61Connections to utilities 70,0 100 7,00 10 2 14,00 20 70,0%

61.1 Networked energy 12,0 25

61.2 Solar energy 25,0 25

61.3 Broadband connection 8,0 25

61.4 Rainwater seepage 25,0 25

Total Performance

IndexMedals Grade

≥80% GOLD 1,5

65-79,9% SILVER 2,0

50-64,9% BRONZE 3,0

* = Except Site Quality

min. 50% (bronze)

Nominal Performance

Index in Evaluation

Aeras*

Sit

e q

ua

lity

min. 35%

min. 65% (silver)

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]




fixed value



achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible


(GWP) 0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%


(ODP) 10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%




10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%


10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%


0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%


resources / wood 0,00 10 0,00 10 1 0,00 10 0,0%






11.1


demand 0,00 10

11.2





15 Land use

10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

Life c

ycle

costs


costs2,00 10 2,00 10 3 6,00 30 20,0%


57,5 100 5,75 10 2 11,50 20 57,5%

17.1

Space efficiency

30,0 30

17.2


27,5 50

17.3




winter100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%


18.2 Drafts 10,0 10

18.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10



summer100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%


19.2 Drafts 10,0 10

19.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10


Ec

on

om

ic q

ua

lity

17,50 50,00 35,0% 22,5%

Econom

ic d

evelo

pm

ent

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

209,19 280,00 74,7% 22,5%

Effects

on the

glo

bal and local

environm

ent

53,1%

Resourc

e c

onsum

ption a

nd w

aste

genera

tion

22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Anexo D: Puntuación resultante de la adaptación normativa


Project No.

Project Name

Auditor

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

20Indoor air quality 50,0 100 5,00 10 3 15,00 30 50,0%



So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

209,19 280,00 74,7% 22,5%

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

20.4Occupancy-based ventilation

rate50,0 100


21.1


person offices with


25,0 35




m²0,0 20

22Visual comfort 100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%




permanently used work areas0








operation54,0 100 5,40 10 2 10,80 20 54,0%


23.2 Shading 0,0 14







light0,0 14

23.7 Ease of use 12,0 16



50,0 50

24.1.1 Roof area 20,0 20


areas10,0 10


areas10,0 10


ground floor10,0 10


40,0 50





So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

209,19 280,00 74,7% 22,5%

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

24.2.5 Socio-cultural use 5,0 5


So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

209,19 280,00 74,7% 22,5%

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

24.2.7 Features 5,0 15











conversion20,0 20





28.3.2



shafts and ductwork

15,0 15


BUS system15,0 15

28.4.1



supply and removal

0,0 0

28.4.2



and removal

0,0 0

28.4.3



AC

0,0 0

29Public access 84,0 100 8,46 10 2 16,92 20 84,6%


building16,0 16


public16,0 16

29.3



the public

16,0 16



29.5



to the public

36,0 36







competitions30,0 30



winning design0,0 0





Aesth

etic q

ualit

yF

unctionalit

y

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

209,19 280,00 74,7% 22,5%

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

32.2.1 OR:Provision of funding as part of





33Fire prevention 95,0 100 9,50 10 2 19,00 20 95,0%











detectors5,0 5


system5,0 5





34.2




37,0 37

34.3




18,0 36




35.1



components

15,0 30




the structure0,0 10




maintenance60,0 100 6,67 10 2 13,34 20 66,7%



components0,0 20










recycling32,0 100 3,29 10 2 6,58 20 32,9%


Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

55,32 100,00 55,3% 22,5%

Aesth

etic q

ualit

y

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

209,19 280,00 74,7% 22,5%

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

42.2 Effort for sorting 24,0 38



definition86,0 100 8,16 10 3 24,48 30 81,6%




43.4

Influence on energy


utilization needs

18,0 25








design82,5 100 7,81 10 3 23,43 30 78,1%















comparisons10,0 10


tender phase100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%






Management100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

47.1




25,0 25

47.2



and care

25,0 25

47.3




25,0 25



construction site /


75,0 100 6,71 10 2 13,42 20 67,1%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 10,0%

Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

55,32 100,00 55,3% 22,5%

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

48.1 Low-waste construction site 25,0 25



48.4


construction site

(soil protection)

25,0 25


contractors10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%


assurance100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%

50.1


auxiliary materials


50,0 50


control50,0 50






forest fires5,0 5













56.10 Storm 5,0 10










conditions93,0 100 9,30 10 2 18,60 20 93,0%


Sit

e q

ua

lity

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 10,0%

Qualit

y o

f constr

uction

53,1%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

58.2 Potential synergies 25,0 25

58,3 Crime 18,0 25





59.2




27,0 30

59.3 Bike paths 40,0 40


facilities97,0 100 9,70 10 2 19,40 20 97,0%


Sit

e q

ua

lity

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

53,1%22,5%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

60.2 Local stores 10,0 10






60.8 Leisure 10,0 10







Total Performance

IndexMedals Grade

≥80% GOLD 1,5

65-79,9% SILVER 2,0

50-64,9% BRONZE 3,0


min. 50% (bronze)

Nominal Performance

Index in Evaluation

Aeras*

Sit

e q

ua

lity

min. 35%

min. 65% (silver)

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]




fixed value



achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible


(GWP) 0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%


(ODP) 10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%




10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%


10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%


0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%


resources / wood 0,00 10 0,00 10 1 0,00 10 0,0%






11.1


demand 0,00 10

11.2





15 Land use

10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

Life c

ycle

costs


costs2,00 10 2,00 10 3 6,00 30 20,0%


57,5 100 5,75 10 2 11,50 20 57,5%

17.1

Space efficiency

30,0 30

17.2


27,5 50

17.3




winter100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%


18.2 Drafts 10,0 10

18.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10



summer100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%


19.2 Drafts 10,0 10

19.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10


Ec

on

om

ic q

ua

lity

17,50 50,00 35,0% 35,0%

Econom

ic d

evelo

pm

ent

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 40,0%

Effects

on the

glo

bal and local

environm

ent

50,9%

Resourc

e c

onsum

ption a

nd w

aste

genera

tion

10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Anexo E.1: Puntuación según clasificación propuesta (Promotor y destino)


Project No.

Project Name

Auditor

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

20Indoor air quality 25,0 100 2,50 10 3 7,50 30 25,0%



So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 40,0%

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

20.4Occupancy-based ventilation

rate25,0 50


21.1


person offices with


25,0 35




m²0,0 20

22Visual comfort 70,0 100 6,88 10 3 20,64 30 68,8%












operation54,0 100 5,40 10 2 10,80 20 54,0%


23.2 Shading 0,0 14







light0,0 14

23.7 Ease of use 12,0 16



50,0 50

24.1.1 Roof area 20,0 20


areas10,0 10


areas10,0 10


ground floor10,0 10


40,0 50





So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 40,0%

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

24.2.5 Socio-cultural use 5,0 5


So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 40,0%

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

24.2.7 Features 5,0 15











conversion15,0 15





28.3.2



shafts and ductwork

10,0 10


BUS system10,0 10

28.4.1



supply and removal

0,0 10

28.4.2



and removal

0,0 10

28.4.3



AC

0,0 10

29Public access 84,0 100 8,46 10 2 16,92 20 84,6%


building16,0 16


public16,0 16

29.3



the public

16,0 16



29.5



to the public

36,0 36







competitions20,0 20








Aesth

etic q

ualit

yF

unctionalit

y

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 40,0%

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

32.2.1 OR:Provision of funding as part of





33Fire prevention 75,0 100 7,50 10 2 15,00 20 75,0%











detectors5,0 5


system5,0 5





34.2




30,0 30

34.3




15,0 30




35.1



components

15,0 30




the structure0,0 10




maintenance60,0 100 6,67 10 2 13,34 20 66,7%



components0,0 20










recycling32,0 100 3,29 10 2 6,58 20 32,9%


Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

49,92 100,00 49,9% 10,0%

Aesth

etic q

ualit

y

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

182,83 280,00 65,3% 40,0%

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

42.2 Effort for sorting 24,0 38



definition86,0 100 8,16 10 3 24,48 30 81,6%




43.4

Influence on energy


utilization needs

18,0 25








design82,5 100 7,81 10 3 23,43 30 78,1%















comparisons10,0 10


tender phase100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%






Management100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

47.1




25,0 25

47.2



and care

25,0 25

47.3




25,0 25



construction site /


75,0 100 6,71 10 2 13,42 20 67,1%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 5,0%

Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

49,92 100,00 49,9% 10,0%

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

48.1 Low-waste construction site 25,0 25



48.4


construction site

(soil protection)

25,0 25


contractors10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%


assurance100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%

50.1


auxiliary materials


50,0 50


control50,0 50






forest fires5,0 5













56.10 Storm 5,0 10










conditions93,0 100 9,30 10 2 18,60 20 93,0%


Sit

e q

ua

lity

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 5,0%

Qualit

y o

f constr

uction

50,9%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

58.2 Potential synergies 25,0 25

58,3 Crime 18,0 25





59.2




27,0 30

59.3 Bike paths 40,0 40


facilities97,0 100 9,70 10 2 19,40 20 97,0%


Sit

e q

ua

lity

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

50,9%10,0%

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

60.2 Local stores 10,0 10






60.8 Leisure 10,0 10







Total Performance

IndexMedals Grade

≥80% GOLD 1,5

65-79,9% SILVER 2,0

50-64,9% BRONZE 3,0


min. 50% (bronze)

Nominal Performance

Index in Evaluation

Aeras*

Sit

e q

ua

lity

min. 35%

min. 65% (silver)

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]




fixed value



achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible


(GWP) 0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%


(ODP) 10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%




10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%


10,00 10 10,00 10 1 10,00 10 100,0%


0,00 10 0,00 10 3 0,00 30 0,0%


resources / wood 0,00 10 0,00 10 1 0,00 10 0,0%






11.1


demand 0,00 10

11.2





15 Land use

10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

Life c

ycle

costs


costs2,00 10 2,00 10 3 6,00 30 20,0%


57,5 100 5,75 10 2 11,50 20 57,5%

17.1

Space efficiency

30,0 30

17.2


27,5 50

17.3




winter100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%


18.2 Drafts 10,0 10

18.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10



summer100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%


19.2 Drafts 10,0 10

19.3

Radiant temperature

asymmetry and floor

temperature

10,0 10



Project No.

Project Name

Auditor

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5%

Effects

on the

glo

bal and local

environm

ent

41,8%

Resourc

e c

onsum

ption a

nd w

aste

genera

tion

10,0%

Ec

on

om

ic q

ua

lity

17,50 50,00 35,0% 65,0%

Econom

ic d

evelo

pm

ent

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 10,0%

Anexo E.2: Puntuación según hipótesis propuesta (Promoter y destino)

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%20Indoor air quality 25,0 100 2,50 10 3 7,50 30 25,0%



41,8%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 10,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%20.4

Occupancy-based ventilation

rate25,0 50


21.1


person offices with


25,0 35




m²0,0 20

22Visual comfort 70,0 100 6,88 10 3 20,64 30 68,8%












operation54,0 100 5,40 10 2 10,80 20 54,0%


23.2 Shading 0,0 14







light0,0 14

23.7 Ease of use 12,0 16



50,0 50

24.1.1 Roof area 20,0 20


areas10,0 10


areas10,0 10


ground floor10,0 10


40,0 50





41,8%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 10,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%24.2.5 Socio-cultural use 5,0 5


41,8%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 10,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%24.2.7 Features 5,0 15











conversion15,0 15





28.3.2



shafts and ductwork

10,0 10


BUS system10,0 10

28.4.1



supply and removal

0,0 10

28.4.2



and removal

0,0 10

28.4.3



AC

0,0 10

29Public access 84,0 100 8,46 10 2 16,92 20 84,6%


building16,0 16


public16,0 16

29.3



the public

16,0 16



29.5



to the public

36,0 36







competitions20,0 20








41,8%

Functionalit

y

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

Health, com

fort

, and u

ser

satisfa

ction

182,83 280,00 65,3% 10,0%

Aesth

etic q

ualit

y

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%32.2.1 OR:

Provision of funding as part of





33Fire prevention 75,0 100 7,50 10 2 15,00 20 75,0%











detectors5,0 5


system5,0 5





34.2




30,0 30

34.3




15,0 30




35.1



components

15,0 30




the structure0,0 10




maintenance60,0 100 6,67 10 2 13,34 20 66,7%



components0,0 20










recycling32,0 100 3,29 10 2 6,58 20 32,9%


41,8%

So

cio

cu

ltu

ral

an

d f

un

cti

on

al

qu

ali

ty

182,83 280,00 65,3% 10,0%

Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

49,92 100,00 49,9% 10,0%

Aesth

etic q

ualit

y

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%42.2 Effort for sorting 24,0 38



definition86,0 100 8,16 10 3 24,48 30 81,6%




43.4

Influence on energy


utilization needs

18,0 25








design82,5 100 7,81 10 3 23,43 30 78,1%















comparisons10,0 10


tender phase100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%






Management100,0 100 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%

47.1




25,0 25

47.2



and care

25,0 25

47.3




25,0 25



construction site /


75,0 100 6,71 10 2 13,42 20 67,1%

41,8%

Te

ch

nic

al

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f te

chnic

al im

ple

menta

tion

49,92 100,00 49,9% 10,0%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 5,0%

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%48.1 Low-waste construction site 25,0 25



48.4


construction site

(soil protection)

25,0 25


contractors10,00 10 10,00 10 2 20,00 20 100,0%


assurance100,0 100 10,00 10 3 30,00 30 100,0%

50.1


auxiliary materials


50,0 50


control50,0 50






forest fires5,0 5













56.10 Storm 5,0 10










conditions93,0 100 9,30 10 2 18,60 20 93,0%


41,8%

Pro

ce

ss

qu

ali

ty

Qualit

y o

f pla

nnin

g

193,33 230,00 84,1% 5,0%

Qualit

y o

f constr

uction

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

Sit

e q

ua

lity

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%58.2 Potential synergies 25,0 25

58,3 Crime 18,0 25





59.2




27,0 30

59.3 Bike paths 40,0 40


facilities97,0 100 9,70 10 2 19,40 20 97,0%


86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

Sit

e q

ua

lity

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]


achieved

(criteria)

achieved

(indicators)

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possibleachieved

max.

possible

Indicators

Score


Re

lev

an

ce

Fa

cto

r

Weighted

Points

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e I

nd

ex

(Cri

teri

a) Group Points

Gro

up

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Gro

up

We

igh

t

To

tal

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

Ind

ex

Ma

in C

rite

ria

Gro

up

Cri

teri

a G

rou

p

No. Criteria

Ec

olo

gic

al

qu

ali

ty

Life c

ycle

assessm

ent

67,00 200,00 33,5% 41,8%10,0%60.2 Local stores 10,0 10






60.8 Leisure 10,0 10







Total Performance

IndexMedals Grade

≥80% GOLD 1,5

65-79,9% SILVER 2,0

50-64,9% BRONZE 3,0


min. 35%

min. 65% (silver)

86,90 130,00 66,8% 0,0%

min. 50% (bronze)

Nominal Performance

Index in Evaluation

Aeras*

Sit

e q

ua

lity

18/06/2013 Page]/Pages]

Anexo A Tablas de puntuación

Documents

Transcript of Anexo A Tablas de puntuación