BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//ABAA National Conference - ECPv6.16.5//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://abaaconference.com X-WR-CALDESC:Events for ABAA National Conference REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H X-Robots-Tag:noindex X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 TZNAME:EDT DTSTART:20250309T070000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 TZNAME:EST DTSTART:20251102T060000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 TZNAME:EDT DTSTART:20260308T070000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 TZNAME:EST DTSTART:20261101T060000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 TZNAME:EDT DTSTART:20270314T070000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 TZNAME:EST DTSTART:20271107T060000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T153000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T163000 DTSTAMP:20260407T154313Z CREATED:20260120T082751Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260407T154313Z UID:10000044-1778081400-1778085000@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Designing for Heat at the Edge: Validating Surface Temperature for Barrier Tie In DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Wednesday\, MAY 6\, 3:30PM-4:30PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n The roof-to-wall interface is subjected to some of the most extreme environmental loads in the building envelope. At this transition\, air and water control layers rely on flashing and tie-ins to maintain continuity between roofing and façade systems. These tie-ins often have upper service temperature limits ranging from 180 °F to 300 °F. Accurately predicting rooftop surface temperature extremes is therefore critical for specifying appropriate membrane and flashing materials.This session presents a validated simulation workflow developed to predict peak rooftop temperatures driven by direct and reflected solar radiation\, including reflections from parapets\, rooftop equipment\, and nearby surfaces. The computational approach integrates solar radiation mapping with steady-state heat transfer modeling to estimate roof membrane and parapet surface temperatures. The workflow was initially validated using historical roof temperature data collected by Dupuis in 2014. Further validation was conducted through a summer 2025 field study at the Colorado School of Mines\, measuring the impact of direct and reflected solar radiation on an existing roof assembly.The session will detail the simulation methodology and results from a parametric study evaluating the influence of air temperature\, wind speed\, solar exposure\, and surface color across major North American climate zones. The experimental setup\, sensors\, and measurement techniques used in the field study will also be discussed. Measured and simulated temperature data will be compared to assess accuracy and quantify the impact of reflected solar radiation on roof and parapet temperatures—informing more resilient detailing of air and water barrier tie-ins. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nExplain the importance of accurate rooftop surface temperature prediction critical for selecting appropriate air and water barrier tie-in materials at roof-to-wall interfaces.\nDescribe a validated simulation workflow to estimate rooftop and parapet surface temperatures.\nAnalyze the impact of environmental variables on roof surface temperatures.\nInterpret field study results and quantify the influence of reflected solar radiation on roof and parapet temperatures to inform resilient design strategies.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Stanley Gatland\, Saint-Gobain\, North America\n Stan Gatland is the Manager of Building Science and Comfort for Saint-Gobain North America. He is responsible for leading projects that focus on developing\, demonstrating and connecting the performance of CertainTeed / Saint-Gobain products and systems to the performance of residential and commercial buildings regarding indoor environmental quality and occupant comfort. Stan has over 30 years of experience and expertise in building science and architectural acoustics with an extensive national and international network of professional contacts in the fields of building science\, energy efficiency\, heat and moisture transfer\, environmental acoustics and fire performance. He is an accomplished speaker with over 100 publications. Stan holds both a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Massachusetts\, Amherst. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/designing-for-heat-at-the-edge-validating-surface-temperature-for-barrier-tie-in/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Wednesday May 6 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/IA-Stanley.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T141500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T151500 DTSTAMP:20260126T152539Z CREATED:20260120T071456Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T152539Z UID:10000043-1778076900-1778080500@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Within Tolerance - Why IRL Cross-Collaboration Matters More in the AI Age DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Wednesday\, MAY 6\, 2:15PM-3:15PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n As artificial intelligence reshapes workflows across architecture\, engineering\, and construction\, the demand for more sophisticated and adaptable building enclosures continues to grow. Yet\, the built environment remains fundamentally human—designed for people\, shaped by context\, and realized through collaboration. \nThis presentation offers a multidisciplinary perspective\, drawing from the experiences of architects\, contractors\, and owners to examine how real-world\, cross-disciplinary coordination remains essential to delivering high-performance buildings\, even as digital tools become more prevalent. It highlights lessons from projects where human communication—not automation—was the key to maintaining design intent\, continuity\, and constructability. \nThe session explores how to achieve better buildings from start to finish—showing that beyond maintaining assembly and system continuity\, true performance depends on project team continuity. From breaking ground to drying in\, the presentation illustrates how proactive coordination\, clear scope definition\, and interface and goals alignment can prevent the missteps that lead to failure. Emphasis is placed on applying first principles and fundamentals to navigate complex conditions and develop simple\, collaborative solutions. \nThemes of empathy\, feedback\, and humility frame the discussion—from incompatible materials to clashing personalities—underscoring that success depends on managing nature’s loads and construction realities\, not egos. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nIdentify critical coordination points that affect enclosure continuity and performance from design through construction.\nDescribe how early\, discipline-wide collaboration mitigates scope gaps and interface failures in enclosure assemblies.\nDiscuss practical strategies for maintaining communication and alignment among project stakeholders.\nApply lessons from field and desk to improve constructability and performance of air\, moisture\, and thermal control layers.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Enrique Lizardi\, BPL Enclosure\n Enrique Lizardi is a Building Enclosure Consultant at BPL Enclosure\, with a multidisciplinary background in architecture\, construction\, and building science. He earned his degree in Architecture from Universidad La Salle Morelia\, where he began his career in building design and construction. Early mentorship under a professional who bridged architecture and engineering shaped his integrated\, systems-based approach to enclosure performance. \nEnrique’s project experience spans high-rise\, civic\, and commercial developments\, including courthouse facilities in the mountainous regions of Michoacán\, where he coordinated steel wall systems and environmental control layers. After relocating to Atlanta\, Georgia\, in 2018\, he specialized in designing and delivering high-performance cladding assemblies as a subcontractor. Building on that expertise\, he joined BPL Enclosure in 2023 to re-focus on the performance of the entire building enclosure. \nWith experience across climates\, construction roles\, and cultural contexts\, Enrique brings a holistic and practical perspective to enclosure design—emphasizing durability\, constructability\, and building-science-driven performance. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/within-tolerance-why-irl-cross-collaboration-matters-more-in-the-ai-age/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Wednesday May 6 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Enrique.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T140000 DTSTAMP:20260126T152723Z CREATED:20260120T032550Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T152723Z UID:10000042-1778072400-1778076000@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Air Barriers - They Might Be Continuous But Still In Danger of Allowing Building Component Damage DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Wednesday\, MAY 6\, 1:00PM-2:00PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Energy Code does not identify where within the assembly the air barrier is to be installed. So\, that is left up to the design professional based on the project type\, geographic location\, and their experience.  \nSo where should the air barrier be placed within enclosure assemblies? \nUncontrolled airflow within a building enclosure can cause damage to building components. Though our harsh winter conditions in Minnesota and areas our firm services\, we have had the unique opportunity to see through our forensics investigations\, monitoring of existing buildings\, and extensive design consultation\, areas of concern to designers\, contractors\, and building owners. In addition\, how to prevent and remediate problems will be outlined. \nDistance from heat sources\, air cavities\, air movement within assemblies through uncontrolled flow\, and lack of interior air barriers are all considerations that should be taken into account when designing exterior wall assemblies and transitional details\, especially between plane changes. When professional experience is absent or solutions are not included due to budget constraints\, moisture damage still occurs in code compliant extreme cold climate buildings. Through experienced design by an Architect\, upfront review and analysis from a consultant\, and knowledgeable construction by a contractor\, proactive measures to prevent building damage can be incorporated into construction. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nOverview of dew point calculations and what they represent.\nHow to identify areas of concern by relating it to the distance from the conditioned space and air flow to or within areas of concern by utilizing thermal modeling examples.\nWhat can happen if interior air barriers are not implemented (illustrated through use of case studies)?\nReview how a building can be monitored\, and highlight data collected form an existing to illustrate the theory behind moisture formation and how it occurs\, typically in non-visible areas.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Ryan Krug\, Lerch Bates\n Ryan specializes in building enclosure consulting\, commissioning (BECx)\, and forensic evaluation\, supporting both private and government clients. He partners with project teams from design through construction to optimize enclosure performance\, address risks\, and ensure continuity of control layers. With expertise in architectural\, HVAC\, and structural coordination\, Ryan develops cost-effective\, constructible solutions that balance performance\, durability\, and project delivery goals. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Ryan Kohl\, Lerch Bates\n Ryan provides building enclosure consulting for both public and private sector projects\, emphasizing early collaboration to deliver durable\, low-maintenance structures. He works with project teams from conception through completion\, ensuring enclosure systems align with aesthetic and performance goals. His focus is on building a strong design foundation and maintaining synergy between architecture\, systems\, and construction execution. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/air-barriers-they-might-be-continuous-but-still-in-danger-of-allowing-building-component-damage/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Wednesday May 6 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Ryan-Ryan-1.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T091500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260506T101500 DTSTAMP:20260126T152851Z CREATED:20260120T025016Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T152851Z UID:10000041-1778058900-1778062500@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Marching Towards Mainstream: A General Contractor's Perspective on Industry Adoption of Enclosure Commissioning and Consulting DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Wednesday\, MAY 6\, 9:15AM-10:15AMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Over time\, the adoption of Building Enclosure Consulting and Building Enclosure Commissioning (BECx) continues to push further into the mainstream Architecture\, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Industry. As with any changes that occur in the AEC Industry\, evolution of practices can at times seem slow or challenging. Future states of practice can turn out different than anticipated for each of the effected stakeholders. \nIn this presentation\, a midstream review of Building Enclosure Consulting and BECx industry adoption will be offered from the perspective of a Commercial General Contractor. Topics such as what is working well and what isn’t will be discussed. Potential lessons from the incorporation of Special Inspections & Testing (SI&T)\, and from Mechanical\, Electrical and Plumbing Commissioning (MEPCx) into the industry will be offered as guideposts for the future. With consideration to prevailing AEC project delivery methods\, recommendations for maximizing Building Enclosure Consulting’s and BECx’s future value proposition will be suggested. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nParticipants will identify parallels between the past adoption of SI&T/MEPCx and the current state of adoption of BECx\nParticipants will recognize how project delivery methods combined with third party Enclosure Consultants can result in project-level friction points\nParticipants will be able to compare adoption outcomes between code-driven and client-driven requirements\nParticipants will assess shortcomings specific to current project delivery methods and how Enclosure Specialists can fill those gaps\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Jon Porter\, Kraus Anderson Construction\n Jon Porter is the Director of Building Science at Kraus Anderson Construction. In his role at KA\, Jon focuses on building performance\, with particular focus on the exterior enclosure and substrates. He serves as a technical resource to project teams in relation to means and methods\, constructability\, building materials technology\, workflow and sequencing\, proper installation techniques\, and testing and acceptance protocols. A licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota\, Jon has 30 years of design and construction experience\, including roles in forensic investigation of design and construction failures and as an owner’s representative. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/marching-towards-mainstream-a-general-contractors-perspective-on-industry-adoption-of-enclosure-commissioning-and-consulting-2/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Wednesday May 6 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Jon.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T170000 DTSTAMP:20260126T153323Z CREATED:20260120T010348Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T153323Z UID:10000036-1777996800-1778000400@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Critical Mass: Scaling Passive House at Bunker Hill DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Tuesday\, MAY 5\, 4:00PM-5:00PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n In response to the dual challenges of a regional housing shortage and the urgent need for climate resilience\, Leggat McCall Properties has committed to an ambitious initiative: achieving Passive House certification across all 15 buildings of the Bunker Hill Housing redevelopment in Boston. This commitment was made proactively—before Massachusetts building codes required such standards—positioning the project as a model for low operational-carbon\, equitable urban development.The Bunker Hill Housing project will deliver 2\,699 mixed-rate housing units\, replacing outdated\, low-density public housing with a vibrant\, energy-efficient community. The development spans buildings ranging from six to ten stories\, each designed to meet Passive House standards.To address the scale of this undertaking\, the project team developed a “kit of parts” strategy\, consisting of precast concrete cores\, 62 foot long CLT plank floors\, spanning the entire width of the building\, bearing upon a panelized\, fully clad wall system. This approach creates an economy of scale that enables more housing to be delivered more efficiently and affordably.Building M\, a 100% affordable unit building and the first building in the development\, served as the test case for this strategy. Through early-phase design coordination\, performance mock up testing\, and ongoing team coordination across the design and construction phases\, the team established a replicable framework that integrates Passive House requirements with construction workflows that allow on site-efficiency. Building M was completed from slab-on-grade to occupancy in 16 months. This presentation will explore how the Bunker Hill team leveraged early-phase design coordination\, prefabrication\, and Passive House certification to optimize both cost and operational carbon reduction. We will share lessons learned from Building M\, including early-phase explorations and decisions around envelope detailing and construction sequencing. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nAnalyze the Strategic Rationale for Proactive Passive House Adoption in Large-Scale Housing\nEvaluate Enclosure Prefabrication and Assembly Methods for Passive House Scalability\nDetail the project workflow for Integrating Passive House and building enclosure control layer requirements\nIdentify Lessons Learned in Envelope Detailing and Construction Sequencing for High-Performance Enclosures\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Andrew Steingiser\, RDH Building Science\n Andrew is the Passive House lead in RDH’s Boston office. Andrew engages building owners and design teams as an early-phase design partner\, consulting with them on scalable climate-resilient solutions. An expert on local and regional regulations\, he champions operational and embodied carbon reduction of the built environment through resilient\, and future-proof buildings. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/critical-mass-scaling-passive-house-at-bunker-hill/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Tuesday May 5 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Andrew.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T143000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T153000 DTSTAMP:20260319T015052Z CREATED:20260120T002438Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260319T015052Z UID:10000034-1777991400-1777995000@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Trade Partner Success depends on Quality Metrics and an Effective Quality Program DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Tuesday\, MAY 5\, 2:30PM-3:30PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n In today’s environment\, having the trade partners take responsibility for the quality of their work and coordination with other trade partners that affect their work is critical for a successful project. Keeping quality on track with trackable and quantifiable quality metrics and deliverables is what we have been able to use to keep the Cost of Quality at almost 10x less than industry average per industry reports. Making everyone accountable for Quality and at the same time providing them with a resource\, learning experience during job site reviews\, and providing a lessons-learned program that is introduced at the right time during design\, buyout or construction\, will give everyone more confidence and acknowledge the Trade Partner is a Partner long term. Also\, using AI technology along with quality metric results over many years\, we are now able to assist with the choice towards the correct trade partner for the project along with the making sure that the trade partner will succeed at the specific project type. I have developed an extensive set of Quality metrics and Lessons Learned programs that is effective and definable for the Company and the individual trade partner teams.  This presentation will review what goes into an effective Quality Program and its deliverables to the company\, trade partner project teams\, and Ownership. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nDefine what a quality plan is and how it could help the trade partner and the entire construction team with expectations and accountability.\nApply the understanding of the Trade Partner Quality Plan to the project to better manage the trade partner and overall project expectations.\nLeverage Quality metrics\, how to measure\, and how to make them useful for the Company\, Subcontractor\, A/E and Owner.\nUnderstand the importance of trade partnering and training verses acknowledging a transactional relationship.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Corey Zussman\, AIA\, NCARB\, ALA (IL\, IN\, WI) RBEC\, RRC\, REWC\, RWC\, RRO\, CABS\, CDT CQM\, CxA+BE\, BECxP\, LEED AP BD+C Level II Thermographer\, QA/QC Vice President\, AECOM Hunt\n As a forensic architect registered in several states\, Corey Zussman has practiced in the construction industry for more than 30 years. He specializes in the building envelope\, restoration\, preservation\, life safety\, and interior finishes. While working on over 2000 projects\, Corey conducts constructability reviews\, pre-installation meetings\, comprehensive envelope meetings\, and construction observations. He has also become known for providing educational opportunities throughout the industry and has produced more than 200 “lessons learned” papers. Topics include building envelope and life safety concerns\, enabling Corey to proactively address issues during design review\, pre-construction\, and construction. In addition\, he has over 15 industry articles about building envelope\, life safety\, and interior topics. He is also a frequent presenter at local and national conferences and associations with over 60 AIA accredited presentations. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/trade-partner-success-depends-on-quality-metrics-and-an-effective-quality-program/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Tuesday May 5 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Corey.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T131500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T141500 DTSTAMP:20260126T154100Z CREATED:20260120T005127Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T154100Z UID:10000035-1777986900-1777990500@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Shadow Box Design - To Vent or Not to Vent DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Tuesday\, MAY 5\, 1:15PM-2:15PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Shadow boxes are commonly used in curtain wall construction but can be problematic if not designed and detailed correctly and appropriately for the climate. Much has been written about shadow box design\, both successes and failures\, but there is no consensus about how\, or if\, the cavity should be vented. There have been 3 primary approaches to treating the cavity between the glazing and the shadow box back pan: venting directly to the exterior environment\, venting directly to the interior building environment and sealing the cavity. Venting the cavity directly to either the exterior or the interior building environment introduces moisture- and particulate-laden air that can condense under certain climatic conditions and will likely deposit dust and debris on the interior surfaces of the cavity\, creating both permanent and temporary aesthetic concerns. When venting to the exterior\, cold\, winter air is allowed inside the cavity and on the interior side of the thermal break\, potentially cooling the perimeter mullions to a point where condensation will form on their interior surfaces. Sealing the cavity eliminates both of these issues\, but there is some evidence that heat and pressure may build up to a point where it could damage the glass and degrade the sealants and coatings inside the cavity. After considering all of the options\, a modified version of venting to the exterior appears to address most of the issues. This approach vents the cavity into the vertical mullions\, which ultimately connect to the exterior environment\, but do so indirectly\, relieving the heat and pressure but also somewhat tempering the exterior air that is allowed to enter. \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nDescribe the primary applications for shadow box assemblies in curtain wall systems\nDiscuss the most common reasons why shadow box assemblies fail\nIdentify the primary ventilation strategies for curtain wall shadow box assemblies\nUnderstand the pros and cons of different ventilation strategies for curtain wall shadow box assemblies\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Mark Walsh\, Perkins & Will\n Mark is an architect with thirty years of experience in design and coordination for all phases of project design and delivery\, from programming and pre-design through construction contract administration. Mark’s experience includes numerous project types\, including higher education\, K-12 education\, corporate\, commercial\, civil\, cultural\, transportation\, healthcare\, science and technology\, sports and recreation and corporate interiors.As Perkins&Will’s Firmwide Director of Technical Design\, Mark focuses on developing a culture that delivers design and technical excellence while embracing innovative delivery and construction techniques and seeking to improve efficiency across all aspects of the Firm’s work. Mark also chairs the Firm’s Project Delivery Council and Firmwide Technical Design Community.Mark is a co-founder of the Perkins&Will Innovation Incubator and has been an active member of the selection and oversight committee since the program’s inception in 2010. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/shadow-box-design-to-vent-or-not-to-vent/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Tuesday May 5 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Mark.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T111500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T121500 DTSTAMP:20260126T155115Z CREATED:20260120T001847Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T155115Z UID:10000033-1777979700-1777983300@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Building Enclosure Commissioning vs Enclosure Testing DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Tuesday\, MAY 5\, 11:15AM-12:15PMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n As building performance expectations rise\, confusion often persists between Building Enclosure Commissioning (BECx) and Building Enclosure Testing (BET). While both serve to verify performance\, they are distinct processes that meet at key points in design and construction. This session clarifies the relationship between BET and BECx and shows how testing requirements should flow from the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) through design\, construction\, and final functional performance testing. Historically\, many project specifications reference outdated standards such as NIBS 3-2012 and ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005. The industry has since advanced: NIBS 3 has evolved into ASTM E2813\, and ASHRAE Guideline 0 is now ASHRAE Standard 202\, which together defines the modern foundation for the BECx process. Yet\, in practice\, many designers still omit Building Enclosure Specification 01-91-15 (or 01-91-19 under the Whole Building Design Guide framework)\, leaving owners without clear direction on who conducts or verifies enclosure testing.This session equips attendees with a practical understanding of how to align specifications with current standards\, define roles and responsibilities\, and integrate enclosure testing as the final functional performance verification of the enclosure system. Using real-world project examples\, we’ll explore common ASTM and AAMA testing protocols—such as window spray testing (AAMA 501.2)\, chamber testing (ASTM 1105/783)\, and whole-building pressurization (ASTM E779) as tools within the larger commissioning process.By the end of this session\, participants will gain a clear\, current framework for discussing BECx and BET with owners\, designers\, and contractors\, establishing a shared language to deliver durable\, efficient\, and high-performing building envelopes. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nLearn the differences between BE Commissioning and BE Testing. \nUnderstand how Owner Project Requirements relate to design decisions affecting function performance testing of the Enclosure\nDevelop a common basis for discussing Building Enclosure testing methods with the AEC Team.\nUnderstand how the Building Enclosure Commissioning process incorporate Enclosure Testing as the final Functional Performance Test of the various Enclosure Systems.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Mike Lackey\, LCCx\n Mike Lackey is a Professional Engineer and Certified Building Enclosure Commissioning Professional with over 35 years of experience in building systems performance and commissioning. As Principal of LCCx\, he has led numerous complex projects across Texas\, including stadiums\, healthcare facilities\, higher education campuses\, and major government buildings. Mike’s leadership focuses on ensuring that building systems performed as intended\, delivering the efficiency\, comfort\, and reliability owners expect. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/building-enclosure-commissioning-vs-enclosure-testing/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Tuesday May 5 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Mike.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T110000 DTSTAMP:20260126T155239Z CREATED:20260120T001300Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T155239Z UID:10000032-1777975200-1777978800@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Designing and Detailing Air Barrier Connections at Storefronts and Curtainwalls DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Tuesday\, MAY 5\, 10:00AM-11:00AMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n As building energy codes become increasingly stringent\, improving the building enclosure to reduce air infiltration and thermal losses has become essential. One of the most common sources of uncontrolled air leakage is the transition between the air barrier and fenestrations or other wall openings. Although air barriers have been required by the International Building Code (IBC) for some time\, the design documents often still do not provide continuity or redundancy in the connections. Frequently\, discontinuities are related to a lack of understanding of the differences in the moisture management systems and primary seal locations for each system. This presentation will explore the design and detailing of air barrier connections at fenestrations\, highlighting how the different fenestration systems affect detailing. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nIdentify common sources of air leakage at curtain wall and storefront interfaces and explain their impact on overall building performance.\nEvaluate current industry standards and best practices for detailing air barrier transitions.\nRecognize the importance of early design coordination among manufacturers\, designers\, and contractors to achieve continuous air barrier systems.\nApply design and detailing strategies that improve product compatibility\, constructability\, and airtightness at fenestration openings.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Derek Ziese\, Gale Associates\n Derek Ziese\, AIA\, PE\, BECxP is a registered architect and engineer at Gale Associates\, Inc.\, with over 15 years of experience in the design\, peer review\, construction\, and commissioning of high-performance building enclosure systems for new and historic buildings. His background in design and construction informs his practical approach to enclosure consulting. Derek collaborates with owners\, architects\, and contractors to develop façade strategies that balance performance and constructability. He has presented at ABAA and other industry conferences on topics related to building enclosure design and field performance. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/designing-and-detailing-air-barrier-connections-at-storefronts-and-curtainwalls/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Tuesday May 5 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Derek.png END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T083000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260505T093000 DTSTAMP:20260126T155347Z CREATED:20260114T011608Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260126T155347Z UID:10000025-1777969800-1777973400@abaaconference.com SUMMARY:Catastrophic Failures and the Net Effect of Design and Construction Errors on Moisture Management DESCRIPTION:Presentation Overview\n \n \n \n \n \n Tuesday\, MAY 5\, 8:30AM – 9:30AMLakeshore Ballroom\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This seminar explores how seemingly minor design and construction flaws can compound into major building and HVAC system failures\, often with costly consequences. While individual defects may appear insignificant in isolation\, their combined effect across multiple systems frequently leads to catastrophic moisture problems\, degraded indoor air quality\, premature equipment failure\, and diminished building resilience. \nDrawing on forensic engineering investigations\, the session presents real-world case studies that demonstrate how errors in coordination between the building envelope and HVAC systems can undermine moisture management strategies. These cases highlight how the lack of integrated design review\, inadequate field oversight\, poorly understood continuous air and thermal barriers\, and the absence of HVAC capacity control or supplemental dehumidification can contribute to systemic failure\, particularly in hot\, humid\, and mixed climate zones. \nThe presentation identifies critical defects such as unsealed penetrations in ceiling planes\, misplaced vapor retarders\, and ductwork located in unconditioned spaces\, each contributing to latent moisture accumulation and mold growth. In some cases\, air conditioning systems operated as designed with capacity control\, but within flawed enclosures and unbalanced air distribution systems that could not manage moisture loads or prevent air leakage. In others\, misapplied controls or improper setpoints worsened envelope weaknesses. \nAttendees will take away actionable insights to help project teams identify vulnerabilities early in the design and construction process and apply practical\, risk-reducing strategies before occupancy. Emphasis is placed on the critical interface between envelope assemblies and mechanical systems\, the importance of design-phase diagnostics\, and the value of post occupancy feedback. \nAs extreme weather\, energy volatility\, and resiliency requirements become more central to building performance\, these lessons are vital. This session equips professionals with the tools and understanding needed to prevent moisture-driven failures and build more resilient\, durable structures. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learning Objectives: \n\nRecognize how compounding design and construction flaws contribute to major building and HVAC system failures affecting moisture control and resilience.\nInterpret case study evidence to identify key failure mechanisms and understand the role of building envelope and HVAC interactions in catastrophic system outcomes.\nApply forensic insights to strengthen early-phase design reviews\, improve construction oversight\, and implement risk mitigation strategies for climate and energy resilient buildings.\nIdentify critical building code requirements related to air sealing and minimum air leakage performance for building enclosures.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Donald B. Snell\, Building Forensics Group\n Donald B. Snell\, PE\, is a senior forensic engineer and vice president at Building Forensics Group. He is licensed in Florida\, Pennsylvania\, Georgia\, Virginia\, and South Carolina. In Florida\, he also holds state certifications in mechanical contracting and as a mold assessor. He is a Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant (CIEC) with the American Council for Accredited Certification and a Certified Indoor Air Quality Professional (CIAQP) with the Association of Energy Engineers. \nMr. Snell is an active member of ASHRAE. He served as standards subcommittee chair for Technical Committee 1.12\, Moisture Management in Buildings (2018–2025)\, and is a member of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). \nHis practice focuses on HVAC design and performance; prevention and diagnosis of moisture problems; building air leakage testing and diagnostics; indoor air quality assessment; and mitigation strategies for HVAC and IAQ deficiencies. Through case work across climates and building types\, he has found that moisture and indoor air quality failures rarely stem from a single cause. Instead\, they result from interacting conditions such as HVAC and building envelope design and construction defects\, discontinuities between scopes of work\, and geometric complexities introduced during project execution. These issues often require coordinated and multidisciplinary solutions to resolve effectively. URL:https://abaaconference.com/event/catastrophic-failures-and-the-net-effect/ LOCATION:Lakeshore Ballroom CATEGORIES:Tuesday May 5 ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://abaaconference.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/IA-Donald.png END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR