Jury Report for Sustainable Shelter
Jury Report for ‘Sustainable Shelter’ Competition
Forty-four (44) registrations were received for the Sustainable Shelter Category. Twenty-three (23) of these submitted entries to TAO-Pilipinas.
I. Jury Panel Composition
The members of the jury panel for YP Design Challenge 1: Sustainable Shelter included:
Arch/EnP. Arlene Christy D. Lusterio, Executive Director, TAO-Pilipinas, Inc.
Arch/EnP. Nathaniel von Einsiedel, PhD., Chairman, CONCEP, Inc. and President, Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP)
Engr. Ramon Alberto B. Nolido, President, R.A. Nolido Construction Corporation
II. Judging Criteria
Prior to the Jury Deliberation scheduled last November 10, 2008 at Room 101 of the University Hotel in UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City, the jury panel agreed that eligible entries will be judged on the following criteria and scoring weights:
Criterion 1: Clearly show use of sustainable design features and appropriate building technologies (25 points max.)
- energy efficiency
- disaster-resilient building design
- rainwater harvesting
- waste management
Criterion 2: Original and innovative (25 points max.)
- application of new knowledge, new application of existing knowledge, or the unique mix of existing and new knowledge
Criterion 3: Cost-effective (20 points max.)
- use of local materials and tools/equipment, labor and construction methods
- ease of maintenance and repair
Criterion 4: Environmentally-sound construction (20 points max.)
- choice of building materials
- environmental impact of the building design
Criterion 5: Socio-culturally sensitive and affordable (10 points max.)
- affordable (as defined by BP 220 Minimum Standards for Socialized Housing Implementing Rules and Regulations Section 4. C and RA7279 Urban Development and Housing Act Section 3.a)
- high possibility of being constructed by people’s organizations
The jury also applied the following rules in selecting eligible entries:
1. Late submissions on the date of the deadline (i.e. those received after 5:00pm of Oct.24) shall have point deductions from the entry’s total score. For every 30 minutes of late submittal, 1.0 point shall be deducted. For example, the if the entry was submitted at 6:45pm and garnered a total score of 83.75 points, 4.0 points will be deducted and its final score would be 79.75 points.
2. Entries submitted after the Oct. 24 deadline will be disqualified.
3. Entries that did not conduct the required community area visit will be automatically disqualified.
III. Jury Deliberation Process
The judging process consisted of the following steps:
1. Before actual jury review, the Secretariat Committee examined all submissions to ascertain whether they complied with submission and presentation board layout requirements and procedural rules, and noted compliance of the proposed designs to space requirements.
2. At the start of the jury review sessions, selected resource persons and community representatives were invited for a discussion of the entries’ merits. All qualified entries were displayed and seen also by the group and their comments were solicited to be considered by the jury in their deliberations.
3. For the first round of jury review, each jury member scored the entries according to the scoring system. Each entry’s scores were averaged to obtain the total score. All entries with an average total score of 70.0 points and higher comprised the semi-finalists’ pool that advanced to the second round.
4. For the second round of jury review, previous total scores were disregarded and each entry (in the finalists’ pool only) was scored by the jury panel unanimously. Ample time was given to the jury panel for deliberation. The discussion from this deliberation formed part of the jury comments on winning and notable entries.
5. The jury selected winning designs and designated First, Second, and Third Award according to the following standard:
First Award – with at least a final score of 90 points
Second Award – with at least a final score of 80 points
Third Award – with at least a final score of 70 points
The innovation (criterion 2) score was used as the tie-breaker. The jury also decided on whether to give out special awards for some entries.
6. After the winning designs were selected, the envelopes containing the winners’ names were opened by the Secretariat Committee and the contents read to the jury.
7. Winning designers were notified through email on November 12, 2008 by the Secretariat Committee. Awarding ceremonies will be scheduled by TAO-Pilipinas in December 2008.
For the complete Jury Deliberation Report, please follow this link.
