San Diego Community College District: Green Construction and Integrated Project Delivery

GREEN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SUMMIT Pasadena Convention Center O t b 6, October 6 2009

GREEN CONSTRUCTION AND INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY

█1

The Speaker

Dave Umstot, PE

V

C F S

M D

C

C

D

2

THE OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE

3

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: San Diego Community College District

 Three Colleges - City, Mesa and Miramar  Six Continuing Education Campuses  Students – 150,522 in Academic Year 2007-2008  Employees – 4,900  District Square Footage – 2,218,031  $1.555 billion Propositions S and N construction bond program

4

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use Lean?

 Traditional delivery is NOT working.  All parties are interest-based rather than project-centric.  We continue to spend inordinate amount of time on change management, which is wasteful.  As a public agency we are stuck with lowest responsive, responsible bidder regardless of p past performance p history. y

5

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: What Can I Get For My Money?

Reduce Waste/Inefficiency

Manufacturing

Construction Lags Behind Other Industries Redesign g Rework Claims/Litigation Improper Sequencing of Work

Construction

Delayed Submittals and Approvals Image Space

 Source: Construction Industry Institute.

6

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build California Community Colleges

 As of January 1, 2008, Community Colleges can use design build under SB614.  Must be at least $2.5M in value  Requires project-specific Board resolution

 Need to evaluate the project based on five minimum criteria.  Price (10%)  Technical Experience (10%)  Life cycle cost over 15 years (10%)  Skilled Labor Force (10%)  Safety Record (10%)

7

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use Design Build?

 Advantages: Qualifications-based selection with consideration of price. Match firm past experience and performance with project need. Greater opportunity to select project manager and superintendent. Save money by consolidating CM owner agent, general conditions and supervision into one contract. Best value with target budgeting g order rates. Historicallyy lower change 8

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

http://www.aia.org/ipdg

9

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – What is it?

Project delivery approach that integrates people, systems business structures systems, structures, and practices to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency of project delivery.  Distinguished

by highly g effective collaboration among the owner, prime designer and prime constructor commencing at early design through project completion.

10

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – Why do it?

Integrated Design An integrated design process allows decisions to be made early when the opportunity for change is maximized and the cost of the changes are minimized.

1

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Target Costing

12

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM! BIM! BIM!

 Build it in model space before you build it in real space.  Reduce conflicts using Revit and NavisWorks clash detection.  Energy efficiency evaluation.  Walk the end user through the space.  With schedule integration, a 4-D model can be developed. developed  With cost estimates, a 5-D model can be developed. p 13

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build with Elements of Lean  City College General Classroom / Parking Structure Project.  Elements of Integrated Project Delivery  Building Information Modeling  List/prequalify all major trade contractors  List/prequalify all major engineering consultants  Target Budgeting

 11 proposals received; top p 5 teams shortlisted for interview.

14

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Basis of Design Build Programming

15

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors

Price (20%) – 200 points total Proposer’s Proposer s Price = General Conditions Cost + (OH&P% X $37 $37,750,000) 750 000) Lowest Proposal Price times 200 the Proposer’s Price

Non-Price Factors (80%) – 800 points total Technical Expertise (300 points) Life Life Cycle Costs (100 points) Skilled Labor Force Availability (100 points) Commitment to Diversity (50 points) Safety Record (100 points) Design Excellence (150 points)

16

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors  Technical T h i lE Expertise ti (300 points) i t )  General Firm Information  Firm Experience p  Team Member Experience  Firm & Team References

 Life Cycle Costs (100 points)  First cost, estimated life, annual maintenance cost, operation cost and projected replacement timeline for:  Mechanical systems  Electrical systems  Vertical transportation

 Energy consumption based on 40 year project life escalated at current CPI CPI. 17

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Total Cost of Ownership Example

 50 year design life  100,000 square foot classroom building  Design and construction cost - $30 million  Capital Renewal: 2 percent of current replacement value (APPA benchmark)  O&M Budget $5.69/square foot  Inflation: 3 percent

18

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Savings in O & M Capital Renewal

Total Cost of Ow nership

11%

Save 5% in  Cap. Renewal 53%

D&C: Cap.R: O&M: Total:

$30M $101M $149M $280M

Savings Total NPV $ 5M $1.1M $15M $3.4M $20M $4 4M $4.4M

36%

Save 10% in O&M

19

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation: Methodology

 Incorporate life-cycle costing that includes initial construction costs, operating costs, maintenance repair and d replacement l t costs t to t evaluate l t the th long-term l t investment value of design alternatives.  Integrated I t t dd design i so th thatt b buildings ildi systems t are designed d i d to perform as a whole rather than as component parts with an emphasis on efficiency and performance.  Perform enhanced commissioning and facility performance evaluations to assure that the building s stems meet the occupant systems occ pant req requirements irements and design intent.

20

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Fundamental Team Member Characteristics

Tenacity Talent

Trust

Temperament

All Team Members Must Share a Common Set of Values, Ethics and Principles p - No Exceptions! p 21

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Team Organization

 Prime Contract Between Owner & DBE OWNER

 Architect & Select Consultants Contracted to DBE DBE

 DB Trade Contractors Hire Design Consultants  Specialty Trade Contractors Contribute to the Project Design

2

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Approach to Risk Management

Management of the Process Building Information Modeling (BIM) Risk Management g

Last Planner Scheduling

23

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM (Building Information Modeling)

BIM allows Sundt to Work with Designers and Sub-Contractors in a Collaborative, 3D Environment During Design and Construction Benefits  Fewer RFIs  Fewer Change Orders  Fewer Delays

24

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Internal Clash Survey

 Building Construction Mechanical piping hits cable tray and fire protection t ti piping i i iin ceiling ili space  Survey Average Results  Man-hour Man hour Savings = 61  Delay Savings = 3 Days  Cost Savings = $30,349.00  Number of Clashes Shown in Example = 9  Savings per Clash Resolved = $3,372.00

25

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use BIM?

Average Savings Per Clash Resolution

$5,934.00 3 Days 59 Man-hours

26

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Using BIM to Go Green

 Explore Building Skin Alternatives  Develop Energy Model  Analyze Life Cycle Cost Options

27

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Go Green?

 Reduce Energy Consumption  Reduce Water Usage  Lower Owner’s Operating Costs Fundamentally Good Design Incorporates Sustainable Design Features

IMPACTS OF US BUILDINGS ON RESOURCES

40% 72% 39% 13 6% 13.6%

primary energy use*

electricity l t i it consumption* ti *

CO2 emissions*

potable water consumption**

Sources: *Environmental Information Administration (2008), EIA Annual Energy Outlook ** US Geological Survey (2000) (2000), 2000 data data.

28

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Project Specific Challenges & Solutions

CHALLENGE  No on on-site site storage for materials and equipment SOLUTIONS  BIM  Prefabrication made possible through use of BIM  LEAN Scheduling  Just-in-Time delivery (materials/equipment)

29

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Benefits of Integrated Project Delivery

Eliminates waste due to redesign Facilitates higher quality through pre-planning pre planning and prefabrication Optimizes project schedule Maximizes project value Enhanced satisfaction from end user end-user

30

THE ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE

31

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Programming Strategy

 What are the Site Issues?  What at is s Driving g the t e Project? oject  Fitting into Campus Planning Guidelines  Meeting g the User Program g  Having a DSA Strategy  Energy Conserving Design / LEED  Low Maintenance / Durable  Security Issues  Public Accessibility  Expansion / Flexibility

32

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: Massing

3

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: Elevations

34

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM Integration

 Design Visualization Tool  Powerful Tool for Consultant Coordination (Clash Detection)  Interface with Sub Contractors  Built in QA with Integrated Model  BIM is Front End Time Demanding  Early Coordination and Management

35

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Timeless Design Strategies

 Building Orientation for Daylighting and Solar Control  Energy Conservation Measures  Low Water Use Landscape with N ti Pl Native Plantt M Material t i l  Storm Drain Retention and Filtration Concepts  Cool Roof / Green Roof  Shade Elements to Prevent “Heat Heat Islands”  Bicycle Parking / Emphasis on Mass T Transit it / Pedestrian P d ti T Travell 36

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Integration With BIM

37

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Integration With BIM

38

LEED V2.2 Certification

G General l Purpose P Cl Classroom B Building ildi T Targeting ti LEED Sil Silver or Gold G ld

39

Miramar College Parking Structure and Police Substation

￭Received 15 responses to RFQ ￭Shortlisted the top 2 ranked firms for the proposal round that includes a limited design competition ￭Hosted separate meetings with each team to discuss project concepts and approaches while they were preparing their proposals ￭Designing to target budget

40

Miramar College Parking Structure and Police Substation Seeking LEED Platinum ￭ 828 parking spaces in a four-level structure, capable of supporting 250 kW of photovoltaic panels. ￭ 5,000 square feet for new police substation. ￭ Construction expected to start 2010.

2010

41

Design/Build With a Limited Design Competition Miramar College Parking Structure/Police Substation • Will be first LEED Platinum project for a

community college in San Diego County • Passive P i cooling li & lilighting hti systems t • Green roof and green screen • Reclaimed water • Solar chimney • Variable Refrigerant Volume HVAC

42

Miramar College Parking Structure and Police Substation

43