LEAN AND GREEN CONSTRUCTION
CCFC Presentation November 4, 2009
█1
The Speakers
Dave Umstot, PE
John P. Messick
Ralph Roesling, Architect FAIA
Vice Chancellor, Facilities Management, San Diego Community College District
Project Director Sundt Construction
Principal Roesling Nakamura Terada Architects
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
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 past performance history.
5
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: What Can I Get for My Money? Reduce Waste/Inefficiency Construction Lags Behind Other Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Redesign 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 Community Colleges can use design build as of January 1, 2008, 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 Historically lower change order rates.
8
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Integrated Project Delivery
Image Space
http://www.aia.org/ipdg 9
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – What Is It? Project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures, and practices to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency of project delivery. Distinguished by highly effective collaboration among the owner, prime designer and prime constructor commencing at early design through project completion.
Sandra LeDrew: sledrew@childsmascariwarner.com
10
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – Why Do It?
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 4D model can be developed.
With cost estimates, a 5-D model can be developed. 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 5 teams shortlisted for interview.
14
OWNERS’S PERSPECTIVE: Basis of Design Build Programming
15
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors Price (20%) – 200 points total Proposer’s Price = General Conditions Cost + (OH&P% X $37,750,000) Lowest Proposal Price times 200 the Proposer’s Price
Non-Price Factors (80%) – 800 points total Technical Expertise (300 points) 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 Expertise (300 points) General Firm Information Firm Experience 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. 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 Ownership
11%
Save 5% in Cap. Renewal 53% 36%
Save 10% in O&M
D&C: Cap.R: O&M: Total:
$30M $101M $149M $280M
Savings Total NPV $ 5M $1.1M $15M $3.4M $20M $4.4M
19
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy The Board of Trustees is committed to environmental stewardship as a fundamental operational objective and integral to the strategy of fulfilling our educational mission. The Board of Trustees further recognizes its fiscal responsibility to use taxpayers' dollars wisely for the long-term, eschewing the short-term economy where there is a better long-range investment. The goal of this policy is to provide District students, faculty and staff with working and learning environments that are healthy, thermally, visually and acoustically comfortable; energy efficient; material efficient; water efficient; easy to maintain and operate; safe and secure and sited in an environmentally responsible manner.
20
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation: Performance Goals
Exceed Title 24 of California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards by at least 10%. Ten percent of the energy utilized by the project must be renewable with at least 5 percent generated on site. Divert at least 75% of construction and demolition debris from landfills. Pursue formal LEEDTM certification with a minimum of 33 points resulting in a LEEDTM Silver rating, with a goal of LEEDTM Gold on applicable projects.
21
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation: Methodology
Incorporate life-cycle costing that includes initial construction costs, operating costs, maintenance repair and replacement costs to evaluate the long-term investment value of design alternatives. Integrated design so that buildings systems are designed 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 systems meet the occupant requirements and design intent.
2
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Environmental Sustainability Policy Environmental sustainability is an essential goal of the District. Global warming, diminishing resources and escalating costs of energy and rubbish disposal require that management at all levels focus on the efficient and effective use of energy and resources. This policy expresses the Board’s intent to implement a Districtwide Environmental Sustainability program within the constraints of current staff authorization.
23
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Sustainability Proclamation
24
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Sustainability Proclamation WHEREAS, the San Diego Community College District is a regional leader of sustainability and green applications; WHEREAS, greenhouse gas emissions endanger the San Diego environment, health, and economy;
WHEREAS, clean air and water are critical issues for all San Diegans, and transportation-related (e.g., automobile, truck, train, and ship) air pollution has a negative impact on public health and the environment; WHEREAS, sustainability, by definition, is a fundamental issue of importance in the 21st century; and
WHEREAS, there is tremendous mutual benefit for the institutions of the San Diego Community College District and the region to develop and implement policies supporting environmental sustainability outreach ad integration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Diego Community College District proclaims that as an institution of higher education, it will exercise leadership, both on campus and throughout the community ; by modeling sustainability practices in daily activities,; by influencing future campus plans that promote sustainable applications; and by sharing knowledge of and expertise in environmental sustainability issues. 25
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: LEEDTM Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) provides standards for environmentally sustainable construction. New Construction: LEED-NC is designed to guide and distinguish highperformance commercial and institutional projects, including office buildings, high-rise residential buildings, government buildings, recreational facilities, manufacturing plants and laboratories. Existing Buildings: LEED-EB addresses whole-building cleaning and maintenance issues (including chemical use), recycling programs, exterior maintenance programs, and systems upgrades. Commercial Interiors: LEED-CI applies to commercial interiors for the tenant improvement market. Core and Shell: LEED-CS applies to base building elements such as structure, envelope and the HVAC system and is meant to be compatible with CI.
26
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: LEEDTM Scoring There are 69 points available for LEEDTM new construction projects in these categories: Sustainable Site (14 possible points)
Water Efficiency (5 possible points) Energy and Atmosphere (17 possible points) Materials and Resources (13 possible points) Indoor Environmental Quality (15 possible points)
Innovation in Design (5 possible points)
27
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: LEEDTM Prerequisites Construction activity pollution prevention. Fundamental commissioning of the building energy systems; minimum energy performance; fundamental refrigerant management. Storage and collection of recyclables. Minimum indoor air quality performance, environmental tobacco smoke control.
28
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: LEEDTM LEVELS
Certification: 26 - 32 points Silver: 33 - 38 points Gold: 39 - 51 points
Platinum: 52 - 69 points
29
THE BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE
30
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Corporate Philosophy Focus on Alternative Project Delivery Methods Collaborative Approach Win-Win Mentality Celebrate Value Enhancement, Not Low Price Long Term Perspective (high value placed on relationship with all stakeholders)
31
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Decision to Go / No-Go
Do We Have the Resources to Execute? Tactical Fit? Relationship With Owner? Basis of Selection? Can We Be Successful?
32
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Realities of Design-Build Responsible for design & performance of all systems (assume more risk) Design to a Budget instead of budgeting a design Responsible for Schedule, including design & coordination of building permits
DBE Assumes More Risk
Responsible for all Errors and Omissions
Design-Build requires a Higher Level of Care and Diligence.
3
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Approach to Risk Management
Selection of Design-Build Team Design Team Specialty Contractors Risk Management
34
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Fundamental Team Member Characteristics
Tenacity Talent
Trust
Temperament
Al l Team Member s Must Shar e a o C mmon Set of a V l ues, Et hi cs and Pr i nci pl es - No Except i ons! 35
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Selecting the Architect of Record Experience with Project Type & Permitting Agency Willing to Co-Locate Willing to Design in Revit (BIM) Commitment to Sustainable Design
Capacity to Perform (Actual Team Members) Flexibility Fun to Work With
36
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Selecting the Architect of Record Long-Term Perspective Focus on Continuous Improvement Over Multiple Projects
Continually Course Correct and Improve Process Build on Success
37
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Sundt D/B Experience with RNTA Mater Dei | QBS Selection
San Ysidro High School | BV Selection
Moonlight Amphitheater | QBS Selection
38
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Sundt D/B Experience with RNTA City College | QBS Selection Fully Integrated Project Approach
39
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
A/E
D/B Subs
40
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Approach to Risk Management Management of the Process Building Information Modeling (BIM) Last Planner Scheduling Risk Management
41
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
42
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Internal Clash Survey Building Construction Mechanical piping hits cable tray and fire protection piping in ceiling space
Survey Average Results 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
43
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use BIM? Average Savings Per Clash Resolution
$5,934.00 3 Days
59 Man-hours
4
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Using BIM to Go Green Explore Building Skin Alternatives Develop Energy Model Analyze Life Cycle Cost Options
45
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Go Green? Reduce Energy Consumption Reduce Water Usage Lower Owner’s Operating Costs IMPACTS OF US BUILDINGS ON RESOURCES
Fundamentally Good Design Incorporates Sustainable Design Features
40% 72 % 39 % 13. 6%
pr i mar y ener gy use*
el ect r i ci t y consumpt i on*
em 2 i ssi ons* CO
pot abl e wat er consumpt i on**
Sour ces: * Envi r onment al Inf or mat i on d A mi ni st r at i on ( 208) , EIA Annual n E er gy u O t l ook * * US Geol ogi cal u S r vey ( 20) , 20 dat a.
46
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Project Specific Challenges & Solutions Challenge No on-site storage for materials and equipment Solutions BIM Prefabrication made possible through use of BIM LEAN Scheduling Just-in-Time delivery (materials/equipment)
47
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Benefits of Integrated Project Delivery Eliminates waste due to redesign Facilitates higher quality through pre-planning and prefabrication Optimizes project schedule Maximizes project value
Enhanced satisfaction from end-user
48
THE ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE
49
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to pick a Design Build Partner Successful Mutual Experience with Design Build A Committed Team Partner Shared Business Ethics Quality Design and Construction Fun to Work With
50
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: Assembling the Right Team Successful Working Relationships Project Specific Experience DSA Experience for Educational Projects Design Build Experience BIM Experience LEED Experience
51
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project What are the Site Issues? What is Driving the Project? Fitting into Campus Planning Guidelines Meeting the User Program Having a DSA Strategy Energy Conserving Design / LEED Low Maintenance / Durable Security Issues Public Accessibility Expansion / Flexibility
52
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project
53
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project City College Campus Context
Project Site
54
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project
5
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project
56
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
57
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Timeless Design Strategies Building Orientation for Daylighting and Solar Control Energy Conservation Measures Low Water Use Landscape with Native Plant Material Storm Drain Retention and Filtration Concepts Cool Roof / Green Roof
Shade Elements to Prevent “Heat Islands” Bicycle Parking / Emphasis on Mass Transit / Pedestrian Travel 58
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Integration With BIM
59
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Integration With BIM
60
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: Challenges - User Work Sessions
Consensus Building User Goals Program / Scope
61
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: Challenges - Agency Approvals
Meetings with DSA Meetings with City Staff Meetings with CCDC Jurisdictional Challenges
Start Dialogues Early
62
CONCLUSION
63