best practices award submission

Construction IndustryBEST PRACTICES 2013 Awards Application

Saint Louis University School of Law in Scott Hall ST. LOUIS, MO

TEAM INFORMATION:Owner: David Florek Project Manager, Saint Louis UniversityPh: 314-977-2916 // E: [email protected] Builder:Clayco Inc.Tom Sieckhaus, Senior VP/PartnerPh: 314-429-5100 // E: [email protected]

Jared Hegeman, Project ExecutivePh: 314-429-5100 // E: [email protected]

Matt Reiter, Project ManagerPh: 314-429-5100 // E: [email protected]

Perry Esslinger, Project Director-StructuralPh: 314-592-2220 // E: [email protected]

Electrical: Bob Kaemmerlen, Kaemmerlen ElectricPh: 314-535-2266 // E: [email protected]

Fire Protection:Matt Coleman, Engineered Fire ProtectionPh: 314-771-0033 // E: [email protected]

Plumbing:Peter DeLuca, DeLuca PlumbingPh: 314-427-5551 // E: [email protected]

Fountains:Chuck Schmitz, Commercial Aquatic EngineeringPh: 952-345-6444 // E: [email protected]

Flooring:Shelly Bourque, Flooring Systems, Inc.Ph: 314-329-9300 // E: [email protected]

Structural Steel:Guy DonCarlos, Atlas Iron WorksPh: 314-383-7200 // E: [email protected]

Weaver Steel:Mike Deane, Weaver Steel Construction LLCPh: 636-397-5076 // E: [email protected]

Roofing:David Steinkuhler, Bi-State RoofingPh: 636-225-3050 // E: [email protected]

HVAC:Tom Murawski, Icon MechanicalPh: 618-452-0035 // E: [email protected]

Sheet Metal:Russ Obergfell, Kuenz Heating & Sheet MetalPh: 636-936-1555 // E: [email protected]

Painting:Chri LonessO-Neill Painting IIPh: 636-398-3003 // E: [email protected]

Glass and Glazing:Jeff Hartnett, St. Charles Glass & GlazingPh: 636-887-2315 // E: [email protected]

Fred Foan, MEP/FP Project ManagerPh: 314-595-6378 // E: [email protected] Tony Williams, Project EngineerPh: 314-592-2269 // [email protected]

Al Morton, General SuperintendentPh: 314-429-5100 // E: [email protected]

Architect:The Lawrence GroupMichael SchnaarePh: 314-231-5700 // E: michael.schnaare@thelawrence group.comGary ConradPh: 314-231-5700 // E: [email protected]

ADDITIONAL KEY TEAM MEMBERS:


PROJECT OVERVIEWThe new Saint Louis University (SLU) School of Law in Scott

Hall welcomes the future generations of professionals that will

receive an excellent education at the university and prepare

themselves for a rewarding legal career. Clayco, in collabora-

tion with SLU and an entire team of professionals, helps the

students by improving the way they receive their education,

with the addition of a centralized library and a full size mock

courtroom. The program, which was once spread out across

several buildings on SLU’s mid-town campus, is now self-

contained in the heart of downtown St. Louis, adjacent to the

Custom and Civil Courts Building.

Roof Patio


In the face of many challenges related to an older building, a

restrictive schedule and tenant occupation, the 276,000 sq. ft.

building expansion and renovation project was completed on

schedule in 10 months and just under the $32 million budget.

Mobilization on to the site began on Oct. 1, 2012 and substan-

tial completion was achieved on July 25, 2013. As this was an

expansion to an existing facility, one of the many challenges

was performing all of the necessary structural modifications

to the existing building that was originally constructed in the

mid 1960’s and had sat partially vacant and neglected for many

years. This challenge was met and safely overcome, and we are

proud of the fact that even with all of the high-risk modifica-

tions, we repurposed and expanded a 47-year-old office build-

ing to accommodate SLU Law School’s programming needs,

while fitting within SLU’s high standards for overall campus

design and appeal.

Continuous collaboration with our collective team eliminated

delays and setbacks, and allowed SLU to incorporate additional

space and amenities within the project budget. By conducting

extensive programming and constructability reviews with a

diverse group of owners, building users, design professionals,

and construction professionals, complex problems were identi-

fied, analyzed, and solved prior to the start of construction min-

imizing potentially significant budget and schedule impacts.

The team used all of the best practices on this project in some

form but excelled at Front End Planning, Constructability and

Team Building. These best practice processes were employed

by the entire team (Owner, Builder, Architect, Engineers and

Subcontractors) from the beginning of the design process to

project completion.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Library


BEST PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED FRONT END PLANNING, CONSTRUCTABILITY, TEAM BUILDING

Front End Planning

Which members of the project team were involved in the front end planning process? Key team members from Clayco,

SLU, the architectural firm Lawrence Group and key engineers

met after the contract award date to begin establishing a plan.

From Clayco, Matt Reiter, project manager, was responsible for

all day to day activity from beginning to end. He also served as

the liaison between Clayco, the architect and ownership group,

planning and organizing all meetings and design processes.

Jared Hegeman, project executive, was crucial in the early

stages of design helping with overall scheduling and critical

planning activities. Clayco’s in-house mechanical, electric, fire

protection, plumbing and exterior envelope team helped in the

early stages of planning and design to determine which propos-

als would be best within our time and budget constraints and

also through construction to implement the final design.

What were the identified project risks? What courses of action were taken to mitigate or eliminate these risks? First and foremost we were given a fairly aggressive schedule

with a set deadline to open the building for fall semester 2013.

This strict schedule, tenants occupying the building for over

four months during construction and an unknown tenant for

the restaurant space demonstrated unique risk factors in the

renovation.

Through the front end planning stage we had to determine what

was usable in a 47-year-old building, identifying our scope of

work for renovation and maximizing what could be repurposed

and reused. Based on extensive investigation and multiple pay-

back analysis calculations it was determined that a significant

portion of the existing HVAC systems and the majority of the

electrical systems should either be replaced or enhanced. Also,

because of the building’s age and the plan to expose the build-

ing interiors to the elements during winter to add the new 12th

level, exceeding the budget was a constant risk.

Once construction began, portions of the exterior façade were

removed for either the new level or façade improvements.

Adhering to our strict schedule left no options for exposure to

the elements during the winter months or work stoppage due

to high winds. Aside from the weather we had to ensure the

safety of pedestrians, traffic and our team during the exterior

work and installation of the cornice. The cornice was pre-

fabricated offsite, delivered in 20-30 foot sections and installed

12 stories above the ground. Our limited space also presented

complicated logistics related to the insertion of substantial

structural members through small window openings. This pro-

cess involved hoisting huge steel members through the side of

the building with a crane over busy streets below to allow for

the reinforcement of existing floors to accommodate the new

library and classroom areas.

In order to mitigate all of these potential risks, we held mul-

tiple meetings and conducted several pre-planning exercises.

Clayco became involved in the project in January 2012, with the

construction start date set for Oct. 1, 2012, so the team went

through multiple different options and approaches. We had to

decide whether to add one floor, two floors or no floors or raise

the ceilings on the 11th floor instead. We then had to determine

where the library should go and develop a plan for reinforcing

those floors in order to properly support the books and micro-

films. Our team ran through a multitude of possible scenarios

with budget and schedule in mind.

Equally as challenging was the unknown tenant for the res-

taurant space on street level. An operator for the space was

secured five months into the 10 month project creating a


condensed schedule for build out of the 1st floor space. No

advance planning, material ordering or construction could

take place until the type of restaurant was established and the

space design completed.

In order to make sure we were adhering to our budget, we did a

budget update for every major decision in the design process.

There was never a point during the planning phases that we

didn’t know what the cost would be. During these meetings, we

worked closely with our subcontractors so they would have the

opportunity to provide input for the budget and schedule, and

ultimately to be committed to both. We investigated the build-

ing before construction began to identify all potential risks.

During the design phase, we conducted small-scale strategic

demolition to the building to allow structural investigation. We

also thoroughly investigated all HVAC, electric and plumbing

systems to identify the condition of every piece of equipment,

piping, etc. to define potential budget and schedule impacts.

We worked closely with the structural engineer (KPFF) to prop-

erly design extremely large structural steel beams that could

be fabricated, delivered from offsite facilities, staged on a very

small project site, hoisted through a small window opening and

spliced back together once inside the building.

All of this coordination prior to construction was vital for the

project’s successful completion. The most unique features for

the building were going to be the highest risk elements, so

doing all of the necessary field investigation and pre-planning

was crucial to the overall project.

What procurement method was selected (Design/Bid/Build, Construction Management, Design-Build, Collaborative)? Why was this method selected? Clayco

was selected by SLU, based largely on our successful comple-

tion of previous SLU projects, our reputation for working col-

laboratively with all team members, our respect for the budget,

timely project completion and an organized safety and risk

management approach. Ultimately a GMP was reached when

all major design decisions were made. This method was

selected because it allowed for the design and construction

team to begin working together immediately so that a col-

laborative approach is taken, real time budgeting can occur,

educated decisions can be made and constructability can be

incorporated into the design.

What project constraints (resource availability, budget, etc.) were identified during the pre-planning process and what measures were taken in the pre-project planning process to overcome these constraints? We encountered

several constraints that we were able to identify in the early

stages of development and planning. Existing tenants occu-

pying the building for the first several months added to the

complexity of the job. Their locations on the 1st and 11th floors

presented obstacles to our logistics and challenged the critical

path of our schedule for adding the 12th floor. Extensive pre-

planning was required to work around these tenants.

We also had to consider that our team would be working out-

side during the winter months without the ability to postpone

work that would risk missing our deadline. Weather was a

huge project constraint as we removed portions of the façade

on the west and south elevations, and as we removed the roof

to add the 12th floor. We were able to successfully navigate

around work stoppages due to inclement weather during the

winter months.

In addition to weather, aggressive schedules and the afore-

mentioned complex additions to an existing structure, the loca-

tion of the building itself presented obstacles of its own. The

building is in the downtown St. Louis business district, located

across the street from the Civil and Custom Courts Building. In

addition to the challenges of the geographic location, the small


size of the site meant we had to closely coordinate deliveries

and deal with very little site storage and laydown areas.

Because this is a high-traffic area public safety was a major

concern. We had to work with the city to shut down sidewalks

and drive lanes, and make sure pedestrians and passing vehi-

cles were kept safe from cranes in the roadways and personnel

hoists on the sidewalks.

What project controls were selected for use during construction of the project? Clayco has dramatically set

new standards for design, quality and craftsmanship, efficient

project management, cost containment and worker safety.

We’ve integrated the building process from head to tail and

adopted new technologies that bring state of the art design-

build opportunities to clients and the communities they serve.

In order to properly manage the project, we used a program

that allowed us to track costs, changes and change orders. This

allowed us to continually update our budget to make sure we

were always on point, or to reassess if necessary. We used

standard Clayco practices by implementing schedule programs,

detailed sequence schedules, cost reporting programs, change

management programs, manpower and production docu-

mentation, safety audits and material delivery logs. We held

regular subcontractor coordination meetings, design meetings,

owner meetings and maintained documented meeting min-

utes, commissioning and start-up checklists, field reports and

punchlists. We focused on communications with critical safety

meetings for risky activities, world tour executive walk thrus,

All Hands On Deck safety walk-thru’s and emergency evacua-

tion drills. Working as a team, and using these programs and

Pavillion


procedures, we were able to provide the owners all the tools to

make informed decisions to help guide the project and ensure

they were happy with the outcome.

Constructability

At what stages of the project were constructability reviews conducted? Because of the complex scope of this project, the

constraints with adding a level, the challenges of crafting and

installing the SLU identifying cornice and the significant repur-

posing of an existing building, constructability reviews were

performed repeatedly from the beginning of the design process

through completion of the construction. Constructability was

continuously analyzed for every major design decision so the

ownership and design team had a clear understanding of the

impact of any changes to both project cost and schedule.

What processes and tools did you use during these reviews? Our constructability review is something that is a

cultural standard for Clayco and is regularly completed with the

assistance of our in-house Technical Assurance Group (TAG).

This group of construction experts, engineers and technical

assistants apply their skill sets and technical knowledge to

support delivery of the best possible product, with the best

possible value and in a safe manner. Throughout the project we

used the collective information gathered from the constructabil-

ity review process to maximize efficiency in the field, minimize

the impact of having to re-design during the construction pro-

cess, and complete the desired scope within the construction

schedule, all while safely completing the high-risk activities.

What benefit did these reviews yield? As a result of regular

constructability reviews, the ownership and design team was

able to modify certain aspects of the project during the design

process to capitalize on constructability efficiencies. We were

also able to implement design criteria that would not only meet

the owner’s list of needs but also provide the most valuable

results. For instance, the existing building had been designed

with future vertical expansion capabilities, which made the

idea of adding a 12th floor exciting. The constructability analy-

sis performed on the existing structure resulted in savings and

efficiencies by using as much of the original design as possible,

with only minor modification, to accommodate the addition of

the 12th floor.

Ultimately, the amount of time devoted to conducting the

reviews allowed the project to be completed on time and within

budget with minimal changes during construction resulting from

unforeseen conditions. The collective team was able to imple-

ment a significant scope change into the building’s designed

space. During the initial stages of planning, several ideas were

explored to find the best option for meeting SLU’s program-

ming needs, including adding one or two additional floors in

conjunction with repurposing the existing space. After the team

worked through each idea considering several factors related

to feasibility, budget and scheduling, the team determined the

best option was to add one floor and repurpose the existing

remaining floors. This was a critical decision as it allowed for a

large mock courtroom and multi-use event space to be added

without reducing the space allocated for other programming

requirements. The final design also incorporated the addition

of a full-service restaurant on the first floor, a two-story open

concept library on the 5th and 6th floors and glass curtain wall

exposing communicating stairways.

Did you have a formal constructability program used on the project and a method to review and adjust for the future? Yes, as mentioned above, TAG assisted in conduct-

ing the formal constructability review and then presented

their findings to the team. We met as an entire group (builder,

designer, owner) to review, discuss and decide what would

be implemented for this unique project. This group was also

involved throughout the construction phase and assisted with

essential pre commissioning activities.


We also performed an extensive existing building survey. We

evaluated all aspects of the building from structure, to mechan-

ical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems to assess

the conditions, determine requirements for needed repairs,

incorporate these repairs into the subcontractor procurement

process and uncover any potential issues prior to the design

completion. This was a huge factor in avoiding additional costs

and schedule delays during construction.

Real-time meetings were held as needed to allow for immediate

revisions to the scope of work, allowing decisions to be made

quickly and efficiently. Our process was flexible and conformed

to the needs of the project, allowing us to revisit our payback

analysis. The need for quick, educated decisions helped define

and drive our constructability process.

What lessons were learned? Collectively, the team learned

that extensive early investigations of existing structure and

building systems during design and before construction can

prevent many problems and issues that can hit at inopportune

times and negatively affect the schedule and budget. For the

architectural cornice feature, we determined it was safer, faster

and less expensive to build it in an offsite facility. Other SLU

buildings have similar architectural pieces but the idea of

prefabricating the cornice for this building was unique to the

project. Our collaborative team effort and attention to detail

allowed Clayco to work with clear direction and purpose toward

a common goal and objective.

Team Building

What was the team building process that you employed? We applied the culture of our company to this project from

beginning to the end. Clayco strives to see “Beyond These

Walls” and seeks to be a part of the solution to improve the

built world with the understanding that it’s about the people

using these buildings, more than it is about the building itself.

It’s about the students of SLU that will gain an outstanding edu-

cation in this building and gain real world experience because

of its proximity to the Civil and Custom Courts Buildings and

downtown law district, where many of them will eventually work

as professionals. We stayed focused on turning SLU’s vision

for a world class law school into reality.

We gave full disclosure, working with ownership and third

party groups at every step of the way, and undergoing pric-

ing exercises and schedule reviews for each new idea. It was

a collaborative effort between Clacyo, the architect, owners,

subcontractors and third party consultants. We involved SLU’s

facilities department on the front end to garner their input in

design decisions to help them better operate and maintain the

building after it was completed.

In addition to focusing on the team aspect within the core

owner, builder, designer dynamic, we took this philosophy to

the subcontractors and workers on the job site. We wanted to

ignite a greater sense of passion, accomplishment and own-

ership in each person that played a part in the completion of

this project by communicating the reason behind the building

in our weekly and monthly meetings. This created a sense of

pride for the subcontractors and workers, which helped to bring

them on board as key players in the success of the project.

We went beyond our contractual obligations to bring more to

the table than required. We made an intentional effort to come

together with SLU ownership, designers and technical group to

round out the team with the project’s best interests in mind.

We capped off these 10 months of hard work with a subcon-

tractor appreciation event that allowed each subcontractor the

opportunity to bring their families and children to the job site

to better understand the soaring achievement the building rep-

resented in the community. We were successful in becoming a

team with all of the players that worked together for a common

mission of project success.

What characteristics of this project made team building a critical element of success? The SLU building was


an important and complex project that involved several major

points of modifications to the existing building, which required

clear communication and proper planning. The project sched-

ule had to be maintained, the budget had to be met and the

potential risks had to be established on the front end, all while

incorporating a complete law school program. The element of

trust between every level of contractor and employee on the

site created a winning situation for the SLU. Egos were checked

at the door and we encouraged the mindset that it is not who is

right, but what is right for the project that allowed everyone to

come together for a common goal. Without a successful team

approach and a mutual trust in all of the team members, the

opportunity for failure and major schedule impacts could have

been devastating.

What barriers or obstacles were encountered in imple-menting the team building concept and how they were addressed? We approached this project with the goal of find-

ing the best possible outcome for each individual challenge.

Once the team understood that our only motive was to deliver

the best project possible, it was a natural progression of work-

ing together to achieve a common goal. Even as scope changes

occurred, our team worked to provide viable alternative solu-

tions and ultimately served to give SLU the best possible value

on time and within budget.

Because of our front end planning many of the obstacles were

faced before the project began. Maintaining open communica-

tion, reviewing all decisions with payback analysis and keeping

team members focused on doing what is right for the project,

not what is right for the individual.

Certainly the schedule was the greatest obstacle. We had less

than a year between our start date, when the building would

be vacant, and when classes would begin, to complete the

project. This meant working through the winter exposed to

the elements, in order to add the additional 12th floor (which

includes an outdoor patio space) and to replace large portions

of the existing brick façade with a glass curtain wall system. In

order to meet our strict deadline, delaying the project for any

reason was not an option. This required an extraordinary team

effort to make sure each element and step was in the proper

place so that once construction began work stoppages were

minimal.

What benefits did the project achieve as a result of the team effort and what experience was gained that will be implemented on future projects? The project benefitted

from the collective efforts of the entire team working together

that was energized by our drive and motivation. This approach

is exemplified and recognizable through the project from the

schedule delivery, previous work with SLU and experience

with their unique needs, attention to detail and quality to the

efficiency in the turnover process, punch list completion and

owner closeout. While there were few mishaps once construc-

tion began, this was an important lesson in the value of exten-

sive pre planning. All of the front end meetings kept change

orders down which ultimately allowed the project to finish

slightly under budget while meeting all of the owner’s criteria.

What benefits did the project achieve as a result of the team effort and what experience was gained that will be implemented on future projects? The project benefitted from

the collective efforts of the entire team working together, ener-

gized by our drive and motivation. This approach is exemplified

and recognizable through the project from the schedule deliv-

ery, previous work with SLU and experience with their unique

needs, attention to detail and quality, to the efficiency in the

turnover process, punch list completion and owner closeout.

While there were few mishaps once construction began, this

was an important lesson in the value of extensive pre-planning.


All of the front end meetings kept change orders down which

ultimately allowed the project to finish slightly under budget

while meeting all of the owner’s criteria.

Conclusion

From the first stages of planning, to completion, Clayco is

extremely proud of everyone who worked on this ambitious

project. Our final hurdle was completely unplanned and unpre-

dicted, when one month before completion the front door

canopy collapsed and had to be completely redesigned and

built within days of the scheduled opening. Every aspect of our

front end planning, constructability and team building were put

to the test to manage this final challenge.

The end result was not only aesthetically pleasing, blending

aspects of other SLU buildings with a sleek design befitting a

downtown building, it serves new functions to meet the needs

of the students and faculty of SLU’s law program. Students are

able to better envision their future as a law professional in the

mock courtroom, or in the outdoor space that faces the Custom

and Civil Courts Building. Our dedicated team of professionals

remained focused on our mission to create the best possible

outcome, with the best possible valuable that would meet and

exceed the owner’s expectations.

With several high-risk factors including structural assessment

to an aging building, logistical issues such as moving large

sections of the pre-fabricated cornice into place in a crowded

downtown area, and large-scale removal of the façade and roof,

our team came together to create a plan that would allow our

workers to be safe, and the outcome to be within budget and

open in time for student orientation. This was a task we did not

take lightly at any stage of the process, and was particularly

emphasized in the pre-planning process, and exemplified

through our constructability reviews and collaborative team

“The Docket” - Restaurant


ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATIONCornice Installation

Exterior Facade Enhancements

Court Room


“Commons”

Court Room

best practices award submission

Documents