jeffrey white construction management emphasis

Introduction

Foundation Investigation

“Technology in the Trailer”

Owner Financing

Conclusion

Jeffrey White - Construction Management Emphasis

Jeffrey White Jeffrey White Construction Management EmphasisConstruction Management Emphasis

Introduction

Foundation Analysis


Owner Financing

Conclusion

Northern Virginia Medical Northern Virginia Medical Education Campus, Education Campus,

Springfield, VASpringfield, VA

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions

Jeffrey White - Construction Management

AgendaAgenda

Investigation Area OutlineInvestigation Area Outline

GoalsGoals

BackgroundBackground

AnalysesAnalyses

Conclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & Recommendations

Project OverviewProject Overview

Design side analysis – Foundation InvestigationDesign side analysis – Foundation Investigation

CM related research – Trailer TechnologyCM related research – Trailer Technology

Owner Issue – Alternative Financing OptionsOwner Issue – Alternative Financing Options

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Project OverviewProject Overview

LocationLocation – Industrial Park in Springfield, VA (10 minutes from Washington D.C. Beltway)

ArchitectureArchitecture – 3 storied Brick façade medical education building with attached Precast 750 space parking garage.Other envelope components consists of curtain wall, metal panels, & cast stone.

SpacesSpaces – Public pharmacy, Barnes & Nobles, dental and medical laboratories, faculty & administrative offices, patient clinics, imaging and EMT rooms. BuildingBuilding SizeSize - 121,000 SF

CostCost - $26 million

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Project TeamProject Team

OwnerOwner Northern Virginia Community CollegeNorthern Virginia Community College 3rd largest Community College in the nation with over 60,000 students.

Construction ManagerConstruction Manager - Gilbane Building CompanyGilbane Building Company

ArchitectsArchitects - Hillier & Lukmire Grant PartnershipHillier & Lukmire Grant Partnership

Joint architecture effort based on each firm’s prior experience (Hillier – medical buildings, Lukmire Grant – coordination with the state standards & review agency of BCOM).

Mechanical EngineerMechanical Engineer - S3E Klingemann (MEP) Structural EngineerStructural Engineer - Cagley & Associates

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Foundation Investigation Background & GoalsFoundation Investigation Background & Goals

AnalysisAnalysis

Evaluate the use of spread footers by designing each Evaluate the use of spread footers by designing each based from column loads it is to carry and the based from column loads it is to carry and the associated soil bearing capacities to formulate an associated soil bearing capacities to formulate an estimate to evaluate.estimate to evaluate.

Existing Foundation Existing Foundation – 572 driven steel H-piles at an – 572 driven steel H-piles at an ave. length of 45’. Combined with a series of pile ave. length of 45’. Combined with a series of pile caps and grade beams. The SOG thickens to 16” at caps and grade beams. The SOG thickens to 16” at the perimeter to tie into the grade beams with dial the perimeter to tie into the grade beams with dial rods. Cost $1.2 millionrods. Cost $1.2 millionRedesign GoalRedesign GoalTo eliminate Pile subcontract ($641,076) to result in a To eliminate Pile subcontract ($641,076) to result in a reduced cost.reduced cost.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Deep to Shallow FoundationDeep to Shallow Foundation

Spread Footer DesignSpread Footer Design

Spread footer’s were designed and checked against Spread footer’s were designed and checked against one-way (beam) shear & two-way (punching) shear. one-way (beam) shear & two-way (punching) shear. Full design would need design check for flexure as Full design would need design check for flexure as well as check for over-turning.well as check for over-turning.

Requires 15’ excavation at 2:1 slope to reach soil Requires 15’ excavation at 2:1 slope to reach soil bearing capacities of 4000 psf.bearing capacities of 4000 psf.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Rough EstimateRough Estimate

*Spread footers for Interior Columns only - Estimate $1,917,090

Spread footer Design- 7.5'x7.5'x18"

UnitCost/unit -

(Including Labor) QuantityExcavation C.Y. $37.00 240 $8,880.00Engineered Fill & Compaction C.Y. $100.00 237.1 $23,710.00Formwork S.F. $4.91 43.2 $212.11

Concrete C.Y. $100.00 2.9 $290.00Rebar ton $879.00 0.075 $65.93

Total $33,158.04Indicates costs referenced from www.getaquote.com

Estimate for single spread footer - C-4

*Engineered Fill Estimates competively priced, Excavation & Concrete obtained via superintendent specific to job, Rebar estimate obtained from RSMeans 2002.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Alternative-Footer Design at 2000 psf soil bearing Alternative-Footer Design at 2000 psf soil bearing capacitycapacity

Assumptions:Assumptions: Must avoid all fill to evade possible differential Must avoid all fill to evade possible differential settling. Footers resized for 9’ excavation. settling. Footers resized for 9’ excavation. *Design resulted in 8.8’x8.8’x24”*Design resulted in 8.8’x8.8’x24”

Foundation estimate nearly Foundation estimate nearly $600,000$600,000 greater than greater than original.original.

*Proper analysis would require additional boring logs & *Proper analysis would require additional boring logs & site investigation.site investigation.

Conclusion:Conclusion: Shallow foundations found unfeasible based on Shallow foundations found unfeasible based on extensive excavation and fill required due to poor soil extensive excavation and fill required due to poor soil bearing capacities.bearing capacities.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Short Interval Production ScheduleShort Interval Production Schedule (SIPS)(SIPS)Analysis of Original FoundationAnalysis of Original FoundationSIPS Background: SIPS Background: Ideal for analyzing repetitive construction Ideal for analyzing repetitive construction

work (pile caps). A precedent can be set for a cycle of work work (pile caps). A precedent can be set for a cycle of work and continuously improved upon.and continuously improved upon.

Project Background:Project Background: Contract awarded in two phases based Contract awarded in two phases based on the extensive design process.on the extensive design process.

GMP#1 – site utilities, mobilization, foundation work, & long GMP#1 – site utilities, mobilization, foundation work, & long lead items (steel, Precast).lead items (steel, Precast).

Dual contract stages resulted in a 4 week schedule slide.Dual contract stages resulted in a 4 week schedule slide.

Goal:Goal: To provide detailed look at foundation work To provide detailed look at foundation work appropriately plan for continuous work flow.appropriately plan for continuous work flow.

Planned Foundation work- 20 weeks

Actual Scheduled work- 16 weeks

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Work Flow used in SIPS studyWork Flow used in SIPS study

1. Pile Driving

2. Excavation, w/ Rebar Prefabrication Concurrent

3. Piles Cut & Bearing Pads welded

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


4. Form Pile Cap/ Place Rebar Cage/Set Anchor Bolts

5. Pour Concrete


Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


6. Cure/Strip Forms/Bituminous damp proofing

7. Backfill & Compact


Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Construction Change of Pile CapConstruction Change of Pile CapElimination of formworkElimination of formwork

Geotechnical Report – “site soil is of Geotechnical Report – “site soil is of extremely cohesive kind”extremely cohesive kind”

Neat Cut opportunity – Quality Control RequiredNeat Cut opportunity – Quality Control Required

Neat Cut eliminates or reducesNeat Cut eliminates or reduces FormworkFormwork ExcavationExcavation Backfill & CompactionBackfill & Compaction

Replace bituminous waterproofing activity with bentonite fabric.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


SIPS ResultsSIPS Results

Time (min.) Quantity

Total minutes per pile cap

Drive Piles

Lift 2 170 340

Drive Piles 18 170 3060

Excavate

Back hoe Excavation 5 52 260

Hand excavation 10 52 520

Cut Pile Cap to elevation 6 170 1020

Weld Baseplate to Piles 10 170 1700

Form Pile Cap (SF) 4.32 2239 9672.48

Place Rebar Cages

place chairs 3 52 156

lift & Place 5 52 260

place anchor bolts 10 52 520

Concrete

Pour Concrete 5 52 260

vibrate 3 52 156

Strip Formwork 10 52 520

Fill & Compaction

Fill (8in. Lifts) C.Y. 3 272 816

Compact C.Y. 3 272 81620076.48

334.61

SIPS - PC-4

Totals for Critical Path Activities

Total Man-Hours

Time QuantityTotal minutes per

pile cap

Drive Piles

Lift 2 170 340

Drive Piles 18 170 3060

Excavate

Back hoe Excavation (C.Y.) 10.7 254 2717.8

Hand excavation (SF) 1.02 2239 2283.78

Cut Pile cap 6 170 1020

Weld baseplate 10 170 1700

Place Rebar Cages

place chairs 3 52 156

lift & Place 5 52 260

Set anchor bolts 10 52 520

Concrete

Pour Concrete 5 52 260

vibrate 3 52 156

12473.58

207.89Total Man Hours

Totals for Critical Path Activities

SIPS - PC-4

Original MethodOriginal Method Revised Construction without Revised Construction without formworkformwork

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Schedule Reduction for foundation constructionSchedule Reduction for foundation constructionSIPS ResultsSIPS Results

Initial Activities moved forward to accommodate continuous workflow

Drive PilesExcavateCut Pile Cap to elevationWeld Baseplate to Piles

Place Rebar CagesPrefab Rebar Cageslift & Placeplace anchor bolts

ConcretePour Concrete Waterproofing

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13Week 9 Week 10

Foundation Work in Project ScheduleFoundation Work in Project Schedule

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Formwork, Excavation, Fill & Compaction Formwork, Excavation, Fill & Compaction SavingsSavings

SIPS ResultsSIPS Results

Quantity Unit Cost TotalExcavation (C.Y.) 1116.1 37.00$ 41,295.70$ *Cost referenced from job cost - super. Adams

Quantity Material Labor Equip Total Total CostFill (C.Y.) 1116.1 -$ 1 1.36 2.36 2,634.00$ Compaction (C.Y.) 1116.1 -$ 0.99 0.06 1.05 1,171.91$

Total 3,805.90$

Quantity Material Labor Equip Total Total CostPile Cap (S.F.) 16280 4.91$ 2.40$ 0.07$ 4.91$ 79,934.80$ Grade Beams (S.F.) 4248 1.02$ 1.77$ 0.05$ 2.84$ 12,064.32$

Total 91,999.12$

Savings of Eliminating Formwork

Total Savings 133,294.82$

Fill & Compaction Cost Savings

Formwork Savings (including stripping)

*Formwork cost taken from www.get-a-quote.com, Virginia

Additional Excavation Cost Savings

*Fill & Compaction costs taken from www.get-a-quote.com, Virginia

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


ConclusionConclusion

Excavation & Fill costs to remove inadequate Excavation & Fill costs to remove inadequate soil make a shallow foundation uneconomical.soil make a shallow foundation uneconomical.

Pursue feasibility of neat cut opportunity. Pursue feasibility of neat cut opportunity.

Utilize SIPS a communication tool to provide Utilize SIPS a communication tool to provide owner & CM detailed information to avoid or owner & CM detailed information to avoid or reduce work stoppage.reduce work stoppage.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Construction TechnologyConstruction Technology

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Construction Technology Construction Technology ResearchResearch

Collaborative Project Management SystemsCollaborative Project Management Systems

Gilbane’s Current Project SystemGilbane’s Current Project System

Prolog 6.0 – (RFI’s, Punchlist, Submittals, Meeting Minutes)

Server located in trailer

Database on trailer network

All information needed in hard copy

Current IndustryCurrent Industry – of Contractors, suppliers, service providers and owners 53% using online collaboration

Associated General Contractors of America

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Existing Information Flow

Data Entry – Prolog

Hard Copy Form

Fax

Sub-Contractor/Owner

Data Entry to own software

Own form faxed

Hard copy modified, faxed

Architect

Data Entry –Prolog

Hard Copy Form

Data Entry –Prolog

Hard Copy Form

Fax/FedEx

Fax/FedEx

Hard Copy Printed

OR

Internal Congestion (per license basis)Internal Congestion (per license basis)2 licenses for 7 on site employees with Prolog related 2 licenses for 7 on site employees with Prolog related duties.duties.

Project Collaboration Communication Flow

Internet (Database Ownership negotiable)

Subcontractors

ArchitectOwner

Data Entry & Retrieval to/from Software




InefficienciesInefficiencies

Unproductive information flowUnproductive information flow

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Benefits (Intangible)Benefits (Intangible) Savings (Tangible Savings (Tangible Budgeted Items)Budgeted Items)

Decrease Human resource Decrease Human resource timetime

Postage Service (FedEx) - Postage Service (FedEx) - $14,300$14,300

Increase SecurityIncrease Security Printing & Copying Printing & Copying (Blueboy) - $40,000 (Blueboy) - $40,000

Improved Response TimesImproved Response Times Office Supplies - $6,000Office Supplies - $6,000

Web-Based TrainingWeb-Based Training Secretarial Services - Secretarial Services - $46,800$46,800

Travel TimeTravel Time

Timely On Hand Timely On Hand InformationInformation

Better interface with teamBetter interface with team

Benefits IdentifiedBenefits Identified

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


How does Gilbane get all players to How does Gilbane get all players to collaborate?collaborate?

XMLXML – Extensible Markup Language, allows – Extensible Markup Language, allows information flow between different information flow between different applications.applications.

Owner ReimbursableOwner Reimbursable – Costs of software – Costs of software can be “bought into” by the owner and can be “bought into” by the owner and paid for the duration of the project.paid for the duration of the project.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


ConclusionConclusion

Gilbane should pursue online collaboration Gilbane should pursue online collaboration for future projects.for future projects.

Benefits have been proven.Benefits have been proven.

Employees already trained.Employees already trained.

Better and more timely Information flow.Better and more timely Information flow.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Owner FinancingOwner Financing

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Owner Financing – Alternative Owner Financing – Alternative Financing Options for Public OwnersFinancing Options for Public Owners

Goal:Goal: Reduce difficulties of owner’s budget Reduce difficulties of owner’s budget overruns, find a financing alternate that overruns, find a financing alternate that enhances construction.enhances construction.

Existing ConditionsExisting Conditions: NVCC funds current project NVCC funds current project through state appropriations allotted yearly.through state appropriations allotted yearly.

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Why re-financing is a good fit for NVCCWhy re-financing is a good fit for NVCCIncreased voter resistance to approval of state Increased voter resistance to approval of state funds to public capital projectsfunds to public capital projects

Short term cash flow problemsShort term cash flow problems

Portion of contingency prematurely received Portion of contingency prematurely received by ownerby owner

Negative PublicityNegative Publicity

State review boards & procurement lawsState review boards & procurement laws

New legislationNew legislation

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Owner Financing – New VA LegislationOwner Financing – New VA Legislation

Virginia Public-Private Educational Facilities and Virginia Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002Infrastructure Act of 2002

Legislation applicable to the followingLegislation applicable to the following

School buildings

Functionally related and subordinate facility and land to a school building

Any depreciable property provided for use in a school facility that is operated as a part of the public school system

Goal: Recognize and capitalize on the competencies held by each party in the construction process

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


NVCC’s Prospective OptionsNVCC’s Prospective Options

Three Basic Types of Public/Private Real Estate Partnerships

Type of Project and Participation

Entities Design Finance Develop Construct Operate Ownership

1.Private Partner in conjunction with public entity(s)

Private with little or no

Public Input

Private with Marginal Public Capital or

Noncapital Investment Private Private Private Private

2. Traditional Public/Private

Partnership Private with Public Input

Private and Public Entity(s) Private

Private with Public Oversight

Private or Public

Private and/or Public

3.Public Partner in conjunction with a private developer

Private Contract or

in-house Public Public Entity(s)

Private Developer on a Fee

Basis

Private with Public Oversight

Private or Public Public

Stainback, John. Public/Private Finance and Development

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Financing Alternative’s to Financing Alternative’s to considerconsiderFinancial aspects of owner Financial aspects of owner

for considerationfor consideration

College is not a for profit organization

Short term cash flow problems

Unable to issue bonds

Tax exempt clauses available for college

Raising funds through private donors more difficult

OptionsOptions

Construction Loan

Develop Lease-Back

Developer Owned – Operating Lease

School Owned – Tax Exempt Lease Purchase

Developer Financed for operation control

Bond Issuance

Raising Capital

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Alternative analysisAlternative analysis

Construction LoanConstruction Loan – Now permitted through private entity, Doesn’t capitalize on innovative finance options

Develop Lease-BackDevelop Lease-Back

Developer Owned (Operating Lease)Developer Owned (Operating Lease)

Builds no equity into project Owner depreciates building over term for tax benefits

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Alternative analysisAlternative analysis

Developer Owned with Operational ControlDeveloper Owned with Operational Control

Limited operational revenues make option unfeasible

College owns at the end of leasing period (Tax exempt College owns at the end of leasing period (Tax exempt Lease Purchase)Lease Purchase)

Builds Equity with each payment (components of principal & interest) Payments are tax exempt Most common Project Purchased at termination for typically $1.00

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Risk’s Related to the CollegeRisk’s Related to the College

Student Enrollment – unpredictabilityStudent Enrollment – unpredictability

Technology Advancements – College Technology Advancements – College obsolescence obsolescence

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


RecommendationsRecommendations

Pursue Developer Owned lease-back (Operating Pursue Developer Owned lease-back (Operating Lease)Lease)

Follow RFI/RFQ/RFP submission

BenefitsBenefitsAvoids state procurement lawsAvoids state review boardsAvoids future long-term risks of buildingAvoids the schools short term cash flow

*NVCC not in business of taking risks, making profits, or acquiring assets

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

Greg Eden, Charles Eden & CompanyEd Camden, NVCCJohn Hansen, Froehling & RobertsonMarilyn Scott, GilbaneDan Hamilla, GilbaneHarold Adams, GilbaneAndy Faber, GilbaneDr. Messner, PSUDr. Hanagan, PSUWalt Schneider, PSUKen Pasch, PSUEntire PSU AE facultyFellow AE Peers

Introduction



Owner Financing

Questions


Questions?Questions?

jeffrey white construction management emphasis

Documents