state of design-build in the san diego community college district
DESCRIPTION
The San Diego Community College District’s (SDCCD) construction bond program, funded by voter-approved Proposition S, a $685 million bond passed in 2002, and Proposition N, an $870 million bond passed in 2006, is providing for new, state-of-the-art instructional and career training facilities, major renovations, public safety and accessibility enhancements, parking, and campuswide infrastructure projects at City, Mesa and Miramar Colleges, and six Continuing Education campuses.TRANSCRIPT
SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
State of Design Build in the State of Design‐Build in the San Diego Community College District
Design‐Build Institute of America ‐Western Pacific RegionWednesday, September 29, 2010
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: San Diego Community College District
Three Colleges - City, Mesa and Miramar
Six Continuing Education Campuses
Students - 159,892 in Academic Year 2009 - 2010
Employees - 4,900
District Square Footage - 2 218 031District Square Footage 2,218,031
$1.555 billion construction bond program
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use Design Build?
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 pastbidder regardless of past performance history.
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: What Can I Get for My Money?
Reduce Waste/Inefficiency Manufacturing
Construction Lags Behind Other IndustriesRedesign
Manufacturing
g
Rework
Claims/Litigation
Improper Sequencing of Work
Delayed Submittals and Approvals
Image Space
Construction
Image Space
Source: Construction Industry Institute
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%)Price (10%)
Technical Experience (10%)
Life cycle cost over 15 years (10%)
Skilled Labor Force (10%)
Safety Record (10%)
5
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use Design Build?
Advantages:
• Qualifications-based selection with consideration• Qualifications-based selection with consideration of price.
• Match firm past experience and performance with p p pproject need.
• Greater opportunity to select project manager d i t d tand superintendent.
• Save money by consolidating CM owner agent, general conditions and supervision intogeneral conditions and supervision into one contract.
• Best value with target budgeting
6
g g g
• Historically lower change order rates.
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
http://www.aia.org/ipdg
7
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – What is it?
Project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices to optimize project resultsbusiness structures, and practices to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency of project delivery.y p j y
Distinguished by highly ff ti ll b tieffective collaboration among
the owner, prime designer and prime constructorand prime constructor commencing at early design through project completion.
8
An integrated design process allows decisions to be made early when the
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – Why Do It?
An integrated design process allows decisions to be made early when theopportunity for change is maximized and the cost of changes are minimized.
9
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Target Costing
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM! BIM! BIM!
Build it in model space before you build it in real space.
Reduce conflicts using Revit and NavisWorksclash detection.
Energy efficiency evaluation.
Walk the end user through the space.g p
With schedule integration, a 4-D model can be developed.
With cost estimates, a 5-D model can be developed.
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build with Elements of Lean
Elements of Integrated Project Delivery
Building Information Modeling Building Information Modeling
List/prequalify all major trade contractors
List/prequalify all major engineering consultantsList/prequalify all major engineering consultants
Target Budgeting
SBE participation
OWNERS’S PERSPECTIVE: Basis of Design Build Programming
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)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 totalTechnical Expertise (250 points)
Life Cycle Costs (100 points)Life Cycle Costs (100 points)
Skilled Labor Force Availability (100 points)
Commitment to Diversity (100 points)
Safety Record (100 points)
Design Excellence (150 points)
14
T h i l E ti (250 i t )
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors
Technical Expertise (250 points) General Firm Information
Firm Experiencep
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
15
escalated at current CPI.
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
16
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Savings in O&M Capital Renewal
Total Cost of Ownership
11%
S i53%
Save 5% in Cap. Renewal
SavingsD&C: $30M Total NPV
Cap.R: $101M $ 5M $1.1MO&M: $149M $15M $3.4MT t l $280M $20M $4 4M
53%36%
Save 10% in O&M
Total: $280M $20M $4.4M
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 y, y y ; gyefficient; material efficient; water efficient; easy to maintain and operate; safe and secure and sited in an environmentally responsible manner.responsible manner.
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation - Performance Goals
Exceed Title 24 of California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards by at least 10%energy efficiency standards by at least 10%.
Ten percent of the energy utilized by the project must be renewable with at least 5% generated onmust be renewable with at least 5% generated on site.
Divert at least 75% of construction and demolitionDivert at least 75% of construction and demolition debris from landfills.
Pursue formal LEEDTM certification with aPursue formal LEED certification with a minimum of 33 points resulting in a LEEDTM Silver rating, with a goal of LEEDTM Gold on applicable projects.p j
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation - Methodology
Incorporate life-cycle costing that includes initial construction costs, operating costs, maintenance repair and replacement
t t l t th l t i t t l f d icosts to evaluate the long-term investment value of design alternatives.
I t t d d i th t b ildi t d i d t 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 occ pant req irements and design intentoccupant requirements and design intent.
20
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM (Building Information Modeling)
BIM allows Builder to work with Designers and Sub-Contractors in a Collaborative, 3D Environment During Design and Construction
Benefits Fewer RFIs Fewer Change OrdersFewer Change Orders Fewer Delays
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Internal Clash Survey
Building Construction Mechanical piping hits cable tray and fire protectionpiping hits cable tray and fire protection piping in ceiling space
Survey Average Results Survey Average ResultsMan-hour Savings = 61 Delay Savings = Three Days
C S $ Cost Savings = $30,349.00
Number of Clashes Shown in Example = 9
Savings per Clash Resolved = $3,372.00
BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Project Specific Challenges & Solutions
Challenge No on-site storage for materials and equipment
SolutionsSolutions BIM
Prefabrication made possible
through use of BIM
LEAN Scheduling
Just-in-Time delivery
(materials/equipment)
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 usersEnhanced satisfaction from users
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project
What are the Site Issues?
What is Driving the Project?at s g t e oject
Fitting into Campus Planning Guidelines
Meeting the User Programg g
Having a DSA Strategy
Energy Conserving Design / LEED
Low Maintenance / Durable
Security Issues
Public Accessibility
Expansion / Flexibility
ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Timeless Design Strategies
Building Orientation for Daylighting and Solar Control
Energy Conservation Measures
Low Water Use Landscape with Native Pl t M t i lPlant Material
Storm Drain Retention and Filtration Concepts
Cool Roof / Green Roof
Shade Elements to Prevent “Heat Islands”Shade Elements to Prevent Heat Islands
Bicycle Parking / Emphasis on Mass Transit / Pedestrian Travel
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
Miramar College Police Station/Parking Structure
Project Budget: $13.8 million
Construction Start: Summer 2010
Targeted Completion: Spring 2012
Project provides new headquarters for Miramar College Police and also provides new multi-level parking structure. Project is designed to obtain LEED Platinum – the first for SDCCD.
Design/Builder Team:Design/Builder Team: McCarthy ConstructionHarley Ellis DevereauxInternational Parking Design (IPD)International Parking Design (IPD)
MIRAMAR COLLEGE PARKING STRUCTURE AND POLICE STATION
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
City College Math & Social Sciences Bldg.Project Budget: $83.5 million (incl. land acquisition)
Expected Construction Start: January 2011
Targeted Completion: May 2012
Project involves land acquisition and construction of newProject involves land acquisition and construction of new 72,000 sq. ft. classroom and laboratory building. It will include the District’s Corporate Education Center, Military Education, a Family Health Center and a six-story parking structure with 400+ stallsCenter and a six-story parking structure with 400+ stalls.
Design Build Team: Sundt, Roesling Nakamura Terada
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
North City Campus - Parking StructureBudget: $5 millionBudget: $5 million
Expected Construction Start: May 2011
Targeted Completion: December 2012
Land acquisition; construction of a new, two-story,40,500 GSF classroom building to serve as the Campus of Excellence for Multimedia and Innovation; and construction of a 300-space parking structure.
IPDI Design Build TeamIPDI Design Build TeamNTD ArchitectsLegacy BuildersTB Penick & SonsTB Penick & Sons
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
Mesa College – Central Plant
Budget: $5.5 million
Construction Start: December 2009
Targeted Completion: December 2010g p
The new Central Plant will provide heating and cooling for five buildings. New sub-grade chilled and hot water pipes will extend from the facility to the western part of the campus.
Design Build TeamJackson & BlancJackson & BlancDEC EngineersMele Amantea
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
City College – Central PlantBudget: $8 millionBudget: $8 million
Construction Start: Summer 2010
Targeted Completion:
The Central Plant will distribute conditionedhydronic water to the entire campus with the exception of two buildings. The Central Plan will alsop gcontain the electrical equipment to provide power tothe campus.
Design Build TeamDesign Build TeamMele Amantea ArchitectsDEC EngineeringUniversity MechanicalUniversity Mechanical
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
Miramar College Cafeteria/Bookstore and Student/Campus CenterProject Budget: $33.2 millionProject Budget: $33.2 million
Estimated Const. Start: Spring 2011
Targeted Completion: Spring 2013
New multi-story will consist of approx. 45,000 SF of new construction to housea new cafeteria, bookstore and student services center. Hybrid Design Build y gMEP part of CMMP Delivery.
CM: CW DriverA hit t NTD A hit tArchitect: NTD ArchitectureMEP Design Build Team: Gould Electric, Michael Wall, X-nth, P ifi Ri M h i lPacific Rim Mechanical
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
Mesa College Math and Science Bldg.Project Budget: $117 million
New 200 000 GSF four-story building will have
Expected Construction Start: Feb. 2011
Targeted Completion: January 2013
New 200,000 GSF, four-story building will have classrooms, lecture rooms, labs for scientific experiments, computer labs, and facility, staff and administrative support areas.
CM: McCarthy Building CompaniesArchitect: Delawie Wilkes Rodrigues BarkerDesign Build TeamMP: University MechanicalMP: University MechanicalGlazing: Enclos Corp.Pre-cast: Clark PacificFraming & Drywall: Standard Drywall, Inc.Electric: DynalectricElectric: Dynalectric
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects
Miramar College – Science Building Expansion
Budget: $36.7 millionBudget: $36.7 million
Construction Duration: 2011-2013
Project will convert existing classrooms into additional lab space; an extra 15 000 SF will be added for facultylab space; an extra 15,000 SF will be added for facultyoffices, support space and outdoor educational areas.
Design Build Team: TBD(19 RFP R d t !)(19 RFP Respondents!)
OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Upcoming Opportunities
Campus/Project RFP Date
Miramar College - Fire Science/EMT Building November 2010
Miramar College – New Administration Building, repurpose November 2010Miramar College New Administration Building, repurpose existing building for Continuing Education
November 2010
Mesa College – Social Behavioral Sciences Building December 2010Mesa College Social Behavioral Sciences Building December 2010
Mesa College – Cafeteria Bookstore First Quarter 2011
Mesa College – Fitness Center Late 2011