Using Design Build in Community Colleges

Waterfront Hotel in Jack London Square10 Washington Street

Oakland, CA

February 23, 2010

Agenda

• Overview of SMCCCD Design Build Projects• Design Build Types

– Education Code 81700– Education Code 17250– Government Code 4217 (Energy Efficiency)– Government Code 5956 (Revenue Generating)

• Why Design Build?• Guidelines / Process / Schedule• Pros & Cons• Design Build Points of Consideration• Qualification Process / Evaluation Criteria • RFP Documents / Process / Evaluation• Design Build Organizational Chart• Standards & Design Criteria • Schedule Considerations• DSA Considerations • Lessons Learned• Not a Panacea

San Mateo County Community College District

• Three Campuses (1.4M GSF / 346 Acres)– Cañada College – Redwood City - 1968

– College of San Mateo – San Mateo – 1963

– Skyline College – San Bruno – 1969

– District Office – San Mateo - 1978

• 25,000 Students / 1,000 Staff / Adjuncts • Capital Improvement Program

– Multiple Funding Sources• Measure C $207 Million (2001)• Measure A $468 Million (2006)• State / Local Resources $75 Million*

* $20M Lehman Brothers / $54M State

3

SMCCCD’s Experience with Design Build: New Buildings

• Science Building with Planetarium & Rooftop Observatory, CSM

• Student & Community Center and Science Lab Annex, Skyline College

• 44-unit Faculty & Staff Housing, CSM

• 60-unit Faculty & Staff Housing, Cañada College

• Health & Wellness Building, CSM

• College Center, CSM

• Cosmetology, Administration & Wellness Center, Skyline College

• Automotive Transmission Lab Building, Skyline College

College of San Mateo Science Building

Skyline College Student & Community Center

College Vista Faculty & Staff Housing

Cañada Vista Faculty & Staff Housing

Cañada Vista Faculty & Staff Housing

College of San Mateo Health & Wellness Building

College of San Mateo Health & Wellness Building

College of San Mateo College Center

College of San Mateo College Center

Skyline College Cosmetology, Administration & Wellness Center

Skyline College Cosmetology, Administration & Wellness Center

Skyline College Automotive Transmission Lab

Skyline College Automotive Transmission Lab

Cañada College Site Improvements (Gateways)

Cañada CollegeGateways, Circulation & Parking

Cañada CollegeGateways, Circulation & Parking Project

College of San MateoSite Improvements

College of San MateoArrival Zone

College of San MateoArrival Zone

Skyline College Site Improvements

Skyline CollegeWest Quad

Skyline College View from West to Central Quad

Skyline College View from Central to West Quad

Districtwide Athletics Improvements

• Athletic Facilities Upgrades – 31 Tennis Courts– 3 Baseball Fields– 3 Soccer Fields– 1 Softball Field– 2 Tracks– 1 Football Field– 1 Aquatic Center– Parking & ADA Improvements– Ancillary Facilities (restrooms, press box, storage)

Skyline CollegeAthletic Facilities Improvements

Cañada CollegeAthletic Facilities Improvements

College of San MateoAthletic Facilities Improvements

College of San MateoAthletic Facilities Improvements

SMCCCD’s Experience with Design Build: Infrastructure

• Energy Efficiency Projects

• 12kV Electrical Infrastructure System Replacement (CSM and Skyline College)

• Chiller Plants (CSM and Cañada College)

Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Outcomes

• New energy management system at all campuses

• Comprehensive systems commissioning at all campuses

• Cañada College chiller plant expansion

• Heating / Hot water variable flow pumping retrofits at all campuses

• Electrical distribution system repairs

• Web-based real-time monitoring and metering platform at all campuses

• AHU refurbishments at all campuses

Underground piping repairs at all campuses

Lighting retrofits : Lighting controls and circuit upgrades at all campuses

Boiler repairs and preventative maintenance at all campuses

Co-generation plants: CSM (560 KW) & Skyline College (375 KW)

College of San Mateo12kV Load Center Replacement

College of San MateoChiller Plant

Why Design Build?

• Single Responsibility– No finger pointing– Eliminates legal triangle

• Cost Control – Fixed limit of construction costs– Feedback for better design and

construction documents

• Better Technology– Learn from the people who make

and install building systems– Designer participation in practical

application – Flexibility to get the most current

technology– Perfect Design Build Team

• Knows design

• Knows the Builder

• Project Specific– What one persons knows is

available to all – Contractor isn’t plotting for

claims and change orders– Communications, documentation

& costs are transparent

• Compressed Schedule: move-in sooner

• Satisfying Relationship between Owner / Architect / Builder

• Unforeseen Conditions in Renovations: Flexibility & Quick Response

• Better Price Certainty

Guidelines / Process

• The Design Build Road Map– Selecting a Project for Design Build Delivery– BOT Resolution– CCCO Project Approval / Notification Process– Bridging– Public Notification– Prequalification– Request for Qualification (RFQ)– Request for Proposal (RFP)

• Confidential Meetings (x3)• Site Surveys

– RFP Interviews– Selection – Stipend– Award

Design Build Schedule Comparison

Pros and Cons

• Pros– Simplified contracting

– Reduction in adversarial relationships

– Cost containment

– Speed of delivery

– Sharing of risk

– Early involvement of the builder

– Validate another project delivery method for the CCDs

• Cons– Significant investment of time and effort up front and during implementation

– Potentially less control over design

– May be more difficult to compare proposals

– Limited institutional capabilities

– Approval agency capabilities

Qualification and Selection Process

• Design Build for Community Colleges: Education Code §17250

• Structure the RFP to Attract DB Teams

• Qualification Shortlist to 3 DB teams plus 2 Alternates

• Criteria Based Selection Process

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

FACTORS Maximum Points1. Price and Cost Management Plan* 202. Technical Expertise 103. Life Cycle Costs over 25 Years 104. Skilled Labor Force Availability 105. Acceptable Safety Record* 106. Design Management Plan 107. Construction Management Plan 108. Schedule 109. Legal and Other Program Requirements 510. Risk Management Plan 5

TOTAL (Maximum) 100 points

RFQ/RFP Documents

• RFQ/RFP Documents available at the project website– http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/smccd/departments/facilities/

CSM_B12151734Mod_01.shtml– Project Website

• Source for all information from District

RFP Documents

• Developing the RFP Documentation

• Format and Organization of the RFP Package- SMCCCD Standard Form of DB Contract- Geotechnical Reports- Site / Civil Plans- As-Builts- Existing Floor Plans- Schematic Floor Plans- Room Data Sheets- Program Information- Standards and Design Criteria

RFP Evaluation

• Assemble Review Team– Administrators / Faculty / M&O / CM Firm

• Allow Sufficient Review Time• Clearly Identify Evaluation Criteria• Develop Scoring Matrix (Keep It Simple)

– Price – Technical Expertise– Life Cycle Costs– Skilled Labor Force– Acceptable Safety Record– Architectural Aesthetics and Design Innovation– Project Management Plan– Program Requirements– Logistics (Occupied Campus)

Design Build Entity

Standards and Design Criteria

• Design Standards– Communications– Materials– Fixtures (Plumbing / Light / Window Treatments)– Color Palette– Plant Species– Fire Alarm / BMS Controls– Hardware– Flooring, Etc.

• Documentation– Design Build Contract– Division OO & O1– Outline Specifications– Room Data Sheets– Meeting Notes

• Distribution

Schedule

• Ambitious vs. Conservative− Fast-Track

− Normal Schedule

• Academic Calendar– Start of Classes

– Spring Break

– Finals

– Commencement

– Special Events

• End User Wild Card• Owner Requirements Pre-Turnover

– Surplus/Salvage Process

– Hazmat Removal

– Rodent Control

Design Builder & DSA

• DSA Buy-In Approach– Include District (Owner) participation

– Establish a contact person at DSA

– Schedule early and appropriate meetings

– Establish firm agreed upon DSA submittal dates

– Document meetings and agreed upon discussions with attendees

– Describe incremental or phase submittals & deliverables & obtain buy-in

– Involve structural engineer and other key consultants

– Follow requested procedure and information for submittals

– Clearly identify documents requiring approval

– Provide sufficient reference CDs for reviewer information

• Program Changes (Never ending)

• Fixed Schedule

• Campus Decision-making

• Budget for the Known and Unknown

• Unforeseen Conditions

Lessons Learned: College Decisions

Influence

• District Able to Influence– Design Builder Relationship

– Alignment of Scope with Stipulated Sum

– Initial Schedule

– Effective Qualification Process

– Extent & Depth of Control – Bridging Documents

• District Unable to Influence & Control– Dynamics of DSA Process

– Construction Schedule

– Changing Market Conditions

– Constituents

– Scope Creep

– Weather

Lessons Learned: Partnering Session

• Who– Owner / Key End-users

– Contractor

– Designers

– IOR

• What– Understand Each Other’s Interest

– Agreed upon Rules of Engagement• Establish Chain of Command• Establish Forms of Communication• Establish Decision & Approval Process

Not a Panacea

• Owner Sophistication• Owner Indecision• Dynamics of an Occupied Campus• Construction Schedule Inflexibility

– Academic constraints

– Weather constraints

• Interpersonal Dynamics• Market Conditions

Future Projects (2011-2015)

• Cañada College– B3 Fine Arts Modernization: $4M

– B13 Lecture Modernization: $14M

– Solar Photovoltaic Project: $5M

• College of San Mateo– B1 Administration Modernization: $20M

– B3 Fine Arts Modernization: $4M

– B8 Gym Modernization: $21M

– B9 Library Modernization: $6.5M

– B12 Fire Science Modernization: $9M

– B19 Engineering Modernization: $21M

– Solar Photovoltaic Project: $5M

• Skyline College– B1 Fine Arts Modernization: $45M

– B2 Student Services Modernization: $12M

– B5 Library Modernization: $6M

– Loma Chica Child Care Modernization: $6M

– Demolition of Pacific Heights & Expansion of North Parking Lot: $3M

– Wellness Center: $20M

– Mini Wind Turbines: $2M

• Districtwide– ITS Data Center: $11M

– Boiler Emissions Upgrades: $2M

– Roadway and Parking: $20M

Why We’re All Here Today . . .

Question & Answer

www.smccd.edu/facilities

José D. Nuñez, LEED APVice Chancellor

Facilities Planning, Maintenance & OperationsSan Mateo County Community College District

(650) 574-6512nunezj@smccd.edu