Owners Perspective | Fall/Winter 2013

Tools of the Trade Selecting the Right Project Delivery Method Project Leadership Silver Award Winner Penn State Berks Campus Gaige Technology & Business Innovation Center

Project Leadership Silver Award Winner Wake Forest Biotech Place

“See Construction Differently”

CM-BIM

For AEC professionals, the AGC Certificate of Management—Building Information Modeling (CM-BIM) is THE certificate credential that denotes knowledge and understanding of concepts related to BIM.

Register For Your Courses Today and Earn Your CM-BIM!

www.AGC.org/BIM

CM-BIM CERTIFICATE OF MANAGEMENT

BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING

2

OwnersPerspective.org

FALL/WINTER 2013

The official publication of

6

contents FEATURES 6 Project Leadership Silver Award Winner: Wake Forest Biotech Place Compiled by Hannah Genslinger

11 Tools of the Trade: Selecting the Right Project Delivery Method

5000 Austell Powder Springs Rd, Suite 217 Austell, GA 30106

By Wylie Bearup, PE, PhD

Magazine Editorial Committee Stuart Adler Emory University Lisa Berkey Pennsylvania State University Randy Pollock HDR

18

Dean McCormick Iowa State University

Compiled by Hannah Genslinger

Published By:

President Kevin Brown General Manager Trevilynn Blakeslee Editor Chris Towery chris@mecgnv.com Graphic Designers Tim Sost, Stephanie Lindsey Sales Manager Send all advertising inquiries to advertiseop@mecgnv.com or call 877.234.1863, ext. 6717 Account Executives Walt Daniels, Steve Hazouri, Shirley Lawrence All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the association and publisher.

By Randle Pollock

20 Project Leadership Silver Award Winner: Penn State Berks Campus Gaige Technology & Business Innovation Center

Stan Scott Hill International, Inc.

Mediaedge Communications, Llc 2246 NW 40th Terrace, Suite B Gainesville, Fl 32605

16 Owner Interview: A Conversation with Lisa Berkey of Pennsylvania State University

20

4 President’s Corner 14 COAA’s Owner Training Institute: Excellent Training for Owners

By John Sier

18 10 Myths About Relations Between Design Professionals and Clients

By Bruce E. Ferguson, Architect, LEED AP

24 Georgia on My Mind: A Recap of COAA’s 2013 Spring Owners Leadership Conference in Atlanta

By Chris Towery

26 What Can Green Construction Do For/To You?

By John Sier

29 New Members 30 Calendar of Events 30 Index to Advertisers Cover: The interior of the new Wake Forest Bio Tech Place.

Photo: Courtesy Wake Forest

Fall/Winter 2013

3

President’s Corner

A Momentous Two Years for COAA

By Ted Argyle

T

his is probably my last opportunity in this forum to thank our many members for their continued support of COAA and its mission. I, like many of you, think of COAA and its members as friends, coworkers, and a valued resource for staying current on the variables in the construction process. As I prepare to leave office, I thought a brief review of the progress COAA has made over the last two years would be in order.

Our Education Committee, chaired by Jerry Schulte, has worked hard to make our advanced Owner Training Institute educational classes available. Five new courses have been successfully launched and have been added to the list of available OTI class offerings. Through the efforts of our Education Committee and our local chapters during the last two years, our educational, training, networking, and conference opportunities have increased nearly 40 percent.

Our peer-to-peer networking has never been stronger.

Another accomplishment of note, we successfully relocated our headquarters to Austell, Georgia. The space is suitable for our needs and priced affordably. Most importantly, we are positioned to be able to continue growing the organization, its offerings, and its services to members, while fulfilling our mission of supporting Owners' success in the design and construction of buildings and facilities through education, information, and developing relationships within the industry.

Keeping up with changing technology during the last couple of years required us to overhaul and revamp our website. I hope you have taken a moment to browse the site and check out the new content.

We have furthered our goal of becoming the Owner’s voice in the construction industry by continuing to develop our relationships with other national organizations. As examples, we participated in the AIA BIM TAP awards, reviewing submissions and selecting the Owner’s Choice Award winner. We have continued to participate in ConsensusDocs, reviewing documents submitted by others and preparing documents for review by the nearly 40 endorsing organizations. I believe we have developed an effective voice at the table as the suite of documents available for use by Owners continues to grow. We are consulting with the ABA Forum on the Construction Industry, Division 12 in developing checklists for construction contracts. Along with AGC, we have assembled a task force to develop a white paper/guide to help Owners understand what General

4

OwnersPerspective.org

Conditions are, why they are used, and how they should be included in construction documents. These are just a few of the many industry relationships COAA has and is continuing to develop.

Our Documents Committee recently completed a long process of reviewing the principle ConsensusDocs forms and preparing suggestions that might make the forms more user friendly for Owners. Look for those on our website in the Owner Resources section.

Our Conference Committee, chaired by Howie Ferguson, works hard to find relevant and interesting content for our conferences. As a result of the Committee’s efforts, the semi-annual conferences continue to grow. Our Spring Owners Leadership Conference in Georgia set an attendance record. Our attendees consistently state that COAA Owners Leadership Conferences offering some of the most valuable learning opportunities for Owners available today. It is always helpful to be able to talk to other Owners and vendors that have had actual experience in a particular subject I’m interested in. There is always someone at the conference who has been there, done that. To underscore that point, in this issue is an article about integrated project delivery by an Owner that actually completed the process that arose out of a conference session. Also in this issue are articles on green initiatives, two project profiles, and a recap of the spring conference.

COAA has recently begun to develop a stronger support platform for our many chapters (at last count numbering nearly a dozen). As the Chapter Support Task Force continues its work, expect to see some changes. We are working hard to provide increased support to the chapters which we hope will make the job of leadership at the chapter level much easier.

Finally, our volunteer officers and committee members could not do their jobs without the tireless work of our valued staff from The Valisade Group. Their efforts in preparing conference materials, monitoring conference calls, taking minutes, keeping our documents, managing the website, and a hundred other tasks gives all of us volunteers the opportunity to focus on ideas, content, and vision.

As COAA closes in on a successful two decades with its 20th anniversary (celebrated next fall in Nashville, TN), we are truly becoming the voice of the Owner in the construction industry.

Thanks to all of you for being a member of COAA. If you are not a member, consider joining today.

See you in Torrey Pines this fall.

Fall/Winter 2013

5

Project Leadership Silver Award Winner:

Wake Forest Biotech

Project Details Owner

Wexford Science & Technology, LLC

Design Professional Gaudreau, Inc

6

Construction Professional

The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company

Structural Engineer

Faisant Associates, Inc

OwnersPerspective.org

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Engineers

Type of Project

Kibart, Inc

Research Laboratory/ Historical Renovation

Civil Engineer

Delivery Method

Stimmel

CM at-Risk

Place

Compiled by Hannah Genslinger

T

his project was the conversion of a historic 252,000 square foot RJ Reynolds warehouse into a state-of-the art biotech research and innovation center. The RJ Reynolds building was originally constructed in two phases—one in 1937 and one in 1963—but both were connected on the same lot. The new facility, which features around 80 percent class-A laboratory space, includes extensive wet labs and support spaces, a vivarium, offices, and a large conference center suite with state-of-the-art communication and AV capabilities. The new building also includes a large skylight that sits atop a 7,200 square foot, three-story atrium; the corporate offices for Wake Forest Innovation Quarter; a local credit union branch; as well as incubator research space to help foster and support startup companies.

Project Description

The first part of the project focused on a five-story building constructed in 1937.

The building featured a distinctive glass block exterior and concrete structure.

The glass block exterior is classified as historic, and extensive steps were taken to preserve and repair the glass block façade on the east, south, and west sides of the building. In the end, all of the 65,869 glass blocks in the new building are 1937 originals. However, large portions of the glass block façade were damaged or missing, so the glass blocks had to be removed by hand and replaced with original blocks salvaged from the north façade.

The second part of the project was the three-story building constructed in 1963, which featured a brick façade and cast-in-place concrete structure. The façade, which previously a limited number of small windows, was modified by adding numerous windows for natural lighting, and a new curtain wall was added to the main entrance to replace what was previously a plain brick wall. In addition to the windows, this part of the project featured the addition of a 7,200 square foot, threestory interior atrium with a large skylight. The huge half-barrel skylight used 514 pieces of tinted, insulated glass.

The design required significant structural demolition, along with the installation of new structural elements, to prepare building for its new use. The entire concrete third floor of this building had to be surgically removed and re-installed with a steel structure with elevation that was 18 inches higher to provide enough floor-to-floor clearance for the building systems. The existing second floor only covered half the footprint of the new building, and the additional area was in-filled with new steel framing as well.

The interior of both buildings was stripped down to the building’s basic structure.

This required the buildings to be fully gutted along with extensive abatement.

Complete new building interior finishes and furnishings were installed, along with new mechanical, electrical, and fire-protection systems to bring the building up to current code and serve the building’s laboratory function.

Throughout the construction of both sections of the building, the development team worked with the National Park Service (NPS) and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to develop the historical review and criteria to be followed for the project. In the end, the new Biotech Place was accepted by SHPO and NPS as a certified historical project and qualifies for the appropriate historical tax credits and recognition.

Overall Project Management

The project had a very aggressive completion date to make the building a feasible endeavor for both the Owner and the tenant’s needs. The project started in 2010 and was mandated to be substantially complete before the end of 2011. Meeting this deadline was the most important goal, and Wexford’s Project Director took the

Fall/Winter 2013

7

time and effort to set milestones for design, budget reviews of design, and construction activities to make sure the entire team stayed on track.

Moreover, Wexford’s project management team was eminently responsive to the need for quick information, decisions, and issue resolution. The Project Director was involved in every project meeting and copied on every email.

He was aware of everything, including design, schedule, costs, and construction obstacles. He was always a phone call or email away if an issue arose. Most importantly, he was willing to make quick and confident decisions, and he carried the risk and ownership of those decisions, allowing the rest of the team to focus on solutions.

Project Scheduling: Wexford authorized construction overtime, shift work, and weekend work, which were all necessary to meet the completion date. The Project Director requested weekly schedule updates, walked the building several times a day when on site, and Wexford’s rep helped foster a sense of pride in the project. This Owner involvement was instrumental in the successful outcome of the entire undertaking. The project was eventually completed in only 548 calendar days on December 14th, a full 17 days ahead of schedule.

Cost Management: Throughout the design phase, Wexford took a very hands-on approach to managing the design to ensure that as the design progressed, it did so keeping the budget in mind. This was achieved by the CM

On A wing

and a prayer?

When it comes to construction projects,

Overall Project Success

you can’t simply rely on luck to see things through. Let the Kitch firm help you anticipate and resolve construction or legal issues that may arise – or better yet, avoid them all together.

Call John Sier at 313.965.2915 or email john.sier@kitch.com to discuss your next move.

www.kitch.com

8

Kitch_3.333x4.583.indd 1

OwnersPerspective.org

generating a complete estimate at each of the three major design milestones (conceptual, schematic design, and design-development phases), so the Owner, designer, and contractor could each examine the budget in detail. If any item significantly increased from a previous version, the entire team evaluated the change to ensure the cost change was legitimate. In the end, the project came in almost $80,000 under budget due.

The most difficult aspect related to managing costs was working around the ever-approaching completion date.

Considering that time extensions were not an option, Wexford worked with the CM and design team to come up with creative, affordable solutions to solve problems without losing time. Early on in the project, Wexford made a conscious decision to break the project up into eight different subphases, each with a milestone for documents to be issued for construction. By breaking the project up into phases, Wexford minimized the risk of one phase holding up the whole project.

Quality Management: The CM established management teams to focus on each phase of the project and closely work with the Owner’s construction project director, who was responsible for overall coordination and quality control of the project. Phased construction packages were issued for permits and construction, including work such as general gutting and demolition documents, core and shell building documents, and a standalone package for the teledata and A/V systems.

The CM also held daily management meetings, weekly subcontractor meetings, and provided detailed scheduling information to all of the subcontractor teams to establish and coordinate work in various areas of the buildings.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) was utilized on the project due to the complexity of the numerous mechanical systems required for the project’s heavy lab use. Additionally, because this was an existing building, the depth of the structural beams, the size of the ductwork, and the required ceiling heights resulted in extremely tight conditions for the installation of the mechanical systems. Utilization of BIM prior to actual construction in the field, as well as having the entire construction team meet weekly to review location and installation of the systems, helped to avoid conflicts among the different trades.

While this project was unique due to the historical renovation, tax credits, and an exceptionally aggressive schedule, the main project team (Owner, Architect, MEP Engineers, and CM) had worked together before, were familiar with how Wexford’s business model functions, knew the strengths of each firm, and had an existing relationship built on performance and trust. This helped facilitate the true team approach needed for this project’s success.

Decision making was a group affair. There were biweekly meetings of the Owner, Architect, and Contractor in addition to conference calls as needed during the nonmeeting weeks and weekly visits by the design team QC inspectors. Any issues were quickly addressed, discussed during the meetings with the team walking out to the job

1/21/09 9:17:05 PM

site and reviewing the actual issue in field if required. This resulted in rapid resolutions and eliminated issues lingering without appropriate action that can happen with a multi-tiered decision/approval process.

The design team spent extensive time with the end users to gather their input, understand their needs, and make certain the design was as complete and thorough as possible.

To address the inevitable construction changes, Wexford accommodated as many design modifications as possible before and during the earlier stages of construction. However, once the project progressed closer to the substantial completion milestone, Wexford set a design change/additional tenantrequested-work cutoff date. Any additional requests during the last few months were deferred until after the project was complete to ensure the design and construction teams could finish the work they had already started.

This ultimately cost Wexford more money to go back and re-work some areas, but that impact was minimal compared to missing the mandatory completion date.

The project had multiple tenants, which made user input difficult to coordinate, as questions arose and requests for tenant changes were generated. Spread across multiple phases, including overlap between core and shell and tenant design, created an additional headache to the already complicated project. The project team worked together to interface with the users for additional input as fast as possible to avoid rework and construction delays.

The design team was based out of town, so in addition to biweekly onsite meetings, conference calls and emails were used to coordinate with users, and the construction team followed up in person to help move the decision process along. This kept the construction team up to date with what was coming, assisted the design team in finalizing design as quickly as possible, and the Owner made executive decisions as needed if user input was not available in time to maintain the completion schedule.

Fall/Winter 2013

9

Project Complexity

With as many phases of construction as there were being built at the same time, each phase had its own contracts and subcontracts. This was necessary, as each phase had to be bid out to account for the multiple funding sources between core and shell and tenant financing. This lead to the scenario that not only was there multiple phases of construction overlapping in the same space, but also multiple subcontractors were performing the same trade between the core & shell and tenant phases. This entire process required extensive project supervision in keeping both the contract management and the accounting requirements accurate along with quality control supervision in the field. Wexford’s Project Director not only brought on board more personnel for the onsite construction team, but he also sent designers down for weekly site visits to assist in the massive coordination effort.

The speed of the schedule with the amount of work underway led to shortages both in available construction manpower and the local jurisdiction’s inspectors.

Scopes of work were awarded to multiple companies for the same trade to balance risk of manpower shortages, and the project team met often during design and construction with the local inspectors to keep them fully aware of the project design and required schedule.

The project was designed as a historical renovation and fell under the review of the NPS and SHPO. The design of the interior, exterior, modifications, and even the placement of mechanical equipment of the roof was subject to this review. The design team sent multiple packages for review, but construction had to begin before final review of the complete design. The design team made adjustments based on expected review comments, and the Owner hired a historical consultant, but with multiple tenant phases and a slow review process, construction had to begin before final review of the complete design. The design team made adjustments based on expected review comments, the Owner took the risk of releasing the work without a final ruling from the review officials, and the construction team implemented the changes on overtime and shift work to maintain the schedule. Educated decisions with a strong team approach of the right people trusting in each other’s capabilities and support allowed proactive methods to overcome even the most difficult last-minute obstacles.

Sustainability

The Wake Forest Biotech Place was awarded LEED Gold Certification after final review. Numerous factors went into the project’s sustainability, with some of the more notable elements including: Materials: The building is a renovation of an existing building, which has the lowest impact on virgin materials and sources. The facility kept 80 percent of existing

10

OwnersPerspective.org

walls, floors, and roofing structure in place. Construction Waste was diverted from landfill at a rate of over 95 percent for the entire project. Recycled and regional Materials were used wherever possible, consisting of over 30 percent and 21 percent respectively. Lowemitting materials such as paints, adhesives, sealants, and flooring were also used.

Energy Efficiency: The project had many hurdles to overcome regarding energy efficiency and thermal bridging, but the architect and mechanical engineer were able to come together and improve insulation, mechanical system efficiency, and thermal breaks wherever permissible. The Energy Model run for the building determined that the savings achieved through the mechanical system and complimentary building elements (insulation, glazing, etc.) is a cost savings of 31.42 percent and energy savings of 26.29 percent.

Site: The project is located on an infill site, reducing the strain on the municipality and the Owners to provide new connections to public services and public transportation.

The site was designated as a Brownfield by the NC Department of the Environment & Natural Resources, and remediation was performed in accordance with the DEED restrictions to ensure a safe building and site. The roof and site hardscape are highly reflective materials, reducing the building’s heat island effect. As well, the landscaping, which features only native and adaptive vegetation, requires no irrigation.

Occupants: Ventilation rates are 30 percent over the ASHRAE standard, greatly increasing occupant comfort.

Thermal comfort systems are designed to meet ASHRAE 55-2004 standards, and are available for all individual building spaces.

For its superior planning and management, Wexford Science & Technology was presented with COAA’s 2012 Project Leadership Silver Award for the new Wake Forest Biotech Place. For more information on the Biotech Place, visit www.wakehealth.edu/Biotech-Place

Tools of the Trade Selecting the Right Project Delivery Method

By Wylie Bearup, PE, PhD

T

he success of building projects often relies on the tools at hand. Until recently, the only project delivery “tool” available to public Owners was the traditional DesignBid-Build (DBB), or low bid approach, which was not always the best tool for more complex projects. Using DBB, many projects experienced significant cost overruns and schedule delays that had the potential to result in mediation, arbitration, and even litigation. In fact, this outcome became so prevalent that some in the construction industry referred to this approach as “Design-Bid-Build-Litigate.” In the early 2000s, legislative changes in procurement laws across the country made more options available to public Owners, creating the opportunity for more successful public works capital construction projects. So what exactly are these new tools, and how can public Owners use them effectively?

We’ll answer those questions here and provide some best management practices on the use of these new methods based on the experiences gained by staff with the City of Phoenix, Arizona, over the past 12 years.

During the 2000 legislative session, the Arizona State Legislature passed a series of new laws that allowed the use of alternative project delivery methods in addition

to the traditional DBB approach for public entities at all levels of government and for all types of projects. These alternate project delivery methods in Arizona include Design-Build (DB), Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR), and Job Order Contracting (JOC). Although the delivery method names and specific procedures may vary across the country, the more common elements of these methods will be discussed here. One attribute common to all of these methods is the consideration of qualifications of the contractor during the selection process.

Delivery Method Overview

The Design-Bid-Build (DBB) approach has been used by public Owners for years now, so it’s fairly well understood.

The process is applied in a very linear fashion: The Owner first selects a designer and that designer prepares a complete set of plans and specifications. The Owner then issues the Invitation for Bids, and finally, the Owner awards a contract to the “lowest responsible, responsive bidder.” By using the single selection factor of bid price, the DBB approach assumes that all contractors have equal experience and technical qualifications; therefore, all are assumed to have

Fall/Winter 2013

11

an equal probability of success in delivering the project. For less complex, more straightforward projects, this assumption may be true, and DBB has been used very successfully in such cases. For more complicated projects, however, one of the alternate methods may have a higher probability of success by considering qualifications in the selection process.

The Design-Build (DB) approach combines the design and construction into a single, integrated team that delivers both phases of the project through a single contract. In Arizona, the design-builder can be selected through a “qualifications only” approach, called a One-Step selection, or through a best value approach, called a Two-Step selection, which considers both qualifications and price. With the correct technical expertise to manage the process, the DB approach can have distinct advantages, in that the Owner only needs to execute one selection process and does not take on liability of the completeness and accuracy of the design documents. The Owner does need to be very thorough and precise in communicating the functional needs of the finished project, which can be challenging without the assistance of well-trained staff or a qualified consultant.

The Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) method is similar to DBB, in that there are separate contracts with the designer and the construction manager who ultimately construct the project. But CMAR comes with two major differences over DBB—1) the CMAR is selected using a qualifications-based process, and 2) the CMAR is brought

Project Management Construction Management Program Management

AFG brings owners success by cost effectively delivering facilities that meet stakeholders’ needs.

www.afgcm.com 12

OwnersPerspective.org

into the project early in the design phase to provide valuable professional advice to the Owner.

Job Order Contracting is a method structured specifically for small projects under $1 million in value. It is particularly well suited for recurring repair and maintenance tasks requiring a low level of design. Job Order Contracting uses a stand-by contracting approach, with projects executed over a three- to five-year duration.

Selecting a Delivery Method

In general, the City of Phoenix uses two different processes in selecting a delivery method: a Simplified Method for more routine projects and an Analytical Method for larger, more complex projects.

In the Simplified Method, the Owner first selects project factors that are important in delivering a successful project.

Some examples of factors considered include Owner input during the design process, creative and innovative design aesthetic, quality of the finished project, delivery speed, Owner’s ability to manage cost and schedule growth, final cost certainty, litigation avoidance, and overall project value.

Next, the delivery methods being considered are then rated in their relative ability to successfully accomplish each of the project factors. For example, in a comparison between CMAR and DB when considering Owner input during the design process, CMAR would have an advantage over DB because the Owner holds a separate, direct contract with the designer. For the same project when considering delivery speed, DB would have an advantage over CMAR through the integration of design and construction within a single team. Similar comparisons are made for all of the project factors and the delivery method selected is the one with the most advantages.

Two shortcomings of the Simplified Method are that (1) it assumes all project success factors are equally important and (2) it uses an absolute value in assigning an advantage to one delivery method over another. For these reasons, the more detailed Analytical Method may be appropriate for extremely large, signature-type projects such as the $600 million Phoenix Convention Center Expansion project.

On that project, the success factor “creative and innovative design” was relatively more important than “delivery speed,” so the Analytical Method was used to select the best delivery approach.

The Analytical Method assigns weights to each of the project success factors and then rates the delivery methods in their ability to successfully deliver each factor. Continuing with the Convention Center Expansion example, innovative and creative design was given a weight of 10. CMAR was given a rating of 5 in its ability to deliver on high design, and DB was given a rating of 1 in recognition of the difficulty in achieving high design without a direct, contractual relationship between the Owner and designer. Delivery methods are then scored on each factor (WEIGHT times RATING), so CMAR received a score of 50 (10x5) and DB received a score of 10 (10x1) for ability to deliver high design. Other factors are scored similarly and the factors

scores summed for a total delivery method evaluation. On the Convention Center Expansion project, CMAR received a Total Score of 236 points and DB received a Total Score of 156 points. CMAR was chosen as the delivery method, and that choice resulted in a highly successful, award-winning project.

The methods described above are used on unique projects or the first time that a project of a particular type is being constructed. Once an analysis has been done and the project completed successfully, future projects of the same type are executed using the same delivery method. The graph below lists the typical project types completed using each particular delivery method.

Method DBB:

DB: CMAR:

JOC:

Project Type Typical streets improvements, storm drains, waterlines Fast-tracked projects, speed premium Buildings, water/wastewater & aviation facilities; complex horizontal jobs Renovation, remodel, small new construction < $2M

Best Management Practices

One key best management practice is to develop a rigorous, repeatable, defensible selection process. In Arizona, the selection process for all alternate project delivery method projects begins with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). In the City of Phoenix, the following steps are followed in the execution of an RFQ: 1. Advertise project to generate interest in the industry 2. Prepare and issue the formal Request for Qualifications (RFQ) document 3. Receive Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from interested firms 4. Establish a qualified selection panel to evaluate the SOQs 5. Receive evaluation results from panel members, compile scores, and prepare shortlist of top qualified firms 6. Interviews and final evaluation of the shortlisted firms 7. Selection panel members arrive at final recommendation of the best-qualified firm 8. Recommendation for contract award is forwarded to City Council for approval Development of a good RFQ (Step 2 above) requires the preparation of an effective evaluation plan that consists of criterion with relative weights based on the properties and parameters of the specific project. Criteria to be used and the weights of each should be carefully considered for each project and revised as needed. Figure 1 above shows a sample evaluation plan.

Another key best management practice is the execution of Preconstruction Services when using CMAR and DB. A major benefit of these two methods is the early contractor involvement in delivery of preconstruction services which contributes to project success by: • Providing early feedback to designer and Owner on probable costs of construction, so the project can be scoped appropriately for the Owner’s budget

Figure 1

A. General Information B. Experience of the Firm on Similar Projects C. Experience of Key Personnel D. Understanding of the Project E. Quality Control & Safety Programs F. Subcontractor Selection Plan G. Overall Evaluation of Firm

50 points 200 points 200 points 250 points 100 points 100 points 100 points TOTAL 1,000 points

• Improving the quality and completeness of design documents through constructability reviews • Planning construction activities through computer modeling to achieve maximum efficiency onsite • Reducing project duration through phasing of construction activities and long lead procurement of critical materials and systems

Lessons Learned

Some of the lessons learned in using alternate project delivery methods over the past 12 years include: • The ability to pick the “Best Qualified” contractor for a particular project based on past performance and experience • Using qualifications to select both the designer and the contractor results in better relationships among all project team members • Early contractor involvement throughout design phase yields tremendous benefits to the project • Contractors and subcontractors provide a higher level of service when motivated by the opportunity for repeat business • Using negotiations to arrive at the final price of construction results in a better quality product consistent with Owner’s expectations.

• An enhanced ability to meet Green Building goals with minimal cost impact to the project

Summary

By working with well-qualified architects, engineers, and contractors, the City of Phoenix has developed processes to evaluate and apply all delivery methods allowed by State procurement laws. Each capital construction project is evaluated critically, and the appropriate method is chosen for each to maximize the probability of success. The key to success is selecting the right project delivery tool.

Wylie Bearup, PE, PhD, is the Street Transportation Director/City Engineer for the City of Phoenix and Professor of Practice at Del E Webb School of Construction at Arizona State University.

Fall/Winter 2013

13

COAA’s

Owner Training Institute Excellent Training for Owners— with the Possible Consequence of Less Work for Lawyers

14

OwnersPerspective.org

By John Sier

E

very Owner wants to spend as much of the construction budget as possible on enhancing the value of the project, rather than battling legal issues from the outset of the project through closeout. The challenge for Owners has typically been training its project representatives to effectively manage the design and construction process from the Owner’s perspective. The core business of most Owners is not constructing buildings, so the Owners’ staff is frequently wearing many hats, with construction having less training than operations. COAA has been developing a training curriculum to fill that gap in available educational opportunities for Owners.

The COAA Owner Training Institute (OTI) has benefited from the collective knowledge of experienced Owner representatives, design professionals, and constructors in developing courses on Design Process Management, Construction Process Management, and Project Management from the Owners’ Perspective. There are several more courses under development that will be rolled out in the coming months and years. However, the current course offerings provide substantial benefits to the attendees, regardless of the level of experience or years in the industry. Fundamentally, the courses provide the foundation for the relationships and expectations of each person in the design and construction process. While identifying the expected positions of the parties, the courses also explain the interests of the parties, enabling the participants to gain a greater understanding of the perspective of each party, which in turn allows for more productive communications.

The courses on Managing the Design Process, Managing the Construction Process, and Project Management are not limited in scope to narrow issues that participants may receive in attending a single seminar. These comprehensive courses go into detail on topics, such as risk management, insurance, shopdrawing review, financial performance and reporting, schedule analysis, along with leadership, meeting management, and strategies to engage stakeholders. The courses cover the philosophies behind the roles and the practical implications of those philosophies. The dispute resolution topic covers the identification of potential disputes, strategies for avoidance, the importance of timely decisionmaking, and the methods of resolving the disputes with the emphasis on not losing control of the dispute.

An educated Owner’s representative enhances the Owner’s chances of obtaining a successful project. OTI provides a level of training that does not currently exist in the industry outside of a two or four-year degree. Even those degrees do not necessarily provide exposure to the level of experience embodied by each OTI course’s three-person team of instructors, which represents the perspectives of the Owner, designer, and constructor.

While the written materials are high value and comprehensive, the heightened value of the training is primarily delivered through the exercises where the attendees learn from each other in addition to the instructors. Here, the lessons and concepts are emphasized, evaluated, and placed into practice.

In short, if the COAA OTI training enables one Owner to avoid a single claim through the effective management of the construction project by the Owner’s representative, then the training has provided a greater value than its cost. There is no question that the tools provided to attendees through OTI will not only enable an Owner to avoid claims, but it will also enhance the value on every project because of the heightened awareness of the Owner’s representative.

The only losers will be the lawyers, who will likely see a reduction in the quantity of claims issues and disputes requiring legal intervention. However, that is music to the ears of most Owners, and it will prove the ultimate value of the COAA’s OTI. John Sier, with the firm of Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherborook in Detroit, Michigan, is Associate Counsel to COAA.

BIM is a great tool BUT...

we

it won’t get rid of many RFI’s & change orders the devil is in the data input!! Ask us why PROVEN RESULTS

Constructionability/ Coordination Review

GUARANTEE our RemedyCheck® will

Code & Accessibility Consulting, Review & Survey

SAVE YOU

BIM Collision Report Analysis

our fee in

100% Woman Owned

3X change orders

owners...PC Associates can help 714.538.0933

877.730.0933

www.pcassoc.com

The construction industry is plagued by “standard” terms such as “project management,” “construction manager,” “guaranteed maximum price” and other terms that can have many actual definitions in practice. OTI seeks to demystify the terms by breaking each one down to its essential components to ensure that the attendees have a thorough understanding, both of the actual definitions and the areas for potential confusion and conflict if the parties are not starting from a common understanding. Through this training, the Owners representative will know and be able to avoid the possible areas of misunderstanding that typically result in claims that drain the Owner’s resources from adding value to the project.

The course on Project Management better defines the role of the Owner’s project manager as distinct from the other parties and provides attendees with real-world experiences in developing best practices for Owners to receive the greatest value for their construction dollar. The Construction Manager At Risk course explains the mechanics of that project delivery method, enabling attendees to manage the Owner’s expectations and to clarify the role of the Construction Manager.

The concept of a Guaranteed Maximum Price is reviewed in detail from the Owner’s perspective as well as engaging in a scope-review process exercise with a Construction Manager to understand the behind-the-screen activities that can be mysterious to many Owners.

Many public Owners are constrained to using the DesignBid-Build delivery method due to procurement requirements, and the OTI course on that process is geared to enhancing the efficiency of such projects. The course reviews the process in detail, from the conception of the project to selection of the design professional, managing the bidding process and awarding the contract, performing effective construction administration followed by project closeout. This course provides the information that some Owner’s representatives have taken years of experience to acquire.

We ARE the PLAN CHECK PEOPLE Fall/Winter 2013

15

A Conversation with Lisa Berkey of Pennsylvania State University

A Member of COAA’s National Board of Directors “Our most successful project outcomes are achieved through teamwork and collaboration.”

–Lisa Berkey

By Randle Pollock

T

he Director of Design and Construction in the Office of Physical Plant of Pennsylvania State University since 2007, Lisa A. Berkey is responsible for oversight of the university’s capital design and construction program.

As a registered professional engineer with more than 30 years of experience in facilities engineering and management, Lisa has been instrumental in Penn State’s efforts to improve design and construction acquisition and reporting strategies, and she is committed to continuous quality improvement.

Prior to her current position, Lisa served as a Penn State Project Manager, overseeing design and construction of new building and renovation projects on campus. During that time, she administered the new $110 million Chemistry and Life Sciences Buildings, which extended the science subcampus within the core area of the University Park Campus and transformed Shortlidge Road into a pedestrian mall. In addition, she led initial development and design of the new $215 Millennium Science Complex.

Lisa is a member of the COAA Board of Directors and is also actively involved in the COAA Pennsylvania Chapter.

A regular attendee of COAA’s Spring and Fall Owners Leadership Conferences, Lisa has been a popular speaker and panelist on a range of topics, most recently co-presenting “They Shoot, They Score! Advanced Visualization for Penn State Ice Arena,” one of the most highly ranked sessions at the 2013 Spring Conference in Atlanta. She also recently joined COAA’s national Communications/Editorial Committee.

Lisa holds a Bachelor of Architectural Engineering degree from Penn State and is an adjunct instructor of Architectural Engineering there. Before joining Penn State, she practiced engineering in the private sector.

For a number of different reasons, the academic market that Lisa and Penn State represent—and in many ways her leadership is defining, shaping and advancing—is changing.

The future is hardly clear, but it is perhaps coming into better, sharper focus. Lisa recently shared her thoughts and insights about the latest trends in the industry, what she and her team are doing at Penn State, and what she sees on the horizon.

16

OwnersPerspective.org

On COAA

Randy Pollock (RP): How long have you been a member of COAA, and what prompted you to get involved?

Lisa Berkey (LB): I’ve been a member of COAA since 2007 and was part of the team that organized the COAA Pennsylvania Chapter. COAA represents an organization where owners and associates work together to advance the design and construction process. I am involved in COAA because the organization provides a wonderful opportunity for owner education and collaboration.

RP: How has your involvement with COAA impacted you professionally and personally?

LB: I have developed an extensive professional network as a result of my involvement in COAA. The network creates many opportunities to learn about innovative project processes, to share project successes, and to solve project issues.

RP: How has COAA affected your staff and colleagues at Penn State?

LB: This organization most closely represents the Owner’s role in the design and construction process. My staff benefits from the professional networking and from the training programs provided for Owners’ project managers.

RP: What has been the most rewarding aspect of your involvement with COAA? LB: The most rewarding aspect of my involvement with COAA is the professional networking. As I mentioned, I am involved in the COAA Pennsylvania Chapter. Through such chapter involvement, I have developed a professional network with regional peers.

On trends in facility design for the education industry

RP: Architecturally, what are the most significant changes in the layout or types of spaces you’re providing for Penn State?

LB: The new buildings, building renovations, civic spaces, and infrastructure improvements are transforming our campuses in dramatic ways. Multidisciplinary facilities continue to facilitate a collaborative environment while advancing knowledge.

RP: Sustainability initiatives and planning concepts such as “hoteling” are becoming increasingly mainstreamed. How has the push for sustainability affected your work at Penn State?

LB: We are committed to sustainable design practice and strategy. The environmental and sustainable elements are the framework for developing responsible facilities, in accordance with the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).

With respect to “hoteling,” we continue to design and build shared flexible spaces into our new building and renovation projects.

On trends in the construction of educational facilities

RP: In terms of project delivery/constructioncontracting methods, what are the most significant changes in the execution/implementation of your projects at Penn State?

LB: We continue to develop and promote integrated design, delivery, and operation processes. Additionally, new technology creates opportunity to rethink our business and to facilitate collaboration. Working with the Architectural Engineering Department, the Charles Pankow Foundation, and the Construction Industry Institute, we continue to develop the processes to allow building information and facilities data to be included in the BIM model and to be subsequently used as a facilities management tool.

We collaborate extensively with the academic side of the University on the subject of BIM. In this area, we are fully integrated with the Architectural Engineering Department partnering on development of BIM execution strategies.

On project delivery methods

RP: Which delivery methods have you employed?

Which do you most prefer?

LB: We use multiple strategies to deliver projects depending on specific project criteria. The decision to use one method or another is based on a number of factors, including the individual characteristics of the project, the project size and complexity, the construction schedule, the current state of the construction market, site conditions, technology, and funding sources.

The common delivery methods used by Penn State include design-bid-build (single prime and multi prime), job order contracting, construction manager agency, construction manager at risk, design-build, developer, and integrated project delivery principles. Our most successful project outcomes are achieved through teamwork and collaboration.

RP: Do you employ Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)?

LB: The benefits of IPD are obvious, placing emphasis on and valuing the experience and input of all team members in order to yield increased value and efficiency. We institute numerous processes and contract options to allow for more creative contracting strategies that utilize delivery methods more consistent with current industry standards.

We are currently building IPD principles into our designbuild and CM at risk projects, absent the tri-party agreement.

RP: Would you suggest IPD for the one-time, first time, or infrequent Owner?

LB: I would suggest using IPD principles on every project. Teamwork and collaboration are vital to successful project outcomes.

On what you are doing now

RP: How has the slow economy and funding uncertainty affected your work at Penn State?

LB: The economic constraints and funding uncertainty have resulted in process improvements to project delivery.

One notable outcome is the development of the Penn State Project Delivery System, which focuses on planning and front-end loading. This enhanced delivery system has the greatest potential to positively impact project outcomes, reduce project costs, and yield operational efficiency.

RP: How have you been dealing with funding challenges caused by the down economy?

LB: Renovation instead of building new is less costly, and the reduction in energy usage results in long-term expenditure reduction. Additionally, we are very focused on a multi-year, budget planning process, with sufficient business justification to limit project surprises. Taking a long-term view is one way we are dealing with funding challenges.

RP: Do you feel any need to emphasize “buying local/ regional”?

LB: Working with local and regional services providers cultivates partnerships within the region and enhances teamwork. Our mission is to deliver the best value and highest-quality projects by encouraging competition.

Supplier diversity is an important component of the design and construction program. We are committed to fostering relationships with minority and women business enterprises.

On trends that are impacting the future of your organization

RP: What current trends (demographic, economic, cultural, etc.) are most impacting the future of your work at Penn State?

LB: We support the mission of Penn State University by developing efficient, state-of-the-art facilities that will attract the best students, faculty and staff. Student and faculty satisfaction, local and regional market capacity, aging workforce, increasing energy costs, social media, and technology all significantly influence project execution.

About the Interviewer A member of COAA’s national Communications/Editorial Committee since 2010 and active in the COAA Texas chapter, Randle Pollock is regional director for HDR Architecture (www. hdrinc.com). Based in HDR’s Houston, TX office, Randy can be reached at 713-335-1949 and randle.pollock@hdrinc.com.

Fall/Winter 2013

17

10 Myths

About Relations Between Design Professionals and Clients

By Bruce E. Ferguson, Architect, LEED AP

A

s someone who has spent a considerable amount of time over the past 30 years as both a practicing architect and an Owner’s representative, I have encountered—and can now dispel—a number of myths about design professionals and their relations with clients. For the benefit of our industry, I’ve cited 10 of the most prevalent myths below and paired them with the facts as I see them.

1. Myth: If an architecture firm takes the difficult, lowbudget, undesirable projects, the client will someday give that firm a desirable, “high-design” project.

Fact: Clients tend to see A/E’s in specific roles. A firm that is known for successfully completing low-budget, difficult, renovation projects will get a reputation as the “go to” firm for this kind of work. The client may think of those firms as can-do miracle workers, but they typically do not see them as “starchitects.” On the positive side, these firms are likely to consistently receive mundane projects. On the negative side, they are not likely get an opportunity to do a “high design” project, unless they joint venture with a big-name design firm.

2. Myth: Big city architecture firms don’t cost clients any more money than small-town local firms.

Fact: Big city firms from distant locales like to make this statement at interviews to level the playing field with the local architects. There may be good and sound reasons for hiring experts from afar, but low price typically isn’t one of them. It stands to reason that the reimbursable costs for a firm that has to fly across the country, stay in local hotels, rent a car, etc. is going to be higher than the firm who’s employees drive to the client’s office or jobsite in their own cars and return to their homes at night. Office rents cost more in big cities, and employees often earn more, which inevitably translates into higher billable rates. For these reasons, it is disingenuous to tell potential clients that it won’t cost them any more money to hire your big city firm than to select a local small-town firm. You may have unique expertise that the local competitors don’t have, and for this reason you are the top candidate for the commission, but you’re not likely to be cost competitive.

18

OwnersPerspective.org

You only waste your money and the Owner’s time by submitting proposals on projects for which your team has little or no germane experience.

3. Myth: If an architecture firm is shortlisted for several projects and doesn’t get any of them, you are not likely to get a commission with that particular client in the foreseeable future.

Fact: I’ve seen a number of instances where architects are shortlisted for several projects in a row and not selected for any of them, but then they get hired for the very next project. A savvy selection committee knows that it is a combination of the best firm and the best fit. Team ‘A’ can have an excellent group of individuals and the chemistry can be right with the client, but the project may not be a good fit.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Team ‘A’; they simply need to keep competing until their firm is the best fit for the project at hand.

4. Myth: In difficult times, every RFP is worth pursuing.

Fact: Some jobs are absolutely not worth pursuing, even in the worst of economic times. The best example is when you don’t have the minimum qualifications or germane experience. You only waste your money and the Owner’s time by submitting proposals on projects for which your team has little or no germane experience. This is especially true when times are tough and the competition is fierce.

5. Myth: Who the architect proposes as their consulting engineers for a project is not as critical as who is proposed to be the lead architectural designer.

Fact: The design architect is very important, but increasingly, the mechanical engineer and the electrical engineer are the deal makers or deal breakers. As buildings become ever more complex, clients are redoubling their focus on the mechanical and electrical engineers’ role.

Indoor air quality, energy conservation, and lifecycle cost analysis issues only add to Owners’ newfound interest in MEP engineering team members.

6. Myth: Clients don’t really follow up with references or solicit input from their colleagues at other institutions, universities, public agencies, etc.

Fact: Clients do make reference calls, and a bad reference can kill a firm’s chances of landing a project. A/E teams need to regularly contact their references and make sure that your architecture firm is still in good graces with your former clients.

One lukewarm reference (or worse) can be the difference between being the runner-up and getting the commission.

7. Myth: An architecture firm needs to pursue every RFP a client sends to you; otherwise, you diminish your chances of working for them in the future.

Fact: Clients understand that not every project is a good fit with every firm. As long as you call the client prior to the submission date and let them know that you won’t be submitting a proposal because your office carefully reviewed the RFP and concluded that the requirements don’t play to your team’s expertise, most Owners will admire your insightful self-awareness and honesty and will readily consider your firm for another project in the future.

8. Myth: An architecture firm can rest on their laurels if they’ve done a number of successful projects for a client over many years.

Fact: It may not be fair, but your firm is only as good as the last job you did for an Owner. Clients tend to remember only the last project—good or bad. They tend to forget the previous half-dozen projects that everyone on the client’s staff thought were very successful and focus solely on the latest one.

9. Myth: Sustainable design does not cost more.

Fact: When looking at first costs only, sustainable design almost always costs more. We can all point to increased productivity, less absenteeism, lower energy and water bills, etc., but those are long-term cost savings, not first-cost dollars. To cover the added upfront expenses, something has to come out of the program, or the “design-to” budget needs to be increased. The first costs of environmentally responsible buildings are generally some percentage higher than doing the cheapest, minimally code-compliant solution.

As professionals, I believe we should passionately advocate for environmentally sound design solutions. But to tell the client, “it doesn’t cost any more” is to be disingenuous and will only serve to erode your credibility with the Owner.

10. Myth: It is better to commit to an unrealistic schedule or budget up front to get the project, than to tell the client what they don’t want to hear.

Fact: The client may be upset with you initially, but sticking to your convictions will likely help avoid a greater disappointment later. Clients may want to hear that they can have it all by tomorrow, with no pain or expense, but they will be twice as upset if you capitulate and then don’t meet their unrealistic goals. Owners look to A/E professionals to guide them through the design and construction process.

They will feel bitterly deceived if you encourage unrealistic expectations at the start of the design process.

Fall/Winter 2013

19

Project Leadership Silver Award Winner

Penn State Berks Campus

Gaige Technology and Business Innovation Building

Project Details Owner

Pennsylvania State University

Design Professional RMJM Hillier

Construction Professional Alvin H. Butz, Inc.

MEP Engineer

H.F. Lenz Company

Structural Engineer

Greenman-Pederson, Inc.

Civil Engineer

Gannett Fleming Engineers

Geotech Engineer

American Geotech, Inc.

Project Type

Higher Education

Delivery Method CM-at-Risk

20

OwnersPerspective.org

Compiled by Hannah Genslinger

P

enn State’s Berks Campus experienced tremendous success and growth under the 16-year leadership of the late Frederick H. Gaige, the college's former dean and CEO Emeritus. The small, rural campus expanded from 1,000 students in four major buildings on 135 acres of land to 2,100 students in seven major buildings and 13 smaller structures on 240 acres of land.

This expansive growth put incredible pressure on the campus’ existing academic facilities, challenging the institution’s ability to grow. However, the addition of the new Gaige Technology and Business Innovation Building in 2011 realized a longheld dream for the school in terms of its expansion, development, and innovation.

The excellent planning and management of the project also won Penn State COAA’s 2012 Project Leadership Silver Award.

Project Description As the largest building on campus with more than 60,000 square feet, Gaige houses three amazing new facilities: the Center for Entrepreneurship and Community Engagement, the Learning Factory, and the Emerging Technologies and Business Intelligence Laboratory. The Gaige building will help to make the campus an important leader for growth and innovation, as well as make it possible to deepen partnerships with businesses and communities throughout the region.

In terms of construction materials, the building features a structural steel frame with a white terracotta rainscreen façade. The roof construction is metal deck with a reflective, white TPO roof, and the majority of the façade is curtainwall.

A significant portion of the building budget lies buried underground, with more than $1 million of mini-piles and pressure grouting supporting the concrete foundation footings and walls. The interior design is minimalistic to enhance the engineering and technology image. The 20,000 square feet of exposed colored concrete floors provide attractive but practical flooring for the engineering labs and the main arteries of the building. A large two-story atrium floods the building with natural light.

Project Management

One of the main factors in project management success was Penn State’s comprehensive and well-communicated Project Management Plan. PSU clearly communicated to all stakeholders the expectations for Quality, Cost, and Schedule.

The university then implemented the plan and ensured that all team members adhered to it. A construction website helped to guide all team members through every phase of construction. As a result, the building was completed early and under budget, and it has become a benchmark for quality on all of their campuses.

A second factor in project management excellence was the ability of PM Tom Wojcik to understand Penn State Berks Campus’s programming needs and to develop a building that not only satisfied, but exceeded, the end user’s expectations.

Scheduling: To complete construction as quickly as possible, PSU hired a Construction Manager with the best schedule plan at their interview. Preliminary schedules that Penn State was using showed project completion in December of 2011, so the building could be used for the winter/ spring semester of 2012. Alvin H. Butz, Inc. presented a schedule plan that showed a completion date of early Fall 2011. This schedule became the benchmark for the duration of the project, and all activities and plans revolved around a final completion date of October 2011.

During construction, the team faced several challenges in order to maintain schedule. The first challenge was the compaction grouting and micro-pile installation. Initial design requirements were for the grouting to be completed before the micro-piles began. Through discussions with the geo-technical engineer, the team was able to phase the building into two sections, performing an additional tensile test on the piles to ensure their integrity. This allowed for additional drilling rigs to be brought on site to begin the pile installation on one

Featuring nine new classrooms equipped with state-of-the-art communications technologies, the campus can now offer new courses and enhance existing ones. Gaige has nine new computer labs, including innovative systems and private networks for the Information Science & Technology program. It also has dedicated laboratory space for sustained and sophisticated investigations. Further, a kitchen area serves as lab space for the Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management degree program. A café, lecture hall, 50 faculty offices, conference rooms, a design studio, student study areas, and an installation by world-renowned sculptor Ray King round out this incredible facility.

Fall/Winter 2013

21

side of the building, while grouting was completed on the other. This recovery plan for micro-piles also allowed the team to begin installing steel on one half of the building while micro piles and foundations were being completed on the other end.

Throughout construction, the team monitored the schedule on a bi-weekly basis. At every team meeting, three separate benchmarks were used to evaluate schedule and construction progress. A summary was done to show elapsed time vs. schedule time, the percentage of the project billed, and the architect’s assessment of percentage complete.

The average of the three percentages was used to determine an accurate assessment of the project schedule. This helped Penn State and the entire team to determine when it was most appropriate to spend money on overtime.

Another challenge was working through the winter weather.

A change from a fully adhered roof to an asphalt coated system was made to allow the material to be heated and installed during January. This allowed construction to continue through the winter making the building water tight for other trades.

Cost Management: Butz and PSU worked hand-in-hand to manage the costs on this project. The team developed custom financial reports to address the three pots of money (Contractual, Allowances, and Contingency) that required monitoring. The reports tracked contractual allowances, contingency requests, and scope increases that resulted in change orders. Butz took great effort to identify costs that were known but unquantifiable at bid time, and they tracked these costs as allowances, so PSU could use this valuable

22

OwnersPerspective.org

financial information for future projects. PSU and Butz made a commitment to meet every week to review all of the costs and to develop the following Cost Management Strategy: Butz, PSU, and the architect collaborated to discuss each cost change and to determine if there was a means to achieve the same result without incurring any costs. If the team could not find an alternate method of resolving the issue, they would work together on bargaining strategies with the subcontractors.

For example, the team was able to reduce the extra rock costs by more than $75,000 by enforcing a clause in the contract to remove the rock time-and-material instead of unit prices.

This Cost Management Strategy was extremely successful.

While the total construction change orders were $1,948,125 or 9.8 percent of the final GMP of $19,846,475, more than 6.0 percent was necessary scope added to the construction contract to achieve the latest information technology equipment systems for the facility. The other 3.5 percent of the change orders were unforeseen subsurface conditions.

Quality Management: The exterior rain screen façade is both the main architectural feature of the facility and the system that received the most attention from day one. Visits of existing similar systems were conducted prior to finalizing construction documents. In addition to bringing aboard a design firm experienced with rain screens, a construction manager and façade consultant with experience with this specialty system were hired.

The team utilized Submittal Exchange and grouped contractors into categories, so all contractors within a category had access to all the current information. Before any major work was started, a pre-installation conference was hosted with the contractor, the design professional and Penn State.

The team met and reviewed all of the details and had the manufacturer’s representative in attendance. Key issues of wet curing the floors and saw cutting the joints within the first 10 hours resulted in quality, exposed concrete floors with very few cracks. The mock-up was utilized to water test all details before they were approved for the building.

When the team started the exterior façade, the entire team did a visual inspection of every square foot of the substrate before it was covered by the terra cotta using a checklist developed by the exterior façade consultant.

Butz and Penn State developed a Field Issue List, where all concerns and deficiencies discovered by any team member were documented and tracked. This list was reviewed weekly at the foremen’s meeting and bi-weekly at the Project Management Meeting. This enabled the management team to track all items in one convenient log.

Project Success

The communication between members was excellent, and the use of the Web-Based Project Management Site allowed all members of the team access to all project information in real time. The results of this team synergy was a building of superior quality, change orders that amounted to less than 1.7 percent of total project costs, a schedule that was completed four months early, 17 percent WBE/MBE participation, and a LEED Gold Certified Building.

Before the project team was selected, Penn State went through an extremely focused interior programming process. Since the building needed to integrate four educational units into shared spaces, it was important to have all department heads and faculty represented. The group had to define the vision that would meet the budget and work collaboratively together. The selection of each member of the Project Team was not a chance occurrence but followed a well thought-out process.

Selection of Architect: One of the key factors in selecting RMJM as the architect was they were the most comprehensive team in all phases of the project, including building systems, site, and interiors. The building had to fit into a campus setting, so the landscape design was critical. RMJM rose to the top with their extensive portfolio and their sensitivity to sustainable design.

Selection of Construction Manager: What distinguished Alvin H. Butz, Inc. from their competitors was their responsiveness to Penn State’s criteria. Butz had an extensive portfolio of similar projects and a track record of success; they also presented the best schedule, which would ultimately save Penn State money through reduced management fees.

Selection of Subcontractors: Butz and Penn State developed a comprehensive bidder’s qualification process, so only qualified and competent bidders would be allowed to bid. Butz held a very detailed pre-bid conference that explained the project and bidding project to the subcontractors in great detail. For a total of two weeks, Penn State and Butz interviewed the two lowest bidders in all major bid categories. Price and project scope were not the sole determining factors for selection; the team reviewed safety performance, schedule, and references to ensure the best team of subcontractors was selected.

Project Complexity

The Penn State Berks Gage Technology and Business Innovation Building was challenged by three major complicating factors: Design Team Turnover: The architectural firm of record went through a transition in ownership during the project, as Hillier merged with RMJM. This resulted in staff turnover, as the Project Architect and support staff changed three times during the construction period. Penn State and Butz took the lead and assumed many of the roles and responsibilities of the architectural firm during these transitions.

Schedule Challenges: Mother Nature challenged the team during all phases of the construction. There was a six-week delay in the subsurface preparation due to an unanticipated amount of grouting and mini-pile work. This delay was followed by an extremely hot summer, a record amount of snowfall in winter, and one of the wettest springs in years. During the month of April, there were only 10 good weather days to work on the building’s exterior.

Building Complexity: The building was an extremely complicated and sophisticated structure. The rain screen construction required absolute precision in all dimensions and details. The building design did not have the traditional air space between the façade and the building substrate, so the Z-plane of the building became critical, which challenged the layout and façade construction.

Waterproofing the façade also became crucial, since the skin of the building actually introduces water into the system. The underground gray-water detention system and energy saving strategies for the MEP system required extra effort from the team. The ductwork as designed would not fit into the ceiling space because of the floor to ceiling windows in most classrooms. The team spent countless hours mastering the mock-up details before applying them to the building.

Sustainability

The project was recently awarded LEED Gold certification by the USGBC. It was submitted under LEED version 2.2 for new construction and earned 39 points on its way to certification.

The procurement phase of the project was managed using an electronic submittal tracking service called Submittal Exchange, reducing the amount of paper used. As a result, additional points were awarded in the LEED submission.

One of the building’s unique sustainable features include two, 35,000-gallon underground rainwater harvesting tanks. These tanks minimize storm water run-off, and the gray water is used for flushing toilets, washing the exterior of the building, and watering plants.

Near the project’s completion, members of the team met with students enrolled in a technical writing class. Their project for the semester was to create the building’s LEED signage highlighting the green features incorporated into the design and construction. At the completion of the semester, team members helped judge which signage would be installed in the building. The resulting signage was spectacular and enhances the sustainability awareness of all those who enter the building.

For more information on the Gaige Technology and Business Innovation Building, visit http://www.bk.psu.edu.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCTION/PROGRAM/ PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

WomenInc. Owned Small Business AFG Group, P: 703.435.0029 w w w.afgcm.com F: 703.435.0056 www.afgcm.com

AFG Group, Inc. is a premier construction management firm comprised of top-level, autonomous managers with owner/agency experience and deep expertise in healthcare, laboratory, courthouse and educational facilities. Flexible, resourceful and responsive, AFG brings owners success by costeffectively delivering facilities that meet stakeholders’ needs.

Fall/Winter 2013

23

Georgia on My Mind A Recap of COAA’s 2013 Spring Owners Leadership Conference in Atlanta

(from left): Bryan Schneider, Nancy Pickens, Regina Bradley, and Lester Felder networking at the reception.

By Chris Towery

T

his past May, Owners from across North America descended on Atlanta, Georgia, for COAA’s 2013 Spring Owners Leadership Conference. The threeday event was held at the Grand Hyatt in Buckhead, and it proved to be COAA’s largest conference ever, with 246 attendees from 33 different U.S. states and Canadian provinces. The event’s theme was “Hot Trends, Cool Ideas,” and as the title suggests, the conference was loaded with a wealth of meaningful sessions and presentations covering the most pressing issues facing today’s Owners.

Begin With the End in Mind One area that nearly every Owner is challenged by is project closeout and facility turnover. While reaching the closeout phase means that a project is in its final stages, this “homestretch” period can often be quite challenging for Owners. To help Owners better manage this phase, COAA dedicated all of the conference presentations on Wednesday afternoon to closeout and facility turnover.

With three different sessions and an Owner roundtable, attendees were provided with a series of lessons learned and best practices for improving the process of completion, inspection, commissioning, correction, acceptance, training, documentation, and initial occupancy.

“The presentations made it clear that project closeout and facility turnover is probably the most stressful and important part of a project for the Owner,” says Architect Alan Burcope of Finfrock. “This phase is when their staff and the building’s users are most active, and expectations and demands are highest.”

Rebecca Koller, Assistant Vice President and Director of Facilities Planning and Management at University of Nebraska, says the Wednesday sessions were valuable specifically because closeout can be such a trying time for Owners: “Late change orders, phased construction, equipment installation, and differing view of what constitutes ‘substantial’ completion all complicate this stage of the process.”

Augmenting Reality While COAA Owner’s Leadership Conferences nearly always feature sessions devoted to the latest construction-related technology, Thursday’s opening session, “They Shoot, They Score! Advanced Visualization for Penn State Ice Arena” took this high-tech focus to the next level. The session featured a panel of speakers from Penn State who discussed how the university utilized advanced visualization technologies, like Computer Augmented Virtual Environments (CAVE), to design the new Pegula Ice Arena and help facilitate its long-term

24

OwnersPerspective.org

Thursday’s opening session "They Shoot, They Score!

Advance Visualization for Penn State Ice Arena."

operational success. Beyond simply offering a graphic model of the facility, the virtual reality tools used by Penn State allowed both the project team and end users to literally immerse themselves inside a life-sized, 3D virtual representation of the facility. This incredible technology not only helped enhance the project’s design, but it also improved Penn State’s marketing, recruiting, training, and facility operations. The successful use of such futuristic technology on a capital construction project made the session a big hit with attendees.

“The session on CAVE was mega cool,” says Koller. “I had not seen this technology before, but now I’m checking with resources in Nebraska to see what we have and how it might be utilized.”

“There’s no question that visualization tools can greatly benefit Owners,” says Burcope. “Virtual reality tools like CAVE represent the next evolutionary step in design and the process of envisioning the product before constructing it.”

Selecting the Right Tool for the Job Another popular Thursday session focused on a topic that was a bit more down to earth, albeit no less important— project delivery methods. The session “Selecting the Right Project Delivery Tool” featured a discussion about how the City of Phoenix, Arizona, has used alternate project delivery methods, such as Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk, and Job Order Contracting, to successfully build more than $8 billion in capital construction over the past 13 years.

The session offered a variety of best practices explaining how large public agencies can choose the best project delivery method for any given project.

Robert Doran, the Director of Planning and Campus Development at the University of New Mexico, found the session both interesting and informative, especially coming from a similar public institution.

“The session provided me with a sense of comfort, knowing that our use of various project delivery tools is in line with other institutions,” says Doran. “The growing use of Construction Manager at Risk for UNM and other institutional Owners

is demonstrating the support for delivery methods that move toward the full incorporation of IPD. I believe that developing contracting and purchasing tools that create a fully collaborative and contractually responsible integrated owner, design and contracting teams would be in all of our interest.”

Keeping Up With Code One session on Friday that proved to be especially valuable for Owners was “Get Smart: NFPA and IBC Code Changes that Owners Really Need to Know.” The session focused on recent updates to the International Building Code (IBC) and the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code (NFPA 101). These code changes have the potential to make Owners and their designers rethink certain design elements and features, and the session examined the code updates that stand to have the most impact on capital construction projects.

“This was the best session I attended,” says Koller. “It featured extremely important information for major projects that can extend over a number of years—particularly the potential for dedicated fire elevators. For me, this session alone paid for the conference.”

“I think that these code changes, especially those relating to elevators, will have a dramatic impact on mid-rise and high-rise building design and cost,” says Burcope.

Expanded Education Like the Fall 2012 conference, at the spring conference COAA hosted several new Owner Training Institute (OTI) courses on the Monday and Tuesday prior to the main event. This time, COAA launched three new OTI courses: “Project Management: An Owner’s Perspective,” “Design Process Management,” and “Construction Process Management.” Each of these classes featured a three-person team of instructors led by an experienced Owner, who was joined by an architect and contractor. Teaching the course as a team, the instructors were able to provide the unique perspectives of each of the major parties involved with a project, giving participants a more complete picture of how all of the parts of a successful job fit together.

“In the PM course, we went through a checklist of things for Owners to consider when they’re deciding what delivery method to use. Then we gave them an example of an actual job. This gives them a chance to go through the thought process: ‘What would I do in this kind of project, what method would I use given these factors?’” says Terry Cook, Senior Associate Vice President for Administrative Services at the University of Maryland Baltimore County and the Owner instructor for the Project Management course.

COAA plans to launch two more new OTI courses this coming December in Baltimore, Maryland. These two courses will be “Design-Build” and “Project Closeout,” and they will be held on December 12th and 13th at the Four Points Sheraton BWI Airport. Following that, the full suite of 14 OTI courses will be available in 2014, which coincides with COAA’s 20th anniversary. For more information or to register for a course, visit www.coaa.org/oti.

Forging Relationships

the heart of Georgia Tech campus.

Awarded LEED Platinum certification, this 220,000-square foot building exemplifies the ultimate achievement in sustainability. Some of the building’s most important sustainable features include an innovative water recycling system with a projected 89-percent reuse, a 1.4 million-gallon underground cistern, locally sourced materials, a green roof, native landscaping, and a rooftop solar panel array.

“I was thoroughly impressed with the building and the campus,” says Koller.

“The new facility is a living laboratory and a true leader in sustainability.”

Developed as an alternative to the traditional classroom setting, the facility offers a unique, comfortable environment where students can take advantage of hands-on, collaborative, and technologically advanced learning and teaching opportunities. In total, Clough Commons features 41 classrooms, ranging from intimate seminar settings to tiered lecture halls; two 300-seat auditoriums; a day-lit common areas with more than 2,100 seats for individual studying and group work; as well as modern science labs for all foundational courses.

For those members unable to make it to the spring conference in Atlanta, the sessions are available for download on COAA’s website, www.coaa.org. To access the files, follow these steps: log in, select “Members Only Content,” and then “Archives.” While you’re there, don’t forget to make your reservation for the 2013 Fall Owners Leadership Conference, which will be held October 30th to November 1st in La Jolla, California. See you there!

While the sessions and other educational offerings are a big draw for attendees, sometimes the most valuable part of a COAA Leadership Conference is the connections made with other attendees. Many Owners face similar challenges on their capital construction projects, so it can be a huge benefit to meet someone who has already successfully dealt with an issue you’re currently working on.

“I always enjoy the networking available at COAA conferences,” says Koller. “It’s not only about connecting with old friends, but also meeting new Owners and associates that are working on similar projects and issues and learning alternative ways to deal with these challenges. I’m really thankful we have such an opportunity.”

Living Laboratory Following lunch on Friday, attendees had the opportunity to tour the G. Wayne Clough Learning Commons, an advanced new educational facility located in

The new G. Wayne Clough Learning Commons.

Fall/Winter 2013

25

What Can Green Construction Do For/To You?

By John Sier

M

uch like Kermit the Frog’s plaintive song, being green isn’t easy—but it could become mandatory in designing, constructing, and renovating buildings. The trend across the country has been to try to incorporate “green,” “sustainable,” and “environmentally responsible” principles into the design and construction process. Typically, the extent those principles are incorporated depends on the economic viability of the project in connection with the cost of construction. The selection of materials, equipment, and layout has normally been a financial decision—whether the Owner can obtain a return on the investment within a reasonable period of time. However, with the publication of the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) on March 28, 2012, some of these optional decisions could become mandatory if your state adopts and implements all or portions of the IgCC. Currently, a handful of states (MD, RI, FL, NC, OR) have adopted the IgCC in some form, and several municipalities have enacted portions of the IgCC as part of the local code requirements. Generally, the IgCC applies to all new construction and existing buildings, including residential properties over three-stories high. Aside from the scope of the IgCC, the direction and intent of the Code is very different from existing building codes. Currently, state and

26

OwnersPerspective.org

local building codes prescribe certain baseline expectations and practices for constructing a safe structure, but those codes typically do not address environmental matters nor do they mandate operational behavior after construction.

The IgCC, on the other hand, takes some aspirational goals and converts them into mandates. For example, the IgCC requires that 50 percent of construction waste be diverted from landfills, and that 55 percent of building materials must be recycled or recyclable or indigenous to the location of the project. Further, the building’s energy usage should not exceed 51 percent of the 2000 standards of the International Energy Conservation Code.

What are now best practices or goals could become the minimum requirements, increasing the risk profile of many projects and potentially triggering financing, insurance, and liability issues. According to the American Institute of Architects (AIA), which is one of the major proponents of the IgCC, the IgCC is intended to increase the positive impacts of the built environment on the natural environment and the building occupants by covering natural resources, materials, water and energy conservation, operations and maintenance for new and existing buildings. The IgCC does not simply prescribe mandates, but also includes performance expectations and outcome-based performance

criteria that require continuous monitoring and measurement to demonstrate compliance.

The rapid drive to make the construction industry and the built environment more environmentally conscious is reflected by the speed of acceptance of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification program administered by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC).

Despite the official sounding name, the USGBC is a voluntary, nonprofit organization established by a handful of construction professionals in 1993 to promote sustainability in the building and construction industry. The USGBC has no role in government, but as of May 2011, the LEED certification program has found its way into the legal requirements imposed by 400 local jurisdictions, 35 state government, and 14 federal

agencies or departments. The LEED certification program overlays the local construction code and addresses environment-related issues rather than safety. Based on a point system, the LEED program examines the sustainability of the site, water efficiency and management, energy usage and conservation, atmosphere, materials, resource and indoor environmental quality to evaluate the level of certification that the project could achieve. Many of the concepts and ideas of the LEED program found their way into the IgCC, which in turn, is evolving into the legal standard for construction rather than the aspirational goal.

Simultaneous with this expanding adoption of the IgCC, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has updated its “Green Guides,” which establish certain requirements as a condition for a manufacturer or service provider to claim that its products or services have certain characteristics. While “green” is too difficult to define, several terms such as “renewable,” “degradable,” and “compostable” are defined by the FTC as is the term “recycled,” which likewise has significance in the IgCC. To be considered “recycled,” the materials must “have been recovered or otherwise diverted from the waste stream, either during the manufacturing process (pre-consumer) or after consumer use (postconsumer). If the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer material, the advertiser should have substantiation that the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the waste stream.” While the seller is required to comply with the FTC Green Guides, the building Owner is responsible for compliance with code requirements, such as the IgCC. Thus, the building Owner will have a greater role and responsibility for reviewing, approving, tracking, and documenting the materials used on new construction and renovation.

What has been a laudable effort to incorporate environmentally-friendly practices into a construction project has the high likelihood of becoming a mandate with the attendant impact on

the direct cost of construction as well as the continuing cost of maintaining compliance, including the recordkeeping necessary to demonstrate compliance. The trend is clearly moving in the direction of requiring green behavior, but property Owners and construction professionals should carefully examine any potential statutes and ordinances to make sure that the effort to become more green does not stifle otherwise beneficial development.

There were excellent discussions of the IgCC and sustainable construction issues at the most recent COAA meeting in Atlanta. Those presentations are available for review at the COAA website, www.coaa.org.

To access the presentations, log in, select “Members Only Content,” and then “Archives.”

John Sier, with the firm of Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherborook in Detroit, Michigan, is Associate Counsel to COAA.

PLAN REVIEW

PC Associates Tel: 714-538-0933 Toll Free: 877-730-0933 www.pcassoc.com PC Associates proofreads construction documents for Constructability and Bid-ability. We look for those errors, omissions and inconsistencies that cause time delays and expensive change orders. Proofreading saves $$$. Guaranteed.

National WBE and SBE certification with NWBOC and WBENC.

Fall/Winter 2013

27

28

OwnersPerspective.org

New Members Owners City of Loveland Ken Cooper Cook Children's Medical Center George Montague Spencer Seals Jimi Shelton Emory University Barry Atwood Nancy Bayly Terry Bozeman Susan Carlyle Lindsay Cross Stephanie Davies-Dickinson Marguerite Abd El-Shahid Jen Fabrick Chris Fox Eric Gregory Alfred Herzog Bryan Hutchinson James Johnson Kevin Keefe Melissa King Glenn Kulasiewicz Steve Lange Jo Donna Lamb Corey Long Rob Manchester Heath Miller Jonathan Milton Robin Mitchell Julie Moran Michael Morris Gary Paetau Michael Robbins Charles Rossignol Russell Seagren Linda Sheldon Tom Tarantino Rickey Tumey Eric Weber Brent Zern Georgia State Financing & Investment Commission Daniela Arsic James Brownsmith Dexter Dumas Ifiok Immanuel

Georgia State University Steve Boswell Dean Brook Brian Carroll Alvin Clark Patrick Dukes Teresa Hegarty Luvert Holt Raphael Johnson Keith Martin Jennifer McWhorter Abdul Momen Lachlan Patterson Randy Rimes Connie Sampson Craig Simon Karen Stark Patti Stilson Keith Sumas Suzan Talley Robert Toomy Ramesh Vakamudi Russ Wham Evelyn Wilcher Billy Winzeler Jewell Woods Jeannie Wright Iowa State University Russ Dodson Jackson National Life Insurance Dennis Blue Tim Dooling Gregory Farhat Vince Vilona Knoxville Public Building Authority Allison Hinson Linn Slocum Kodiak Island Borough Matt Gandel

Miami Dade Aviation Dept.

Marlene Blanco-Saldivar Ernie Cano Ashish Kumar Enrique Perez Penn State University Rob Bloom Kurt Coduti Philip Popowicz Jessica Dubler Judy Larkin Marcie Van Horn Rich O'Donald Jonathan Risley Stanford University Chris Shay Texas State University System Donna Givens Peter E Graves Rob Roy Parnell Tyler Junior College Dana Ballard University of Maryland, Baltimore Mark Behrens University of Maryland, College Park Darwin Feuerstein University of New Mexico Bruce Cherrin University of North Texas System Denise L Harpool University of Oregon Bruce Budzik Charlene Lindsay David Ward

University of Texas At Arlington Curtis Adams Phillip Bivens Anthony Bode Tom Boeckers Toby Buhrkuhl LaTosha Carter Greg Davis Rueben Gant Robert Hanlon Jan Hergert Jeff L Johnson Curt Kuhlmann Don Lange Rick Lloyd Don Madison Sondra Monte Nicholas Myers Bill Poole Ragenna Prince Lisa Richardson Nicholas Schroeder Bryan Sims Matthew Walker Scott Willis Virginia Tech University David Chinn Van Coble Aaron Curfiss Patrick Donohoe Mike Eberl Bruce Ferguson Joseph Hoeflein Patty Justis Leigh LaClair John Mason James McCoy Paul Rader Todd Shelton

Lend Lease, Inc. Alistair Lowe MD Anderson Cancer Center Lawrence Kubacak Daniel Reat Richard Rokovich

Fall/Winter 2013

29

New Members Continued Associates ADAMS Management Services Corporation Brian R Bozeman Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP John Swansinger Centennial Contractors Ent. Rhonna Endres CMiC Bruce Gowling Dingess, Foster, Luciana, Davidson & Chleboski LLP Brian R Davidson Epsten Group Peter Lyon FTI Consulting CG Jester

Lord, Aeck & Sargent Don Bush Multivista Geoff Susskind Reef Tanagho Primera Michael DeSantiago Rand Worldwide Jeff Van Fleet Sheppard Mullin Daniel Rosenberg Trimble Buildings Matt Ison

Students Drexel University Kevin Landis

Global Workplace Solutions Hannah Wilner

Calendar of Events COAA-TX Chapter Fall Workshop September 9-10, 2013 Courtyard by Marriott Austin Downtown Austin, TX

Owner Training Institute: Design Process Management

September 11, 2013 The Penn Stater Conference Center Hotel State College, PA

COAA-PA Chapter Fall 2013 Workshop September 12, 2013 The Penn Stater Conference Center Hotel State College, PA

COAA-Baltimore/DC Chapter Fall Workshop September 24, 2013 UMUC Inn and Conference Center Adelphi, MD

COAA-IL Chapter Fall 2013 Workshop September 26, 2013 Chicago, IL

COAA-VA Chapter Fall 2013 Workshop October 3, 2013 Liberty University Lynchburg, VA

2013 COAA Fall Owners Leadership Conference

Index to Advertisers AFG Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 23 AGC of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover COAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 28, Inside Back Cover

October 30 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 1, 2013 Hilton Torrey Pines La Jolla, CA (San Diego)

Owner Training Institute: Project Close Out December 12, 2013 Four Points Sheraton BWI Airport Baltimore, MD

Owner Training Institute: Design-Build December 12-13, 2013 Four Points Sheraton BWI Airport Baltimore, MD

2014 Spring Owners Leadership Conference Donleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outside Back Cover Kitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PC Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 27

30

OwnersPerspective.org

May 14-16, 2014 Omni Houston Houston, TX

2014 Fall Owners Leadership Conference November 19-21, 2014 20th Anniversary Conference Loews Vanderbilt Hotel Nashville, TN

3

F F g N O I T d N F A I LC O M M C C U

2 1

S S e

S 014 2 , T 16 TON C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; e 14 OUS XAS j Y A NI H , TE O M OM TON Pr US HO

2014 SPRING OWNERS LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE 800.994.2622 / www.coaa.org

Fall/Winter 2013

31

Committed to value-added project delivery, outstanding client service, and the principles of safety, integrity, and quality.

WE CALL THAT

GENUINE DONLEYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S

Germanna Community College Science & Engineering Building/Information Commons

32

OwnersPerspective.org