State of Design-Build in the San Diego Community College District

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

State of Design‐Build in the State of Design Build in the San Diego Community College District

Design‐Build Institute of America ‐ Western Pacific Region Wednesday, September 29, 2010

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: San Diego Community College District  Three Colleges - City, Mesa and Miramar  Six Continuing Education Campuses  Students - 159,892 in Academic Year 2009 - 2010  Employees - 4,900  District Square Footage - 2,218,031 2 218 031  $1.555 billion construction bond program

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use Design Build?  Traditional delivery is not working.  All parties are interest-based rather than project-centric.  We continue to spend inordinate amount of time on change management, which is wasteful.  As a public agency we are stuck with lowest responsive, responsible bidder regardless of past performance history.

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: What Can I Get for My Money? Reduce Waste/Inefficiency Construction Lags Behind Other Industries

Manufacturing

Manufacturing

Redesign g Rework Claims/Litigation Improper Sequencing of Work

Construction

Delayed Submittals and Approvals Image Space

Source: Construction Industry Institute

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build California Community Colleges  As of January 1, 2008, Community Colleges can use design build under SB614.  Must be at least $2.5M in value  Requires project-specific Board resolution

 Need to evaluate the project based on five minimum criteria.  Price (10%)  Technical Experience (10%)  Life cycle cost over 15 years (10%)  Skilled Labor Force (10%)  Safety Record (10%)

5

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Why Use Design Build?

Advantages: • Qualifications-based selection with consideration of price.

• Match firm p past experience p and p performance with project need.

• Greater opportunity to select project manager and d superintendent. i t d t • Save money by consolidating CM owner agent, general conditions and supervision into one contract.

• Best value with target g budgeting g g • Historically lower change order rates.

6

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

http://www.aia.org/ipdg

7

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – What is it?

 Project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures, structures and practices to optimize project results results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiencyy of p project j delivery. y  Distinguished by highly effective ff ti collaboration ll b ti among the owner, prime designer and prime constructor commencing at early design through project completion.

8

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – Why Do It? An integrated design process allows decisions to be made early when the opportunity for change is maximized and the cost of changes are minimized.

9

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Target Costing

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM! BIM! BIM!  Build it in model space before you build it in real space.  Reduce conflicts using Revit and NavisWorks clash detection.  Energy efficiency evaluation.  Walk the end user through g the space. p  With schedule integration, a 4-D model can be developed.  With cost estimates, a 5-D model can be developed.

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build with Elements of Lean  Elements of Integrated Project Delivery  Building Information Modeling  List/prequalify all major trade contractors  List/prequalify all major engineering consultants  Target Budgeting  SBE participation

OWNERS’S PERSPECTIVE: Basis of Design Build Programming

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors Price (20%) – 200 points total Proposer’s Proposer s Price = General Conditions Cost + (OH&P% X $37 $37,750,000) 750 000) Lowest Proposal Price times 200 the Proposer’s Price

Non-Price Factors (80%) – 800 points total Technical Expertise (250 points) Life Life Cycle Costs (100 points) Skilled Labor Force Availability (100 points) Commitment to Diversity (100 points) Safety Record (100 points) Design Excellence (150 points)

14

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors  Technical T h i l Expertise E ti (250 points) i t )  General Firm Information  Firm Experience p  Team Member Experience  Firm & Team References

 Life Cycle Costs (100 points)  First cost, estimated life, annual maintenance cost, operation cost and projected replacement timeline for:  Mechanical systems  Electrical systems  Vertical transportation

 Energy consumption based on 40 year project life escalated at current CPI CPI. 15

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Total Cost of Ownership Example  50 year design life  100,000 square foot classroom building  Design and construction cost - $30 million  Capital Renewal: 2 percent of current replacement value (APPA benchmark)  O&M Budget $5.69/square foot  Inflation: 3 percent

16

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Savings in O&M Capital Renewal

Total Cost of Ow nership

11%

Save 5% in  Cap. Renewal 53% 36%

Save 10% in O&M

D&C: Cap.R: O&M: T t l Total:

$30M $101M $149M $280M

Savings S i Total NPV $ 5M $1.1M $15M $3.4M $20M $4 4M $4.4M

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy

 The Board of Trustees is committed to environmental stewardship as a fundamental operational objective and integral to the strategy of fulfilling our educational mission.  The Board of Trustees further recognizes its fiscal responsibility to use taxpayers' dollars wisely for the long-term, eschewing the shortterm economy where there is a better long-range investment.  The goal of this policy is to provide District students, faculty and staff with working and learning environments that are healthy, thermally, y, visually y and acoustically y comfortable;; energy gy efficient; material efficient; water efficient; easy to maintain and operate; safe and secure and sited in an environmentally responsible manner.

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation - Performance Goals

 Exceed Title 24 of California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards by at least 10% 10%.  Ten percent of the energy utilized by the project must be renewable with at least 5% generated on site.  Divert at least 75% of construction and demolition debris from landfills.  Pursue formal LEEDTM certification with a minimum of 33 points resulting in a LEEDTM Silver rating, with a goal of LEEDTM Gold on applicable p j projects.

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation - Methodology

 Incorporate life-cycle costing that includes initial construction costs, operating costs, maintenance repair and replacement costs t to t evaluate l t the th long-term l t investment i t t value l off design d i alternatives.  Integrated I t t d design d i so that th t buildings b ildi systems t are d designed i d tto perform as a whole rather than as component parts with an emphasis on efficiency and performance.  Perform enhanced commissioning and facility performance evaluations to assure that the building systems meet the occ pant req occupant requirements irements and design intent intent.

20

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: BIM (Building Information Modeling) BIM allows Builder to work with Designers and Sub-Contractors in a Collaborative, 3D Environment During Design and Construction Benefits  Fewer RFIs  Fewer Change Orders  Fewer Delays

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Internal Clash Survey  Building Construction Mechanical piping hits cable tray and fire protection piping in ceiling space  Survey Average Results  Man-hour Savings = 61  Delay Savings = Three Days  Cost C S Savings = $ $30,349.00

 Number of Clashes Shown in Example = 9  Savings per Clash Resolved = $3,372.00

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Project Specific Challenges & Solutions

Challenge  No on-site storage for materials and equipment

Solutions  BIM  Prefabrication made possible through use of BIM  LEAN Scheduling  Just-in-Time delivery (materials/equipment)

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Benefits of Integrated Project Delivery

Eliminates waste due to redesign Facilitates higher quality through pre-planning and prefabrication Optimizes project schedule Maximizes project value Enhanced satisfaction from users

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project  What are the Site Issues? at is s Driving g the t e Project? oject  What  Fitting into Campus Planning Guidelines g the User Program g  Meeting  Having a DSA Strategy  Energy Conserving Design / LEED  Low Maintenance / Durable  Security Issues  Public Accessibility  Expansion / Flexibility

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: “Green” Timeless Design Strategies  Building Orientation for Daylighting and Solar Control  Energy Conservation Measures  Low Water Use Landscape with Native Pl t Material Plant M t i l  Storm Drain Retention and Filtration Concepts  Cool Roof / Green Roof  Shade Elements to Prevent “Heat Heat Islands” Islands  Bicycle Parking / Emphasis on Mass Transit / Pedestrian Travel

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Small Business Participation

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects Miramar College Police Station/ Parking Structure Project Budget: $13.8 million Construction Start: Summer 2010 Targeted Completion: Spring 2012 Project provides new headquarters for Miramar College Police and also provides new multilevel parking structure. Project is designed to obtain LEED Platinum – the first for SDCCD. Design/Builder Team: McCarthy Construction Harley Ellis Devereaux International Parking Design (IPD)

MIRAMAR COLLEGE PARKING STRUCTURE AND POLICE STATION

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects City College Math & Social Sciences Bldg.

Project Budget: $83.5 million (incl. land acquisition) Expected Construction Start: January 2011 Targeted Completion: May 2012 Project involves land acquisition and construction of new 72,000 sq. ft. classroom and laboratory building. It will include the District’s Corporate Education Center, Military Education, a Family Health Center and a six-story parking structure with 400+ stalls stalls.

Design Build Team: Sundt, Roesling Nakamura Terada

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects North City Campus - Parking Structure Budget: $5 million Expected Construction Start: May 2011 Targeted Completion: December 2012

Land acquisition; construction of a new, two-story, 40,500 GSF classroom building to serve as the Campus of Excellence for Multimedia and Innovation; and construction of a 300-space parking structure.

IPDI Design Build Team NTD Architects Legacy Builders TB Penick & Sons

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects Mesa College – Central Plant Budget: $5.5 million Construction Start: December 2009 g Completion: p December 2010 Targeted

The new Central Plant will provide heating and cooling for five buildings. New sub-grade chilled and hot water pipes will extend from the facility to the western part of the campus.

Design Build Team Jackson & Blanc DEC Engineers Mele Amantea

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects City College – Central Plant Budget: $8 million Construction Start: Summer 2010 Targeted Completion: The Central Plant will distribute conditioned hydronic water to the entire campus with the exception p of two buildings. g The Central Plan will also contain the electrical equipment to provide power to the campus.

Design Build Team Mele Amantea Architects DEC Engineering University Mechanical

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects Miramar College Cafeteria/Bookstore and Student/Campus Center Project Budget: $33.2 million Estimated Const. Start: Spring 2011 Targeted Completion: Spring 2013 New multi-story will consist of approx.

45,000 SF of new construction to house a new cafeteria, bookstore and student services center. Hybrid y Design g Build MEP part of CMMP Delivery.

CM: CW Driver A hit t NTD Architecture Architect: A hit t MEP Design Build Team: Gould Electric, Michael Wall, X-nth, P ifi Rim Pacific Ri Mechanical M h i l

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects Mesa College Math and Science Bldg.

Project Budget: $117 million Expected Construction Start: Feb. 2011 Targeted Completion: January 2013 New 200,000 200 000 GSF, GSF four-story building will have classrooms, lecture rooms, labs for scientific experiments, computer labs, and facility, staff and administrative support areas.

CM: McCarthy Building Companies Architect: Delawie Wilkes Rodrigues Barker Design Build Team MP: University Mechanical Glazing: Enclos Corp.

Pre-cast: Clark Pacific Framing & Drywall: Standard Drywall, Inc. Electric: Dynalectric

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Current Design Build Projects Miramar College – Science Building Expansion Budget: $36.7 million Construction Duration: 2011-2013 Project will convert existing classrooms into additional lab space; an extra 15 15,000 000 SF will be added for faculty offices, support space and outdoor educational areas.

Design Build Team: TBD

(19 RFP Respondents!)

R d t !)

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Upcoming Opportunities Campus/Project

RFP Date

Miramar College - Fire Science/EMT Building

November 2010

Miramar College – New Administration Building, repurpose November 2010 existing building for Continuing Education Mesa College – Social Behavioral Sciences Building

December 2010

Mesa College – Cafeteria Bookstore

First Quarter 2011

Mesa College – Fitness Center

Late 2011