Page 1

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

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

​The San Diego Community College District’s (SDCCD) construction bond program, funded by voter-approved Proposition S, a $685 million bond p...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you