Fairfax High School Renovation and Addition Washington, DC M ICHAEL F UNK Construction Management

Fairfax High SchoolFairfax High SchoolRenovation and AdditionRenovation and Addition

Washington, DCWashington, DC

MMICHAEL ICHAEL FFUNKUNK

Construction ManagementConstruction Management

Fairfax High SchoolRenovation and Addition

Presentation OutlinePresentation OutlineProject Overview

Analysis 1 – LEED® Guide

Analysis 2 – Phasing Layout

Analysis 3 – Foundation Excavation

Conclusions

Q&A

Michael Funk

Construction ManagementAE Senior Thesis 2007

Pennsylvania State University


Project OverviewProject Overview

Michael Funk



Project Overview



Analysis 3 – Foundation

Conclusions

Q&A

Total Cost: $ 45 Million

Size: 410,000 Sq. Ft.2 Stories

Duration: 30 MonthsOriginal: March 2005 – September 2007

Building Function:High School

Facilities:Classrooms, Computer Lab, Gymnasium,Stage and Dressing Rooms, Dance Studio,Weight and Aerobics Rooms, Arts / Crafts,Music Room



Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Construction:

School must remain in session throughout the project duration

During school:

50 to 60 workers

Summer:

150 workers

Project Site:

Fairly Open Construction Site

Given 60 parking spaces

Trash sorted by concrete/CMU and steel despite there

being no recycling requirements



Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Traditional Delivery Method

Project Team:Owner: City of Fairfax School BoardProgram Manager: BeeryRio Architecture & InteriorsGeneral Contractor: Grunley Construction CompanyArchitects/ Engineers: Strickler Associates, Ehlert/Bryan, Adtek Engineers


Michael Funk



BERNARD SCHULZE

GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT

SAFETYDIRECTOR

GREG MCHUGH

PROJ ECT MANAGER

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS

FOREMEN

TRADESMEN

COORDINATORS

ASSISTANT PMS

COST ENGINEER

SCHEDULER

Subcontractors’ Home and Field Organizations

City of FairfaxSchool Board

On-Site Organization

Self-Performed Work

GRUNLEY SUPPORT TEAMAccounting & Human ResourcesEstimatingProcurementInformation TechnologiesCorporate SchedulingCorporate SafetyCorporate Quality AssuranceLEED CertificationField Operations & Training

CHIP SCOTT

PROJ ECT EXECUTIVEOff-Site Organization

PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTFAIRFAX HIGH SCHOOL

STAFFING PLAN


Michael Funk



Analysis 1 – LEED GuideAnalysis 1 – LEED Guide


LEED GuideLEED Guide

Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Problem• ‘Going green’ trend continues to increase• LEED points can be hard to obtain• Focus gets lost on the project

Existing Research• Setting early “green” goals is critical

Goal• Identify LEED® points that are attainable based on project

type• Develop a guide that can be distributed to project team to

aid in obtaining these points



Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Research Steps:• Literature review to become more familiar with LEED®• Identify and interview different owners on different LEED® Rated

projects• Surveyed owners and project managers• Develop an outline for a guide that will benefit owners and project

managers from the start of a project• Developed a spreadsheet format for each LEED ® point • Had several project managers test out the guide, obtained

feedback, and developed a final version



Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Excel Spreadsheet:

Specification SectionDescriptionResponsible PartyMaterial CostLocationCommentsSubmission Deadline



Michael Funk



LEED LOG

Sp

ec

Secti

on

Description Resp Party Material Cost Location Comments Due By

08110Standard Steel Doors and Frames AG Mauro Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

05310 Steel Deck and Plate AIW Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/200510605 Hardware Cloth AIW Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/200504065 Stone Mortar Atlantic Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

07210Building Insulation - Product Data - STONE Atlantic Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

07620Sheet Metal Flashing and Trim - Stonework Atlantic Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

07900Joint Sealants - Stone Control Joints Atlantic Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

08800Glass and Glazing - Transom Glass AV Smoot

Glass Manufacturer: Oldcastle Glass - Telford, PA Wood from existing/salvaged transoms Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 6/29/05 -

07814Interior Intumescent Fireproofing Ballard Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

07900Joint Sealants - Partition Opening Perimeter Joints Ballard Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

0990Temporary Cafeteria - Paint Ballard Sent: 6/29/05 Received:

09900Temporary Cafeteria - Epoxy Paint Ballard Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

09900 Paint Ballard Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/200510270 Access Flooring Bettinger-West Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/8/2005

07210Building Insulation - Product Data - DRYWALL Coakley 8000.00 Inwood, WV Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -

07900

Joint Sealants - Partition Perimeter and Control Joints Coakley n/a n/a Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -

09100

Drywall Metal Support Assemblies, Metal Support Assemblies Coakley 120000.00 Baltimore, MD Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -

09250

Gypsum Board - Temporary Cafeteria, Whole Project Coakley 54000.00 Baltimore, MD Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -

09280 Plaster Restoration Coakley 141000.00 Baltimore, MD Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -

09510Acoustical Ceilings, Fasteners Coakley

5000.0018000.00

Cloquet, MNStony Point, NY Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -

09770Glass Fiber-Reinforced Wall Panels Coakley n/a n/a Sent: 6/29/05 Received: 7/11/05 -


Michael Funk



Analysis 2 – Phasing Analysis 2 – Phasing LayoutLayout


PhasingPhasing

Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Functionality of the school caused for a unique schedule

Four Phases and Fourteen Areas

Phase 1Nine areas covered54% of the $1.2 million contingency usedHeavily front-end loaded


PhasingPhasing

Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Initial Layout:

Phase 1 – 9 Areas Phase 2 – 6 AreasArea A Area A

Area B Area C

Area D Area D

Area E Area G

Area I Area I

Area J Area E

Area L

Area M

Area N

Phase 3 – 4 Areas Phase 4 – 2 AreasArea F Area H

Area I Academy Work

Area K

Area J


PhasingPhasing

Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Re-Designed Layout:

Phase 1 – 4 Areas Phase 2 – 4 AreasArea A Area C

Area B Area D

Area M Area E

Area N Area H

Phase 3 – 3 Areas Phase 4 – 4 AreasArea F Area J

Area G Area K

Area I Area L

Academy Work


PhasingPhasing

Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

New layout provides a more balanced schedule

Phase 3 is lighter to allow for make-up time if any previousPhases get behind

Places the work in a nice flow based on what work is being done and the school remaining open


Michael Funk



Analysis 3 – Foundation PlacementAnalysis 3 – Foundation Placement


FoundationFoundation

Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Bulk Excavation (current) versus Trench Excavation

Goal:Reduce labor costs, schedule, and the amount of material used

Trench excavation eliminates the need for forming and reduces the amount of material removed and the amount of fill



Michael Funk



Table 1 - Cost Difference Summary

ItemTrench

ExcavationBulk

Excavation DifferenceMaterial (BCY) 483.545 1310.465 826.92Material (LCY) 531.9 1441.51 909.61Total Costs $13,946.96 $60,158.80 $46,211.84



Michael Funk



Table 3 - Schedule / ExcavatorDemand Impact

Item Equipment Labor (hrs/BCY) Total BCY Total hrs Total DaysTrench Excavation 1 C.Y. Hydraulic Backhoe 0.04 483.55 19.34 2.4Bulk Excavation 1 C.Y. Hydraulic Backhoe 0.027 1310.47 35.38 4.4

Difference: 16.04 2*Assume 8 hour work day** Productivity rates taken from R.S. Means 2006



Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Outcome• Increased safety measures must be taken• Trench Method Saves

– $46,211• Reduced spoils

• Removal of formwork labor

and materials

– 2 days off schedule– 826 BCY reduction in spoils

• Reduced by roughly 77%• Reduced site disturbance


Michael Funk



ConclusionsConclusions



Michael Funk



Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

LEED® GuideDeveloped spreadsheet design to aid in obtaining various points

Phasing LayoutAdjusted the existing phasing to ease the schedule

Foundation PlacementTrench foundation placement method is a feasible alternative

• Reduces quantities of spoils and associated costs



Michael Funk



Acknowledgements:

Penn State Architectural Engineering Faculty

Grunley Construction Company

All of the LEED® Rated project personnel

Fellow AE students and LP friends

Most importantly: Mom, Dad, and Molly

Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A


Michael Funk



Questions/Suggestions?Questions/Suggestions?Project Overview




Conclusions

Q&A

Documents

Fairfax High School Renovation and Addition Washington, DC M ICHAEL F UNK Construction Management