Technical Assignment 3

AE

48

1W

The Global Vision Integration Center 8000 HARBOUR VIEW BOULEVARD SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA

Bryan Franz CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OPTION BWF114@PSU.EDU

November 15, 2004

Dr. Michael Horman ACADEMIC ADVISOR

Alternate Systems & Methods Analysis

Technical Assignment 3 Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Site Layout Planning 2

Temporary Utilities 6

Detailed Systems Estimate 8

General Conditions Estimate 12

Research & Analysis Methods 13

Take-Off Notes 17

Executive Summary

This assignment identifies aspects of the Global Vision Integration Center that offer possibilities for improvement. It assesses alternative methods, value engineering and schedule reductions that are highly feasible and add value to the project.

The unconfined construction site reduced the need for complex logistical and

storage planning. Throughout the three phases of construction, the general site traffic patterns remained consistent and organized. Office trailers and storage containers were positioned along the fence perimeter to allow additional areas for deliveries near the building. During the finishes phase, certain storefront installations were purposefully delayed, providing large openings for equipment and materials to be moved within the building. Site work was ongoing for all phases, since the sandy soil required continuous action to prevent rutting and settlement.

The detailed superstructure estimate revealed that structural steel and connection

details contributed to a majority of the system cost. As expected, pipe trusses added significant costs over the assembly estimate, which did not account for welded connections. The superstructure was calculated per bay or wedge to present a unitary cost that could be compared to similar facilities.

The general conditions estimate was prepared with separate base building and

interior costs to understand the cost allocations throughout the project. Changes to the schedule will affect the estimate and alter the cash flows of the owner and contractor. Knowing which phase the cost savings or growth occurs, the contractor can adjust their payment applications accordingly to accurately represent completed construction activities.

Research will be conducted to explore the use of 3-D modeling, a redesign of the

concrete panels and assessing the acoustics of the auditorium. The primary goal of preparing a 3-D model and assessing its financial aspects is to assign a numerical value to the benefits of using new technology. By redesigning the concrete panels to a precast system, potential schedule and cost savings could be realized. Assessing the acoustics of the auditorium may offer opportunities for improvement through alternate materials or integration of systems.

Site Layout Planning Foundation Phase

The foundation phase extends from initial mobilization and site work to the

completion of six casting beds. Vehicular traffic enters the site through the primary entrance, splits around the perimeter, merges and exits at the secondary gate. Most soil removed during the shallow excavation was trucked off-site, with some stockpiles remaining onsite for fill and grade operations. A sediment basin and v-ditch were formed to control runoff and water levels before the permanent drainage systems were installed. Dumpsters and portable toilets were located near site entrances to minimize the impact of refuse removal on construction activities. The general contractor located their trailers with an unobstructed line-of-sight to the building and convenience to both entrances.

Superstructure Phase

The superstructure phase begins with steel contractor mobilization and finishes

with the interior elevated slab. A single 150-ton mobile crane was positioned and deployed at three locations around the perimeter to erect the steel columns and trusses. Steel was unloaded and sorted adjacent to these crane location. Upon completion of the internal and middle column rings, the tilt-up panels were poured on the pre-prepared casting beds and hoisted into place by the concrete contractor. During this phase, MEP contractors were mobilized and beginning under-slab rough-in and site utility work. Traffic patterns remained similar to the previous phase and some soil storage areas were cleared during fill and undercutting operations.

Finishes Phase The finishes phase spans from the building enclosure to project completion. The casting beds were removed and final grading work eliminated the sediment basin in preparation for concrete paving. Additional storage areas were designated and cleared as more trades were contracted to begin interior construction. Roofing and clerestory glazing materials were hoisted and stored on the roof surface to reduce congestion on the ground. Most subcontractors were also permitted to store materials within the building, in open sectors and at the discretion of the superintendent. Glazing was delayed in Sectors 3 and 6 to provide easy equipment and material access into the building. Traffic patterns consistent with previous phases, but the forward path proved more convenient for deliveries.

Temporary Utilities Electricity & Lighting

Temporary electricity was supplied from a local power pole off the adjacent

Harbour View Boulevard, feeding a 480/277V panel between the office trailers. Power was distributed from the panel to the building via underground conduit that was removed upon energizing the main switchgear. Once inside the building, electricity was directed to a 150A-3 phase-208/120V temporary panel board, pre-assembled with a dry type transformer. From there, stepped down voltages were made accessible for tools, equipment and lighting through duplex receptacles, with a maximum spacing of 70 feet. All receptacles were equipped with ground-fault protection and subcontractors were required to supply grounded extension cords.

Work area lighting was provided by temporary HID fixtures. The fixtures were

strung after the roof decking was securely installed to protect the lighting from damaging environmental conditions. They were spaced every 20 feet along the bottom joist chords of the roof system to meet OSHA standards of five foot-candles at ground level. No night shifts were scheduled, so temporary site lighting was not required or provided. Water & Sanitation

Water was necessary for various onsite construction activities – small volumes of concrete were mixed for patching and repairs, temporary roads were dampened for dust control, trucks were washed before leaving the site and water was added into backfill to increase compaction. The temporary water was provided by tapping the existing main located beneath the Bridgeway Drive extension and using underground distribution to support the site. A temporary service meter was installed with a backflow preventer during the initial phase of construction to prevent contamination of the main. Upon completion of the permanent meter, temporary service was discontinued and the temporary piping removed.

Temporary sanitation was managed without tapping the utility main, leaving the general contractor to follow regulations established by the City of Suffolk regarding safe waste treatment. Six portable toilets were placed onsite, split with half located near the primary construction entrance and half against the northern site fence. Two 100-gallon holding tanks serviced the construction trailer restroom, providing limited storage for waste and fresh water. A local vendor was responsible for supplying these facilities and providing weekly cleaning and waste removal services. Refuse removal for the two onsite dumpsters was managed by a separate vendor, operating on-call at the discretion of the superintendent.

Fire Protection

Fire protection guidelines during construction were specified by the City of Suffolk and enforced by the general contractor. As required by code, six fire extinguishers were placed around the atrium column ring on the ground and mezzanine levels, clearly visible to all construction personnel. An escape plan was devised and posted to promote safe and orderly evacuation in the event of an accidental fire. Subcontractors were also encouraged to hold internal weekly safety meetings to discuss and raise awareness of potential fire hazards. Conditioning & Ventilation

Temporary heating, cooling and ventilation were not required before enclosure. However, standard ACI guidelines governing the temperature range for pouring concrete without specific admixtures were specified. According to the ACI code, sustained temperatures below 40ºF require heating, while those over 90ºF require cooling. Fortunately, the concrete pours occurred within the specified temperature range, eliminating the need for special curing procedures. Test cylinders were allowed to cure in the same conditions and met the required compressive strength.

Prior to storefront and clerestory installation, large openings in the tilt-up panels

provided adequate natural ventilation for the building interior. During the glazing installation, heat collected easily within the building and portable propeller fans were rented to encourage air circulation. The fans were invaluable in venting paint and sealant vapors and setting drywall putty before the permanent system was activated. Millwork, acoustical ceiling tiles and other moisture sensitive finishes require a fully conditioned space before proceeding with their installation. Therefore, establishing permanent HVAC systems was an important milestone in completing interior finish work.

Detailed Structural Estimate Summary

CSI Division Description Qty Unit Total 02 - Site Construction

02300 Earthwork 1,450 CY $238,080 02450 Foundation Piles 16,000 LF $23,890

$261,970 03 - Concrete

03050 Concrete Material & Methods 65,230 SF $27,390 03100 Concrete Forms 34,330 SF $243,280 03200 Concrete Reinforcement 128,570 LB $69,460 03300 Cast-in-Place Concrete 2,140 CY $240,300

$553,040 05 - Metals

05050 Metal Materials & Methods 9190 LF $138,550 05100 Structural Metal Framing 395,560 LB $334,680 05200 Metal Joists 8430 LF $138,490 05300 Metal Deck 63,420 SF $95,760

$707,480 07 – Thermal & Moisture Protection

07800 Fire & Smoke Protection 6,450 SF $427,140 $427,140 Superstructure Subtotal $1,949,630 Miscellaneous Metal Connections (10%) $33,470 Crane Mobilization & Rental $42,500 Overhead & Profit (10%) $202,560 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $2,228,160

Estimate Assumptions

• Waste factors of 5% and 10% were added to concrete and formwork, respectively. Rebar, fireproofing and metal deck were given also given 5%.

• Job-built formwork was given one or two uses before disposal, depending in the complexity of the formed shape.

• A typical bay was calculated as one sector of the six wedges that form the hexagonal building footprint.

• Gusset plates, bolts and miscellaneous connections were approximated at 10% of the total structural steel cost.

Foundation

2004 R.S. Means Bare Cost Description Quantity UnitMaterial Labor Equip. Total

Total

Driven Piles Precast, 12" x 50', square 16,000 LF $9.50 $3.07 $2.31 $14.88 $238,080.00 $238,080.00Pile Caps Excavation, machine, sand 328 CY $4.27 $4.06 $8.33 $16.66 $5,464.48Plywood, pile cap, 2 use 6,174 SF $0.96 $2.89 $0.00 $3.85 $23,769.90Reinforcing, #4 to #7 17,480 LB $0.30 $0.28 $0.00 $0.58 $10,138.40Concrete, pile cap, pumped 295 CY $76.50 $8.95 $3.86 $89.31 $26,346.45Backfill, machine 33 CY $4.27 $4.06 $8.33 $16.66 $549.78 $65,719.23Grade Beams Plywood, grade beam, 2 use 1,713 SF $0.83 $2.66 $0.00 $3.49 $5,978.37Reinforcing, #4 to #7 8,880 LB $0.30 $0.28 $0.00 $0.58 $5,150.40Concrete, grade beam, pumped 228 CY $76.50 $9.90 $4.28 $90.68 $20,675.04 $31,803.81Slab on Grade Excavation, machine, sand 1,027 CY $4.27 $4.06 $8.33 $16.66 $17,109.82Plywood, curb forms, 1 use 1,386 SF $1.63 $4.65 $0.00 $6.28 $8,704.08Reinforcing, #3 to #7 39,796 LB $0.29 $0.28 $0.00 $0.57 $22,683.72Concrete, 6" SOG, pumped 981 CY $76.50 $9.65 $4.17 $90.32 $88,603.92Backfill, machine 46 CY $4.27 $4.06 $8.33 $16.66 $766.36Finishing, hand trowel 50,400 SF $0.00 $0.42 $0.00 $0.42 $21,168.00 $159,035.90Total Foundation Cost

$494,638.94

Superstructure Per Bay

2004 R.S. Means Bare Cost Description Quantity UnitMaterial Labor Equip. Total

Total

Columns Per Bay Steel pipe, 16" diameter 7,396 LB $0.64 $0.14 $0.10 $0.88 $6,508.48Steel tube, 10" x 8" 4,612 LB $0.64 $0.11 $0.08 $0.83 $3,827.96Fillet weld, 1/2” thick 70 LF $1.05 $14.25 $3.42 $18.72 $1,310.40Intumescent fireproofing 6,454 SF $5.40 $4.81 $0.82 $11.03 $71,187.62 $82,834.46Truss 1 Steel pipe, 16" diameter 15,992 LB $0.64 $0.14 $0.10 $0.88 $14,072.96Steel pipe, 4" diameter 3,152 LB $0.64 $0.13 $0.09 $0.86 $2,710.72Steel pipe, 3" diameter 772 LB $0.64 $0.13 $0.09 $0.86 $663.92Dbl. fillet weld, 1/2" thick 426 LF $1.05 $14.25 $3.42 $18.72 $7,974.72 $25,422.32Truss 2 Steel pipe, 16" diameter 7,996 LB $0.64 $0.14 $0.10 $0.88 $7,036.48Steel pipe, 3.5" diameter 1,686 LB $0.64 $0.13 $0.09 $0.86 $1,449.96Steel pipe, 3" diameter 450 LB $0.64 $0.13 $0.09 $0.86 $387.00Dbl. fillet weld, 3/8" thick 196 LF $0.75 $10.45 $2.51 $13.71 $2,687.16 $11,560.60Truss 3 Steel pipe, 14" diameter 1,741 LB $0.64 $0.14 $0.10 $0.88 $1,532.08Steel pipe, 6" diameter 678 LB $0.64 $0.14 $0.10 $0.88 $596.64Steel pipe, 3" diameter 790 LB $0.64 $0.13 $0.09 $0.86 $679.40Dbl. fillet weld, 5/16" thick 70 LF $0.60 $8.25 $1.98 $10.83 $758.10 $3,566.22Truss 4 Steel pipe, 14" diameter 3,469 LB $0.64 $0.14 $0.10 $0.88 $3,052.72Steel pipe, 5" diameter 260 LB $0.64 $0.13 $0.09 $0.86 $223.60Dbl. fillet weld, 5/16" thick 68 LF $0.60 $8.25 $1.98 $10.83 $736.44 $4,012.76Roof Structure Per Bay W 30 x 116 46 LF $81.50 $2.52 $1.29 $85.31 $3,924.26W 21 x 57 36 LF $43.50 $2.82 $1.44 $47.76 $1,719.36Stl. Joists, 32LH13, 30 lb/ft 1,404 LF $13.95 $1.62 $0.87 $10.39 $23,081.76Non-cellular deck, 2", 18 ga. 8,491 SF $1.13 $0.36 $0.02 $1.51 $12,821.41Dbl. Fillet weld, 3/8” thick 702 LF $0.75 $10.45 $2.51 $13.71 $9,624.42 $51,171.21Tilt-Up Panels Per Bay Plywood, full forms, liner, 1 use 3,054 SF $4.32 $5.53 $0.00 $9.85 $30,081.90Reinforcing, #4 to #7 8,966 LB $0.30 $0.20 $0.00 $0.50 $4,483.00Concrete, colored, pumped 73 CY $183.00 $9.65 $4.17 $196.82 $14,367.86 $48,932.76

Miscellaneous Metals & Connections (10% of Structural Steel)

$7,082.87Total Superstructure Per Bay Cost

$234,583.20Total Superstructure Bay Cost

$1,407,499.20 Remaining Superstructure

2004 R.S. Means Bare Cost Description Quantity UnitMaterial Labor Equip. Unit Total

Total

C.I.P. Columns Plywood, 12" x 12", 1 use 535 SF $1.53 $5.55 $0.00 $7.08 $3,787.80Reinforcing, #3 to #7 1,011 LB $0.30 $0.40 $0.00 $0.70 $707.70Concrete, sq. column, pumped 6 CY $76.50 $30.00 $12.85 $119.35 $716.10 $5,211.60Elevated Slab Plywood, flat plate, 1 use 3,248 SF $2.50 $3.29 $0.00 $5.79 $18,805.92Reinforcing, #4 to #7 7,604 LB $0.31 $0.20 $0.00 $0.51 $3,878.04Concrete, elv. slab, pumped 96 CY $76.50 $11.15 $4.82 $92.47 $8,877.12Finishing, hand trowel 2,953 SF $0.00 $0.42 $0.00 $0.42 $1,240.26Reshoring 2,953 SF $0.21 $0.38 $0.00 $0.59 $1,742.27 $32,801.34Mezzanine Steel W 16 x 26 72 LF $18.25 $2.01 $1.42 $21.68 $1,560.96W 18 x 35 612 LF $24.50 $3.04 $1.55 $29.09 $17,803.08W 30 x 99 256 LF $69.50 $2.43 $1.24 $73.17 $18,731.52W 36 x 135 64 LF $94.50 $2.50 $1.27 $98.27 $6,289.28 $44,384.84Mezzanine Composite Slab Non-cellular deck, 2", 18 ga. 12,469 SF $1.13 $0.36 $0.02 $1.51 $18,828.19Concrete, elv. slab, pumped 96 CY $76.50 $11.15 $4.82 $92.47 $8,877.12Finishing, hand trowel 11,875 SF $0.00 $0.42 $0.00 $0.42 $4,987.50 $32,692.81Miscellaneous Metals & Connections (10% of Structural Steel)

$6,321.30Total Remaining Superstructure Cost

$121,411.89Total Superstructure Cost

$1,528,911.09

General Conditions Estimate

Base Building Base Interior Interior Total Category/Activity Qty Unit Rate Cost Qty Unit Rate Cost Cost

Project Management Vice President In Fee Senior Project Manager 34 Wks $1,900 $64,600 34 Wks $1,900 $64,600 $129,200Project Manager 48 Wks $1,250 $60,000 48 Wks $1,250 $60,000 $120,000Asst. Project Manager 36 Wks $475 $17,100 36 Wks $475 $17,100 $34,200Superintendent 48 Wks $1,800 $86,400 48 Wks $1,750 $84,000 $170,400Asst. Superintendent 36 Wks $550 $19,800 36 Wks $550 $19,800 $39,600 Total Project Management $247,900 $245,500 $493,400 Site Conditions Mobilization/Demobilization 1 Ls $2,500 $2,500 1 Ls $1,000 $1,000 $3,500Jobsite Office 12 Mo $1,150 $13,800 6 Mo $1,150 $6,900 $20,700Copier/Fax/PC/Office Equipment 12 Mo $2,300 $27,600 6 Mo $2,300 $13,800 $41,400Field Telephone 12 Mo $500 $6,000 6 Mo $500 $3,000 $9,000Temporary Power 12 Mo $375 $4,500 3 Mo $375 $1,125 $5,625Temporary Water 12 Mo $60 $720 3 Mo $60 $180 $900DSL Line Setup & Monthly 12 Mo $275 $3,300 6 Mo $275 $1,650 $4,950Cellular Phones 12 Mo $540 $6,480 6 Mo $540 $3,240 $9,720Shop Drawing Reproduction 1 Ls $12,000 $12,000 1 Ls $10,000 $10,000 $22,000Small Tools, Equipment, Supplies 12 Mo $850 $10,200 6 Mo $850 $5,100 $15,300Local Travel 48 Wk $940 $45,120 24 Wk $940 $22,560 $67,680Courier Service 48 Wk $330 $15,840 24 Wk $330 $7,920 $23,760Progress Photos 12 Mo $110 $1,320 6 Mo $110 $660 $1,980Parking Areas 1 Ls Job Cost Job Cost 1 Ls Job Cost Job Cost Job Cost Fencing & Security 1 Ls Job Cost Job Cost 1 Ls Job Cost Job Cost Job Cost Sanitary Facilities 48 Wk $290 $13,920 24 Wk $290 $6,960 $20,880Temporary Signage 1 Ls $3,100 $3,100 1 Ls $800 $800 $3,900Trash Removal 48 Wk $570 $27,360 24 Wk $570 $13,680 $41,040Daily Clean-up 48 Wk $455 $21,840 24 Wk $455 $10,920 $32,760Final Clean-up 1 Ls - - 1 Ls $13,700 $13,700 $13,700As-Built Shop Drawing 1 Ls $1,500 $1,500 1 Ls - - - Access Roads 1 Ls Job Cost Job Cost 1 Ls Job Cost Job Cost Job Cost Total Site Conditions $217,100 $123,195 $338,795

Total General Conditions $465,000 $368,695 $832,195

Preconstruction Services Fee $10,000GC Fee $525,000

GRAND TOTAL $1,367,195

Research and Analysis Methods Modeling Technology in Design Problem:

The GVIC has accumulated over $2 million in change orders, with the majority

attributed to late design decisions or changes. The conceptual designer has acknowledged to not working efficiently in 2-dimensional space and demonstrated difficulty in understanding the mechanical drawings. Therefore, the use of 3-D modeling in the design phase offered potential benefits in visualizing complex systems and avoiding future construction changes. The construction industry is notoriously slow to change and poses a barrier to the adoption of new technology. Skepticism over the start-up cost, immediate benefits and the applications of 3-D modeling limit its growth potential in the industry. Definitive cost benefit data would allow owners, architects and subcontractors to understand the tangible savings associated with 3-D modeling. Ultimately, the challenge is overcoming preconceptions. For instance, architects should realize the benefits of modeling beyond a simple presentation or sales tool. All project players should remain open to new technologies and always look for methods to improve or add value to the construction process. Methodology: Surveys:

After completing an adequately detailed 3-D model of the GVIC, a simple survey will be distributed to the architect and designer. The purpose will be to assess the success of the model in conveying designs and concepts not easy grasped in plan views. Additional questions will probe for the required level of model detail, the cost expectations and the willingness to implement new technologies.

Cost Analysis:

By filtering change orders deemed preventable by early 3-D modeling, a total avoidable cost can be calculated. When compared to the cost of generating and updating a 3-D model, potential savings becomes the difference in costs. The goal of the analysis is to remove ambiguity over the financial benefits of 3-D modeling by assigning relevant cost data to the modeling process.

Anticipated Results: After tallying survey data, the results should provide insight into the industry’s

preconceptions and expectations for modeling technologies. The cost analysis should allay concerns expressed in the survey results and provide conclusive numerical evidence supporting the benefits of 3-D modeling. This information would directly assist an owner or architect interested in reducing design conflicts and establishing an accurate scope of work. Redesign of Exterior Concrete Panels Problem:

The quality and consistency of the concrete tilt-up panels was difficult to guarantee onsite. As specified by the architect, the panels were to be constructed of colored, architectural-grade concrete that required custom form liners to achieve the desired texture. Forming and pouring the panels onsite creates logistics and quality issues that are difficult to manage in the field. For instance, expecting color consistency with multiple pours is impracticable and avoiding severe honeycombing requires additional labor time. Additional cost was added to the project to accommodate painting the panels to generate an acceptable facade. A precast system should be considered to reduce schedule time and achieve the clean appearance desired by the owner. The industry has demonstrated a trend towards prefabrication and standardization to reduce the amount of work completed onsite. Precast systems benefit the owner and contractor by reducing the overall project duration, which subsequently reduces general conditions and overhead costs. By delivering a product constructed in a controlled environment, prefabricators can achieve superior quality and appearance. However, precast is not the best option for all projects and the additional costs of transportation and manufacturing premiums should be weighed against potential savings. Methodology: Research:

Before starting the redesign, initial research should be conducted to understand the prefabrication process and available options. Assessing where the majority of the cost is loaded in precast systems will provide starting points and guidance for the design process.

Redesign:

The concrete panels will be redesigned as a precast system according to the ACI 318 code. Different casting positions will be considered to determine the least cost alternative and compared with their corresponding transportation and erection costs. A final recommendation will be made based on this criterion.

Cost/Schedule Analysis:

The goal of the redesign is reduce schedule and costs, thereby adding value to the project. A detailed estimate of the precast system will be compared against the original tilt-up panels, with the difference being the greatest potential savings when switching systems. Differences in general conditions due to shorter schedule durations will constitute the remaining savings.

Anticipated Results:

The redesign and analysis should provide conclusive evidence as to which system best suits the project. The owner should be able to review, understand and reach an unbiased conclusion based on the information and recommendation presented. Assessing Acoustics of Auditorium Problem:

The GVIC auditorium construction was delayed due to financial issues and design changes. Currently, construction is planned to begin after beneficial occupancy, but before the dedication ceremony. The design delay poses a risk the acoustic performance of the auditorium. For instance, since the adjacent wall partitions are already in place and covered, acoustic treatments may need to be added after construction. A 10” metal stud wall does not offer the same sound attenuation as a 12” wall partition. Other common problems that may be forgotten include unbalanced noise barriers (high STC walls with a hollow-core door) and the sealing of construction gaps. The construction industry does not inherently place importance in quality acoustics. If the project is over budget, most contractors will target the acoustic and lighting systems as potential cost savings for the owner. However, auditoriums and spaces requiring acoustic consideration are often the most important aspects of the building. Successful presentation and gathering areas are critical to any service-oriented company. The owner has confirmed that the GVIC will function to entertain perspective clients and host seminars or conferences. Therefore, superior acoustics reflect well on the company and play a role in acquiring new customers. Methodology: Research:

Before performing acoustical calculations, research should focus on the purpose and the intended use of the space. Research into typical auditorium reverberation times and absorption levels, should provide background in assessing the current design and ideas for suggesting alternates.

Calculations: Perform the necessary analysis based on the current design, keeping the calculations general so that alternate materials can be tested easily. If the acoustics are not adequate, obtain a combination of aesthetics and functionality that meets the requirements.

Recommendation:

Based on the calculations and possible alternates, a proposal will be made either to maintain the existing system or institute changes. The goal will be to obtain the best value for the owner and improve constructability for the contractor.

Anticipated Results:

The original acoustical system was proposed by the architect and their in-house designers, but there should be opportunities for improvement. By understanding the work already in-place and the proposed design, the calculations should provide a clear suggestion to accept the design or select alternate materials. The final recommendation should balance schedule, budget, aesthetics and functionality.