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 RegionWednesday, 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 031District Square Footage 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 pastbidder regardless of past performance history.

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: What Can I Get for My Money?

Reduce Waste/Inefficiency Manufacturing

Construction Lags Behind Other IndustriesRedesign

Manufacturing

g

Rework

Claims/Litigation

Improper Sequencing of Work

Delayed Submittals and Approvals

Image Space

Construction

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%)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• Qualifications-based selection with consideration of price.

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

• Greater opportunity to select project manager d i t d tand superintendent.

• Save money by consolidating CM owner agent, general conditions and supervision intogeneral conditions and supervision into one contract.

• Best value with target budgeting

6

g g g

• Historically lower change order rates.

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 and practices to optimize project resultsbusiness structures, and practices to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency of project delivery.y p j y

Distinguished by highly ff ti ll b tieffective collaboration among

the owner, prime designer and prime constructorand prime constructor commencing at early design through project completion.

8

An integrated design process allows decisions to be made early when the

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: IPD – Why Do It?

An integrated design process allows decisions to be made early when theopportunity 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 NavisWorksclash detection.

Energy efficiency evaluation.

Walk the end user through the space.g 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 Building Information Modeling

List/prequalify all major trade contractors

List/prequalify all major engineering consultantsList/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 Price = General Conditions Cost + (OH&P% X $37 750 000)Proposer s Price = General Conditions Cost + (OH&P% X $37,750,000)

Lowest Proposal Price times 200 the Proposer’s Price

Non-Price Factors (80%) – 800 points totalTechnical Expertise (250 points)

Life Cycle Costs (100 points)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

T h i l E ti (250 i t )

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Design Build Proposal Evaluation Factors

Technical Expertise (250 points) General Firm Information

Firm Experiencep

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

15

escalated at current CPI.

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 Ownership

11%

S i53%

Save 5% in Cap. Renewal

SavingsD&C: $30M Total NPV

Cap.R: $101M $ 5M $1.1MO&M: $149M $15M $3.4MT t l $280M $20M $4 4M

53%36%

Save 10% in O&M

Total: $280M $20M $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 short-term 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, visually and acoustically comfortable; energy y, y y ; gyefficient; material efficient; water efficient; easy to maintain and operate; safe and secure and sited in an environmentally responsible manner.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%energy efficiency standards by at least 10%.

Ten percent of the energy utilized by the project must be renewable with at least 5% generated onmust be renewable with at least 5% generated on site.

Divert at least 75% of construction and demolitionDivert at least 75% of construction and demolition debris from landfills.

Pursue formal LEEDTM certification with aPursue formal LEED certification with a minimum of 33 points resulting in a LEEDTM Silver rating, with a goal of LEEDTM Gold on applicable projects.p j

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Green Building Policy Implementation - Methodology

Incorporate life-cycle costing that includes initial construction costs, operating costs, maintenance repair and replacement

t t l t th l t i t t l f d icosts to evaluate the long-term investment value of design alternatives.

I t t d d i th t b ildi t d i d t Integrated design so that buildings systems are designed to 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 irements and design intentoccupant requirements and design 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 OrdersFewer Change Orders Fewer Delays

BUILDER’S PERSPECTIVE: Internal Clash Survey

Building Construction Mechanical piping hits cable tray and fire protectionpiping hits cable tray and fire protection piping in ceiling space

Survey Average Results Survey Average ResultsMan-hour Savings = 61 Delay Savings = Three Days

C S $ Cost 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

SolutionsSolutions 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 usersEnhanced satisfaction from users

ARCHITECT’S PERSPECTIVE: How to Create a Successful Project

What are the Site Issues?

What is Driving the Project?at s g t e oject

Fitting into Campus Planning Guidelines

Meeting the User Programg g

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 M t i lPlant Material

Storm Drain Retention and Filtration Concepts

Cool Roof / Green Roof

Shade Elements to Prevent “Heat Islands”Shade Elements to Prevent Heat Islands

Bicycle Parking / Emphasis on Mass Transit / Pedestrian Travel

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 multi-level parking structure. Project is designed to obtain LEED Platinum – the first for SDCCD.

Design/Builder Team:Design/Builder Team: McCarthy ConstructionHarley Ellis DevereauxInternational Parking Design (IPD)International Parking Design (IPD)

MIRAMAR COLLEGE PARKING STRUCTURE AND POLICE STATION


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 newProject 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+ stallsCenter and a six-story parking structure with 400+ stalls.

Design Build Team: Sundt, Roesling Nakamura Terada


North City Campus - Parking StructureBudget: $5 millionBudget: $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 TeamIPDI Design Build TeamNTD ArchitectsLegacy BuildersTB Penick & SonsTB Penick & Sons


Mesa College – Central Plant

Budget: $5.5 million

Construction Start: December 2009

Targeted Completion: December 2010g p

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 TeamJackson & BlancJackson & BlancDEC EngineersMele Amantea


City College – Central PlantBudget: $8 millionBudget: $8 million

Construction Start: Summer 2010

Targeted Completion:

The Central Plant will distribute conditionedhydronic water to the entire campus with the exception of two buildings. The Central Plan will alsop gcontain the electrical equipment to provide power tothe campus.

Design Build TeamDesign Build TeamMele Amantea ArchitectsDEC EngineeringUniversity MechanicalUniversity Mechanical


Miramar College Cafeteria/Bookstore and Student/Campus CenterProject Budget: $33.2 millionProject 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 housea new cafeteria, bookstore and student services center. Hybrid Design Build y gMEP part of CMMP Delivery.

CM: CW DriverA hit t NTD A hit tArchitect: NTD ArchitectureMEP Design Build Team: Gould Electric, Michael Wall, X-nth, P ifi Ri M h i lPacific Rim Mechanical


Mesa College Math and Science Bldg.Project Budget: $117 million

New 200 000 GSF four-story building will have

Expected Construction Start: Feb. 2011

Targeted Completion: January 2013

New 200,000 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 CompaniesArchitect: Delawie Wilkes Rodrigues BarkerDesign Build TeamMP: University MechanicalMP: University MechanicalGlazing: Enclos Corp.Pre-cast: Clark PacificFraming & Drywall: Standard Drywall, Inc.Electric: DynalectricElectric: Dynalectric


Miramar College – Science Building Expansion

Budget: $36.7 millionBudget: $36.7 million

Construction Duration: 2011-2013

Project will convert existing classrooms into additional lab space; an extra 15 000 SF will be added for facultylab space; an extra 15,000 SF will be added for facultyoffices, support space and outdoor educational areas.

Design Build Team: TBD(19 RFP R d t !)(19 RFP Respondents!)

OWNER’S PERSPECTIVE: Upcoming Opportunities

Campus/Project RFP Date

Miramar College - Fire Science/EMT Building November 2010

Miramar College – New Administration Building, repurpose November 2010Miramar College New Administration Building, repurpose existing building for Continuing Education

November 2010

Mesa College – Social Behavioral Sciences Building December 2010Mesa College Social Behavioral Sciences Building December 2010

Mesa College – Cafeteria Bookstore First Quarter 2011

Mesa College – Fitness Center Late 2011

Documents

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