community college league of california annual convention & partner conferences november 21, 2009...
TRANSCRIPT
Community College League of California
Annual Convention & Partner ConferencesNovember 21, 2009
“Using Design Build”
SMCCCD’s Experience with Design Build: New Buildings
• Science Building with Planetarium & Rooftop Observatory, College of San Mateo
• Student & Community Center and Science Lab Annex, Skyline College
• 44-unit Faculty & Staff Housing, CSM
• 60-unit Faculty & Staff Housing, Cañada College
• Health & Wellness Building, CSM
• College Center, CSM
• Cosmetology, Administration & Wellness Center, Skyline College
• Automotive Transmission Lab Building Skyline College
District Wide Athletics Improvements
• Athletics Facilities Upgrades – 31 tennis courts– 3 baseball fields– 3 soccer fields– 1 softball field– 2 tracks– 1 football field– 1 aquatic center– Parking & ADA Improvements– Ancillary facilities (restrooms, press box, storage)
SMCCCD’s Experience with Design Build: Infrastructure
• Energy Efficiency Projects
• 12kV Electrical Infrastructure System replacement (CSM and Skyline College)
• Chiller Plants (CSM and Cañada College)
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Outcomes
• New energy management system at all campuses
• Comprehensive systems commissioning at all campuses
• Cañada College chiller plant expansion
• Heating / Hot water variable flow pumping retrofits at all campuses
• Electrical distribution system repairs
• Web-based real-time monitoring and metering platform at all campuses
• AHU refurbishments at all campuses
Underground piping repairs at all campuses
Lighting retrofits : Lighting controls and circuit upgrades at all campuses
Boiler repairs and preventative maintenance at all campuses
Co-generation plants: CSM (560 KW) & Skyline College (375 KW)
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency OutcomesWork Completed By the Numbers…
• 9,551 Light Fixtures Retrofitted
• 113 Air Handlers Refurbished
• 306 Heat/Vent Units Refurbished
• 4 Boilers Re-tubed
• 206 l.f. Underground Piping Replacement
• 58 valves
• 9 expansion compensators
• 2,892 EMS Control Points Connected & Functioning
Project Highlights
• Energy Efficiency (LEED/Savings by Design)– Upcoming New Buildings
• CSM Design Build (2 Buildings) – Workforce / Wellness / Aquatic Center (5N) – 88,374 GSF*– Student Services / Admin. / Student Activities (10N) – 104,149 GSF*– Overall Campus Landscape & Hardscape– New Chiller Plant*– 12 KV Electrical Infrastructure Replacement– Total Contract Amount: $142.5 Million
• SKY Design Build (2 Buildings) – Cosmetology & Administration / Wellness Center (4N) – 70,310 GSF*– Automotive Technology Building (11N) – 8,800 GSF*– Overall Campus Landscape & Hardscape– 12 KV Electrical Infrastructure Replacement– Total Contract Amount: $60.4 Million
Note: * Savings by Design
Savings Summary
• Operational Savings: $1.5M annually (Plus)• PG&E Energy Efficiency: $1,008,157• CCC/IOU Partnership: $168,792.34• Savings by Design: $129,930
Why Design-Build Delivery Method?
•Compressed Schedule: move-in sooner
•Satisfying Relationship between Owner/Architect/Builder
•Unforeseen Conditions in Renovations: Flexibility & Quick Response
•Better Price Certainty
Guidelines / Process
• The Design Build Road Map– Selecting a Project for Design Build Delivery– BOT Resolution– CCCO Project Approval / Notification Process– Bridging– Public Notification– Prequalification– Request for Qualification (RFQ)– Request for Proposal (RFP)
• Confidential Meetings (x3)• Site Surveys
– RFP Interviews– Selection – Stipend– Award
Pros and Cons
• Pros– Simplified contracting
– Reduction in adversarial relationships
– Cost containment
– Speed of delivery
– Sharing of risk
– Early involvement of the builder
– Validate another project delivery method for the CCDs
• Cons– Significant investment of time and effort up front and during implementation
– Potentially less control over design
– May be more difficult to compare proposals
– Limited institutional capabilities
– Approval agency capabilities
Design Build Points of Consideration
1. Single Responsibility– No finger pointing– Eliminates Legal Triangle
2. Cost Control – Fixed limit of Construction costs– Feedback for better Design and Construction documents
3. Better Technology– Learn from the people who make and install building systems– Designer participation in practical application – Flexibility to get the most current technology– Perfect Design Build Team
• Knows Design
• Knows the Builder
4. Project Specific– What one persons knows is available to all – Contractor isn’t plotting for claims and change orders– Communications, Documentation & Costs are transparent
DB Team Qualification and Selection Process
• Design Build for Community Colleges: Education Code §17250
• Structure the RFP to Attract D-B Teams
• Qualification Shortlist to 3 DB teams plus 2 Alternates
• Criteria Based Selection Process
DB Proposal Evaluation Criteria
FACTORS Maximum Points1. Price and Cost Management Plan* 202. Technical Expertise 103. Life Cycle Costs over 25 Years 104. Skilled Labor Force Availability 105. Acceptable Safety Record* 106. Design Management Plan 107. Construction Management Plan 108. Schedule 109. Legal and Other Program Requirements 510. Risk Management Plan 5
TOTAL (Maximum) 100 points
RFQ/RFP Documents
• RFQ/RFP Documents available at the project website– http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/smccd/departments/facilities/
CSM_B12151734Mod_01.shtml– Project Website
• Source for all information from District
RFP Documents
• Developing the RFP Documentation
• Format and Organization of the RFP Package• SMCCCD standard form of DB contract• Existing floor plans• Schematic floor plans• Room data sheets• Program information• Standards and Design Criteria
RFP Evaluation
• Assemble Review Team– Administrators / Faculty / M&O / CM Firm
• Allow Sufficient review time• Clearly identify evaluation Criteria• Develop Scoring Matrix (Keep it simple)
– Price – Technical Expertise– Life Cycle Costs– Skilled Labor Force– Acceptable Safety Record– Architectural Aesthetics and Design Innovation– Project Management Plan– Program Requirements– Logistics (Occupied Campus)
Standards and Design Criteria
• Design Standards– Communications– Materials– Fixtures (Plumbing / Light / Window Treatments)– Color Palette– Plant Species– Fire Alarm / BMS Controls– Hardware– Flooring, Etc.
• Documentation– Design Build Contract– Division OO & O1– Outline Specifications– Room Data Sheets– Meeting Notes
• Distribution
Schedule
– Ambitious vs. Conservative• Fast-track • Normal schedule
– Academic Calendar• Start of Classes• Spring Break• Finals• Commencement• Special Events
– End User Wild Card
– Owner Requirements Pre-Turnover• Surplus/Salvage Process• Hazmat Removal• Rodent Control
Design Builder & DSA
• DSA Buy-In Approach– Include District (Owner) participation
– Establish a contact person at DSA
– Schedule early and appropriate meetings
– Establish firm agreed upon DSA submittal dates
– Document Meetings and agreed upon discussions with attendees
– Describe incremental or phase submittals & deliverables & obtain buy-in
– Involve structural engineer and other key consultants
– Follow requested procedure and information for submittals
– Clearly identify documents requiring approval
– Provide sufficient reference CDs for reviewer information
• Program Changes (Never ending)
• Fixed Schedule
• Campus Decision-making
• Budget for the Known and Unknown
• Unforeseen Conditions
Lessons Learned: College Decisions
Lessons Learned: Influence
• District Able to Influence– Design Builder Relationship
– Alignment of Scope with Stipulated Sum
– Initial Schedule
– Effective Qualification Process
– Extent & Depth of Control – Bridging Documents
• District Unable to Influence & Control– Dynamics of DSA Process
– Construction Schedule
– Changing Market Conditions
– Constituents
– Scope Creep
– Weather
Partnering Session
• Who– Owner / Key End-users
– Contractor
– Designers
– IOR
• What– Understand Each others Interest
– Agreed upon Rules of Engagement• Establish Chain of Command• Establish Forms of Communication• Establish Decision & Approval Process
Not a Panacea: Considerations
• Owner Indecision• Owner Sophistication• Dynamics of an occupied campus• Construction schedule inflexibility
– Academic constraints
– Weather constraints
• Interpersonal dynamics• Market conditions
Question & Answer
www.smccd.edu/facilities
José D. Nuñez, LEED APVice Chancellor
Facilities Planning, Maintenance & Operations
(650) [email protected]