Development of the Clarence T.C. Ching Athletic Complex

8/12/2019 Development of the Clarence T.C. Ching Athletic Complex

1/18

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MNOA

DEVELOPMENT OF

THE

CLARENCE T.C. CHING ATHLETIC COMPLEX

February 2014

University of Hawaii____________________________________________________ Office of Internal Audit


2/18


3/18

University of Hawaii Office of Internal Audit

excluded from the construction contract due to lack of funds but would be added through achange order when the funds became available. Upon notification in November 2012 thatthey could proceed with the HVAC work, the general contractor engaged a HVACsubcontractor and ordered the HVAC materials. The HVAC subcontractor subsequentlyidentified design drawing conflicts between structural, mechanical and electrical work. OFG

and the construction manager determined that the exclusion of the HVAC work atconstruction commencement added 122 days to the construction schedule.

Additional architecture services:OFG informed Internal Audit that the architect was instructed to exclude required designservices such that the architects contract would not exceed $1 million with theunderstanding that these services would be added later. The resulting change order amountedto $335,000.

Other:Weather related issues added 21 days to the construction schedule.

The accompanying report identifies a variety of reasons contributing to the delay in thecompletion of the Complex (anticipated completion date of July 2013) as well as theunanticipated cost overruns of approximately $1.7 million ($3 million additional contract costsless the expected $335,000 of architectural services and $995,000 of HVAC work.). Certainreasons such as the discovery of asbestos in underground conduits were unforeseen. However,more comprehensive design plan reviews and increased and timely collaboration by OFG and itsservice providers with respect to construction expectations and costs could have reduced thenumber of delay days and cost overruns.

Sincerely,


4/18

Clarence T.C. Ching Athletic Complex

February 2014

3

Background

Project Description:The Clarence T.C. Ching Athletics Complex (Complex) will include a three-story building on the maukaside of the existing Clarence T.C. Ching Field. The facility will provide grandstand seating for

approximately 2,500 fans and a sand volleyball venue with 800 seats and two competition courts. Theinterior of the building will include offices, locker rooms and a meeting room for women's soccer, crosscountry, track and field, and sand volleyball. The Complex is expected to also include space forconcessions, a computer center, a ticket office and broadcast booths.

The Complexs development requirements include demolition, site construction, landscaping andirrigation, utilities, concrete, masonry, structural steel, reinforcing steel, thermal and moisture protection,membrane waterproofing, traffic coating over exterior surfaces of precast concrete bleachers, fluid-applied roofing, doors and windows, finish hardware, glazing, louver finishes, gypsum board, acousticalceiling, acoustical insulation, ceramic tile, resilient tile, painting, toilet partitions, toilet accessories,signage, metal lockers, elevator, mechanical, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, fire alarm system, Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) requirements and other incidental work. The Complexwill be a LEED Certified Building.

Timing and funding:During 2008, the Clarence T.C. Ching Foundation (TC Foundation) pledged $5 million to the Universityof Hawaii at Mnoa Athletic Department (Athletics Department) through the University of HawaiiFoundation for the construction of the Complex. $1.9 million was a guaranteed donation, while theremaining pledge of $3.1 million was contingent upon the Athletics Department obtaining the additionalfunding necessary to complete the Complex. During November 2009, the State of Hawaii appropriated$5 million through a general obligation (GO) bond fund allotment as the additional funding. Additionalfunding from the State of Hawaii was received during May 2012 and August 2012.

As of June 30, 2013, the Athletic Department has received $2 million from the TC Foundation. Theremaining $3 million will be received in installments ($1.5 million scheduled to be received on January31, 2014 and 2015). During February 2012, the Board of Regents reallocated $3 million in revenue bondproceeds for the Complex. The balance of the Complex ($1.8 million) is funded through the Universityof Hawaii at Mnoa Office of Facilities and Grounds (OFG) Capital Renewal and DeferredMaintenance (CRDM) account. Also, as the $3 million balance from the TC Foundation has not beenreceived, OFG has been utilizing CRDM funds to provide an advance for incurred costs related to theComplex.

OFG summarized the source of funding for the Complex as follows:

Funding Sources AmountTC Foundation $ 5,000,000State of Hawaii GO bonds/legislative appropriations 6,995,000University revenue bonds 3,000,000OFG CRDM funds 1.767.071Subtotal 16,762,071Less: Contribution to State Foundation on Culture & Arts (42,655)Total Available Funding $16,719,416


5/18


February 2014

4

OFG will need to locate additional funding sources for development costs exceeding the $16.7 millionnoted above.

Groundbreaking for the Complex occurred during July 2012 with an anticipated completion date of July2013. The completion of the Complex is associated with the Athletics Departments Title IX plans to

achieve gender equity in athletics. Internal Audit was informed that the womens locker rooms andoffices on the first floor of the Complex must be completed by January 28, 2014 in order to avoidNCAA sanctions. OFG believes the balance of the Complex (grandstand, sand volleyball venue, etc.)will be completed by April 30, 2014. Work on the road fronting the entrance to the Complex will becompleted during May 2014 to minimize disruptions to students entering and exiting the parkingstructure.

Service Providers

The following table ($ in 000s) lists the service providers associated with the development of theComplex and related contract information. The estimated cost at completion was provided by OFGpersonnel.

Contract Costincluding

Contract

Modifications

Service Provider Cost Start

Date

Completion

Date

Mitsunaga & Associates, Inc.(M&A) Design Architect

$ 700 June2010

Sept. 2010 for design plansthen duration ofconstruction

$ 1,059

Air Balance Hawaii, Inc. (ABH)

energy certification

26 June

2011

Through 12 mths after

project acceptance

26

SSFM International, Inc. environment assessment

40 Dec.2012

March 2013 40

Community Planning andEngineering, Inc. (CPE) construction management

578 July2012

May 2013 578

T. Iida Contracting, Ltd. generalcontractor (GC or Iida)

12,393 July2012

July 2013 13,933

Total $13,737 15,636

Estimated costs to complete (including unapproved change orders) 1,083

Estimated Cost at Completion $ 16,719

Monthly development costs incurred by service provider and construction labor hours (generalcontractor and aggregate for subcontractors) are noted below. Construction labor hours were derivedfrom payroll affidavits provided by CPE. Development costs incurred were derived from the serviceproviders progress billings, as OFG does not track these costs on an incurred basis. Estimated costs tocomplete and estimated costs at completion is not maintained in OFGs project accounting records asthese amounts are not computed and analyzed by OFG to manage project costs. Accordingly, OFG ismanaging project costs on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis, which Internal Audit believes shouldbe remediated.


6/18


February 2014

5

Development Costs Incurred (000s) % ofEst. at

Comp.

Construction

labor hours

Month/Year M&A ABH SSFM CPE Iida Total GC Sub

Sept/2010 $ 132 $ - $ - $ - $ - $132 0.8% - -

Nov/2010 131 - - - - 131 1.6% - -Dec/2010 - - 40 - - 40 1.8% - -

Feb/2011 294 - - - - 294 3.6% - -

Jul/2011 151 8 - - - 159 3.6% - -

Sep/2011 - 1 - - - 1 4.5% - -

Nov/2011 50 - - - - 50 4.5% - -

Dec/2011 - 1 - - - 1 4.8% - -

Jan/2012 123 - - - - 123 4.8% - -

Jun/2012 - 2 - - - 2 5.6% 65 -

Jul/2012 39 - - 45 289 373 5.6% 226 257

Aug/2012 - - - 18 448 466 10.6% 786 984

Sep/2012 - - - 17 431 448 13.3% 837 1,142

Oct/2012 - - - 13 335 348 15.4% 1,349 582Nov/2012 - - - 14 509 523 18.5% 1,535 836

Dec/2012 - 1 - 16 439 456 21.2% 1,427 957

Jan/2013 - - - 19 523 542 24.5% 1,223 962

Feb/2013 20 - - 53 1,436 1,509 33.5% 1,308 920

Mar/2013 - - - 17 454 471 36.3% 1,664 612

Apr/2013 - - - 21 576 597 39.9% 2,155 916

May/2013 - - - 39 263 302 41.7% 2,293 725

Jun/2013 - - - 57 290 347 43.8% 1,811 709

Jul/2013 - - - 44 361 405 46.2% 2,465 916

Aug/2013 - - - 46 576 622 49.9% 4,888 1,477

Sep/2013 23 - - 49 474 546 53.2% 4,611 3,039

Oct/2013 - - - 41 773 814 58.0% 4,191 3,606Nov/2013 - - - 53 1,229 1,282 65.7% 2,962 2,245

Dec/2013 - - - - 606 606 69.3% 3,410 2,524

Total to date $ 963 $ 13 $ 40 $ 562 $ 10,012 11,590 39,206 23,409

Unbilled and Estimated Costs to Complete (includes unapprovedchange orders)

5,129

Estimated Costs at Completion $ 16,719

The trend of labor hours indicates an increase in labor hours towards the contract completion date ofJuly 2013 and an additional increase in labor hours towards the initial revised completion date ofOctober 2013. Labor hours towards subsequently revised completion dates of December 2013 andbeyond have remained flat but significantly higher than the hours incurred prior to August 2013. CPE

informed Internal Audit that the trend of labor hours is consistent with their expectations and does notreflect a lack of commitment of the contractors to complete construction of the Complex. CPE statedthat the discovery of the asbestos transite piping material prevented the contractors from performingscheduled work until the asbestos was analyzed, a remediation plan formulated and the piping materialremoved as the open trenches housing the transite pipes created a safety hazard and working around thetrenches would have created construction inefficiencies. CPE also stated that the exclusion of theHVAC work at construction commencement delayed the identification of design drawing conflictsbetween structural, mechanical and electrical work which also negatively impacted the construction


7/18


February 2014

6

schedule. CPE also informed Internal Audit that the increase in labor hours from August 2013 wasattributable to the effort to obtain the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the womens lockerrooms and offices on the first floor by January 28, 2014. Internal Audit was informed that theTemporary Certificate of Occupancy was dated January 8, 2014. OFG management personnel informedInternal Audit that the trend in labor hours also met their expectations and concur with CPEs

explanations to Internal Audit. See additional discussion in the Construction Delay section below.

Work performed and related observations

Interviews

Internal Audit discussed the construction of the Complex and its related cost and timing with personnelfrom UHM Athletics (customer), OFG (service facilitator) and CPE (construction manager). InternalAudit also toured the Complex on December 6, 2013 and January 14, 2014 to observe the constructionstatus of the Complex. The following summarizes the significant matters discussed.

UHM Athletics:

UHM Athletics was not aware of or invited to the weekly Owner-Architect-Contractor (OAC) meetingsdiscussing the construction status of the Complex and was informed during April 2013 that the Complexwould not be completed until October 31, 2013. This date was later revised to December 31, 2013 thenultimately January 28, 2014 (first floor only). UHM Athletics believes a design change initiated byOFG requiring redrafting of the architectural/engineering drawings and specifications delayedconstruction commencement. UHM Athletics informed Internal Audit that they were not consulted withrespect to this design change and did not understand the purpose of the change given that they approvedthe original design.

OFG:Design change -

OFG informed Internal Audit that the design change resulted from comments provided by UHMsDesign Advisory Panel and estimated that the change delayed construction commencement byapproximately six months as Mitsunaga was required to redesign the Complex and accordingly revisethe construction documents. OFG stated that Mitsunaga did not initiate a change order for this service.Membership of the Design Advisory Panel consists of architects and engineers within UHM andexternal to the University. Internal Audit was informed that the Design Advisory Panel has beeninactive for the past two years and there is currently no plans for reactivation as the Design AdvisoryPanel added an additional and generally unnecessary layer of review.

OFG stated that the revised construction documents also required modifications resulting from errors orlack of specificity in the initial construction documents. Documentation provided to Internal Audit

indicated that 181 Requests for Information (RFIs) during the construction phase resulted in 31 PostConstruction Design (PCDs) revisions to the construction documents.

Construction bids exceed available funding-Internal Audit inquired as to the reason the construction documents resulted in construction bidssignificantly exceeding the total development budget of $10 million. OFG informed Internal Audit thatthis is a consistent issue at the University whereby construction documents are generally not prepared


8/18


February 2014

7

with the objective of ensuring that the resulting proposed construction costs would approximateavailable funds.

OFG informed Internal Audit that they will mitigate this issue by requiring architects to provideadditional services effective December 2013 to minimize the risk of construction documents resulting in

construction bids significantly exceeding available funds. OFG refers to this additional design serviceas Architectural Design Programming (ADP). OFG indicated that ADP requires the architect tocollaborate and work with the University such that the construction documents will result in constructioncosts approximating available funds as well as ensuring compliance with federal, state and county laws,codes, ordinances and regulations. OFG stated that ADP will also result in more detailed architecturaldesign plans decreasing the number of RFIs and PCDs.

CPE (Construction manager):Services -CPE is engaged to manage all construction work through final payment to the general contractorincluding performing the following:

Coordinate and monitor the activities of the general contractor on a daily basis. Review and approve general contractors billings. Review change orders and its associated cost. Organize periodic meetings, prepare weekly status reports and project status schedules. Upon University approval, take corrective action to maintain the project schedule, budget and

cash flow requirements.

OFG stated that CPE provided the services described in their contract. Internal Audits review ofdocuments prepared by CPE noted that CPE was monitoring and documenting the daily constructionwork of the Complex and held weekly meetings to discuss project status.

Construction delays A CPE December 30, 2013 report noted that construction delays were attributable to the following:

Description #DaysRemoval of asbestos transite piping material (Iida contract modification #2) 45

Air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) work added back to the construction contract(Iida contract modification #1)

122

Manufacturing time for revised guardrails and handrails (Iida contract modification #2) tbd

Additional time to coordinate work to obtain the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 60

Weather related 21

Total 248

The 248 days equates to extending the July 2013 completion date to February 2014. CPE informedInternal Audit that Iida proposed a greater number of delay days and that the above noted delay days(excluding weather related) are reasonable, result from negotiations with Iida and were accepted byOFG. Discussions with OFG confirm CPEs assertion.

Internal Audit could not determine if the number of additional days were reasonable when comparedwith the required work documented in the contract modifications. OFG documented the followingreasons for the above noted delays:


9/18


February 2014

8

Asbestos:During July 2012, Iida discovers unexpected asbestos transite piping material in the existingunderground concrete encased conduits. Demolition and excavation of the building footings was

delayed and required resequencing while the results of the lab testing for asbestos and determination

of the procedures for the handling of asbestos was performed. This negatively impacted thefoundation work and construction schedule, as exposed trenches and material from the excavationneeded to stay in place pending laboratory results with respect to the asbestos.

HVAC:Iida was notified in November 2012 that they could proceed with the HVAC work. Prior toNovember 2012, Iida could not contract with their HVAC subcontractor due to the lack of a contractfor the HVAC work with the University. Accordingly, Iida could not order the HVAC equipmentand could not direct the sub contractor to start work on the HVAC shop drawings. Subsequentdesign drawing conflicts between structural, mechanical and electrical work were discovered by Iidaresulting in PCD changes. OFG believes this delay would have been minimized or eliminated if the

HVAC work was included in the original construction contract dated July 2012.

Guardrails:In November 2012, City & County of Honolulu Building Department code violation commentsrequired revisions to the design of the bleacher guardrails. Fabrication of the guardrails commencedin December 2013. Approval of the railing design took one year to resolve due to concerns aboutcost, safety and method of construction. The anticipated installation date of the guardrails is April2014. Delay days have not yet been determined.

CPE concurs with OFGs assessment that the inclusion of the HVAC at construction contract inceptionwould have minimized construction delays. However, the discovery of the asbestos piping material was

unforeseen and the related delay days could not be avoided.

Review of documentsIn connection with this review, Internal Audit reviewed contracts, progress billings, change orderproposals, contract modifications and other schedules/information prepared and provided by OFGpersonnel and CPE. Internal Audit also reviewed the following documents prepared by CPE inconnection with their construction management services.

Minutes of the weekly Owners, Architects/Contractor meetings Daily construction activity logs

Information in these documents is consistent with the construction delay information noted above.Change order proposals and the resulting contract modifications which are associated with theconstruction delays are presented below.

Change orders:Process -Construction change orders are typically due to the following: 1) university request, 2) designerror/omission, or 3) unforeseen conditions. Contractors prepare a Change Order Proposal (COP) to


10/18


February 2014

9

document a change to the construction requirements. The COP includes an estimate of the cost ofmaterials, labor, subcontractor work and equipment. The COP is reviewed by the construction managerand University project manager to determine if the construction revision and related cost is necessaryand reasonable. The University project manager prepares an Authorization to Proceed with ChangeWork (Authorization) form authorizing the contractor to proceed with the construction revision. The

Authorization is reviewed and approved by the construction manager and the Director of FacilitiesManagement. Generally, multiple COPs are aggregated and submitted to the Office of Procurement andReal Property Management (OPRPM) for processing into a contract modification.

20% - 30% premium -Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Chapter 3-125, Section 13(3) allows a 20% premium on COPmaterial and labor costs to cover construction contractors and sub-contractors overhead and profit. Anadditional 10% premium on the sub-contractors COP material and labor costs are also added to thegeneral contractors 20% premium. Accordingly, a premium of 20% - 30+% is incurred on the materialand labor costs associated with COPs.

Example:

GeneralContractor

(GC)

Sub-contractor

(SC)

COP labor and materials charge $1,000 $1,000

20% GC or SC premium 200 200

10% GC premium for SCcharge

120

Total contract modification $1,200 $1,320

The above example illustrates the additional negative dollar impact change orders have on theUniversitys construction budget.

With respect to the Complex, Internal Audit was informed that the COP premium was not added toIidas contract modification #1 (HVAC), as it was previously agreed that this work would be added backto the Iida contract as a change order. Internal Audit reviewed a sample of change order proposals andestimates the labor and materials charge for the Iida contract modification #2 at approximately$454,000. A premium of approximately $91,000 results in the contract modification #2 amount of$545,000 ($454,000 x 120%).


11/18


February 2014

10

Summary of COPs and Contract Modifications -

Service

Provider

Change Order Proposal Contract Modification

# Dtd Description$

(000s)#

OPRPM $

(000s)Recd Appvd

M&A 1 10/6/10 Design services for: 1) deletion ofgrandstand roof, 2) new beach volleyballcourts & track improvements, 3) sewerconnection, 4) additional design consultants,5) LEED certification, and 6) environmentalabatement for the demolition of the DanceStudio.

$335 1 4/26/11 6/1/11 $ 335

1 10/10/13 Environmental consultant design servicesand reimbursable expenses.

24 2 12/13/13 Pending 24

Iida 1 8/31/12 HVAC work originally included in the bidprice, but excluded from the constructioncontract due to insufficient funds.

995 1 10/17/12 11/2/12 995

11 10/18/12to

5/23/13

Primarily consists of the following: 2 8/28/12 9/25/12 545

1)Removal of asbestos transite electricalconduits.

159

2)Additional cost due to revised guardrailand handrail due to the C&C BuildingDept. code violation comments.

347

3)Additional cost due to revised elevatorcircuit breaker at the main electricalswitchboard.

18

4)Other 21Total 14 $1,899 4 $1,899

Contract modifications pursuant to the above table aggregate to $1.9 million. However, the $995,000for Iida Contract Modification #1 related to HVAC work that was deleted from the original Iida contractfor budgetary reasons with the intent to add this work back when additional funding was obtained.

The difference between the aggregate contract amounts ($13.7 million) and estimated cost at completion($16.7 million) is approximately $3 million. The $1.1 million difference between this $3 million andcontract modifications of $1.9 million represents submitted change order proposals not yet approved andchange order proposals that are anticipated but not yet prepared. The unapproved change orderproposals relate to the following:

underground utility lines being closer to construction grade level when compared to Universityhistorical construction plans thus requiring a modification to sidewalk and grounds fronting theComplex. The discovery of these utility lines occurred during January 2012. A contractmodification for this change order has not yet been processed as the cost and design change havenot yet been finalized.

additional construction management services associated with the extension of the constructionperiod through spring 2014.


12/18


February 2014

11

COP observations M&A Contract Modification #1:The deletion of the grandstand roof was the result of cost considerations. The description of the otherdesign changes appears to be for services that should have been contemplated and included in theoriginal design contract. Upon inquiry, OFG informed Internal Audit that Mitsunaga was instructed to

exclude design services such that the contract would not exceed $1 million with the understanding thatthese services would be added at a later date through a change order. Internal Audits review of OCIswebsite notes that Mitsunagas design services contract received Board of Regents pre-approval inaccordance with Board of Regents policy Section 8-1(c). Accordingly, since OFG believed that the costof the design services would exceed $1 million, Internal Audit does not understand OFGs rationale ofpreparing this change order for services that were expected and could have been included in the originaldesign contract.

Iida Contract Modification #1:As previously noted, this contract modification was anticipated by the University prior to thecommencement of construction.

Iida Contract Modification #2:OFG informed Internal Audit that the C&C Building Department erred in determining that the design ofall guardrails/handrails did not meet building code regulations. According to OFG, a design change iswarranted for guardrails/handrails if the elevation change between grandstand levels equal or exceed 30inches. However, both OFG and M&A did not question the C&C Building Department decision. Inaddition, OFG and M&A did not detect this issue in the design drawings such that the drawings couldhave been modified or building code complying guardrails ordered thereby negating the need for thischange order.


13/18


February 2014

12

Site Visit PhotosThe following photos evidence that substantial construction work was completed between December 6,2013 and January 14, 2014. As previously discussed, anticipated installation date of the guardrailsincluded in Iida Contract Modification #2 is April 2014. Accordingly, the completion date of allconstruction work for the Complex may occur in May 2014.

December 6, 2013 January 14, 2014


14/18


February 2014

13


15/18


February 2014

14


16/18


February 2014

15

Conclusions/Recommendations

A variety of reasons caused the delay in the completion of the Complex (anticipated completion date ofJuly 2013) as well as the unanticipated cost overruns of approximately $1.7 million ($3 millionadditional contract costs less the expected $335,000 of design services and $995,000 of HVAC work.).

Certain reasons were clearly unforeseen, such as the discovery of asbestos in underground conduits.However, it appears that the cause of other delays could have been controlled and better managed byboth OFG and its service providers. Internal Audit believes adoption of the recommendations describedbelow will allow OFG to better manage and reduce the number of delay days and cost overrunsassociated with the design and construction issues identified with the Complex.

Design plans:Improved design plan collaboration between OFG and M&A from an estimated construction costperspective could have mitigated the resulting construction bids exceeding $13 million when availablefunding was $10 million. Accordingly, the construction delays (122 days) associated with adding theHVAC work into the construction contract subsequent to construction commencement could have been

avoided.

More comprehensive design plan reviews by both OFG and M&A may have detected and thus correcteddesign plan issues (code violations, lack of specificity, conflicts between structural/mechanical/electricaldrawings, etc.) discovered during the construction phase by Iida and its sub-contractors. Accordingly,the number of RFIs, PCDs and ultimately change orders (specifically the guardrail change order) mayhave been minimized or eliminated.

OFGs implementation of Architectural Design Programming (ADP) as an additional design service isintended to mitigate the above noted matters related to construction bids exceeding available funds anddesign plan issues. As previously noted, ADP is expected to result in more frequent and meaningful

collaboration with architects resulting in construction bids approximating available funds as well asconstruction plans/documents complying with federal, state and county laws, codes, ordinances andregulations.

Management oversight:Although CPE was engaged as construction manager, the Complex has incurred significant constructiondelays and cost overruns. Internal Audit was unable to determine what steps, if any, were taken to getthe construction of the Complex back on track from both a timing and cost perspective. Accordingly, asowner of the project, OFG should consider being more active and aggressive when managing andmonitoring the construction schedule and construction costs including their oversight of constructionmanagers. Consideration should also be given to obtain funding that will allow OFG to employ

personnel to perform the duties of a construction manager thereby increasing OFGs control andmanagement of this function in addition to reducing overall project costs.

From a cost control and project accounting perspective, OFG was not monitoring costs incurred to dateand estimated costs at completion for the Complex and by service provider. Accordingly, Internal Auditbelieves that OFG should enhance their project accounting procedures such that estimated costs tocomplete and estimated costs at completion are included in OFGs project accounting records by serviceprovider. These costs and project accounting records should be reviewed and analyzed periodically (at


17/18


February 2014

16

least monthly) to determine if the estimated costs at completion will exceed contract costs as well asexpected costs (budgeted costs) thereby providing timely information to OFG in order to better manageand control cost overruns. Additional training and personnel may be needed to accomplish thisobjective.


18/18


February 2014

17

Individuals Interviewed

Kurtis Bell Construction Inspector, Community Planning and Engineering, Inc.Teri Chang Assistant Athletics Director Facilities, Intercollegiate Athletics

University of Hawaii at MnoaCarl Clapp Associate Athletics Director and Administrative Services, Intercollegiate

Athletics University of Hawaii at MnoaBen Jay Director of Athletics, Intercollegiate Athletics University of Hawaii at

MnoaThomas (Tom) Katsuyoshi Director, Facilities Management Office University of Hawaii at MnoaShawn Kodani Architect, Facilities Management Office University of Hawaii at MnoaStephen (Steve) Meder Interim Assistant Vice Chancellor for Physical, Environmental, & Long

Range Planning University of Hawaii at MnoaPaul Tateishi Resident Construction Engineer, Community Planning and Engineering,

Inc.

Kirk Yuen Architect, Facilities Management Office University of Hawaii at Mnoa

Development of the Clarence T.C. Ching Athletic Complex

Documents

Transcript of Development of the Clarence T.C. Ching Athletic Complex