Using Design Build in Community Colleges
-
Upload
katelyn-malone -
Category
Documents
-
view
39 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Using Design Build in Community Colleges
Using Design Build in Community Colleges
Waterfront Hotel in Jack London Square10 Washington Street
Oakland, CA
February 23, 2010
Agenda
• Overview of SMCCCD Design Build Projects• Design Build Types
– Education Code 81700– Education Code 17250– Government Code 4217 (Energy Efficiency)– Government Code 5956 (Revenue Generating)
• Why Design Build?• Guidelines / Process / Schedule• Pros & Cons• Design Build Points of Consideration• Qualification Process / Evaluation Criteria • RFP Documents / Process / Evaluation• Design Build Organizational Chart• Standards & Design Criteria • Schedule Considerations• DSA Considerations • Lessons Learned• Not a Panacea
San Mateo County Community College District
• Three Campuses (1.4M GSF / 346 Acres)– Cañada College – Redwood City - 1968
– College of San Mateo – San Mateo – 1963
– Skyline College – San Bruno – 1969
– District Office – San Mateo - 1978
• 25,000 Students / 1,000 Staff / Adjuncts • Capital Improvement Program
– Multiple Funding Sources• Measure C $207 Million (2001)• Measure A $468 Million (2006)• State / Local Resources $75 Million*
* $20M Lehman Brothers / $54M State
3
SMCCCD’s Experience with Design Build: New Buildings
• Science Building with Planetarium & Rooftop Observatory, CSM
• 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
Districtwide Athletics Improvements
• Athletic 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)
Why Design Build?
• Single Responsibility– No finger pointing– Eliminates legal triangle
• Cost Control – Fixed limit of construction costs– Feedback for better design and
construction documents
• 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
• Project Specific– What one persons knows is
available to all – Contractor isn’t plotting for
claims and change orders– Communications, documentation
& costs are transparent
• 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
Qualification and Selection Process
• Design Build for Community Colleges: Education Code §17250
• Structure the RFP to Attract DB Teams
• Qualification Shortlist to 3 DB teams plus 2 Alternates
• Criteria Based Selection Process
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- Geotechnical Reports- Site / Civil Plans- As-Builts- 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
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
Lessons Learned: Partnering Session
• Who– Owner / Key End-users
– Contractor
– Designers
– IOR
• What– Understand Each Other’s Interest
– Agreed upon Rules of Engagement• Establish Chain of Command• Establish Forms of Communication• Establish Decision & Approval Process
Not a Panacea
• Owner Sophistication• Owner Indecision• Dynamics of an Occupied Campus• Construction Schedule Inflexibility
– Academic constraints
– Weather constraints
• Interpersonal Dynamics• Market Conditions
Future Projects (2011-2015)
• Cañada College– B3 Fine Arts Modernization: $4M
– B13 Lecture Modernization: $14M
– Solar Photovoltaic Project: $5M
• College of San Mateo– B1 Administration Modernization: $20M
– B3 Fine Arts Modernization: $4M
– B8 Gym Modernization: $21M
– B9 Library Modernization: $6.5M
– B12 Fire Science Modernization: $9M
– B19 Engineering Modernization: $21M
– Solar Photovoltaic Project: $5M
• Skyline College– B1 Fine Arts Modernization: $45M
– B2 Student Services Modernization: $12M
– B5 Library Modernization: $6M
– Loma Chica Child Care Modernization: $6M
– Demolition of Pacific Heights & Expansion of North Parking Lot: $3M
– Wellness Center: $20M
– Mini Wind Turbines: $2M
• Districtwide– ITS Data Center: $11M
– Boiler Emissions Upgrades: $2M
– Roadway and Parking: $20M
Question & Answer
www.smccd.edu/facilities
José D. Nuñez, LEED APVice Chancellor
Facilities Planning, Maintenance & OperationsSan Mateo County Community College District
(650) [email protected]