Ventana Condominiums
37
Ventana Ventana Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Washington, D.C. 20001 Construction Management Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis 2005 Senior Thesis Ventana Ventana Condominiums Condominiums
description
Ventana Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis. Ventana Condominiums. Presentation. Introduction Analysis #1 – Owner’s Perception of Construction Management - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Ventana Condominiums
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
VentanaVentana
CondominiumsCondominiums
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Presentation• Introduction
• Analysis #1 – Owner’s Perception of Construction Management
• Analysis #2 – LEED design
• Analysis #3 – Façade analysis
• Conclusions
• Questions
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Project OverviewBuilding Functions: Condominiums (Residential)
Retail Stores (Commercial)
Parking
Size: 120,000 SF (12 stories)
Cost: $17.8 Million
Schedule: March 2004 – October 2005
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Project TeamOwner: Douglas Development
Owner’s Rep: Faison Associates
CM / GC: Davis Construction
Architect: Shalom Baranes
Mechanical Engineer: Metropolitan
Structural Engineer: Tadjer-Cohen-Edelson
Civil Engineer: Wiles Mensch
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building OverviewFoundation: Piles, pile caps and grade beams
Structure: Cast in place concrete with two way flat plate slabs and supporting columns
Mechanical: Individual split system heat pumps
Architectural: 3 historic townhouses on site to be renovated
Glass curtain wall and brick veneer with portions stone
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Cost Challenges
• Goal: Determine areas where value can be added to the project to make it more marketable to potential buyers
• Redesign from apartments to condominiums• Project funding • Market downturn• Soaring materials cost• Value engineering
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Analyses IntroductionAnalysis
Owner’s perception of construction management
Goal
Determine owner’s current perceptions of construction managers and their value on projects
Method
Two questionnaires, one general, one project specific
Expected Results
• Determination of owner’s perception of CM value, especially during design
• Find areas where CMs add value to projects
• Find variables that effect CM performance
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMCMs involvement on Ventana
• Early involvement for input on foundation system, other early design decisions
• Separated from project during redesign from apartments to condominiums
• Rejoined project after GMP document completion
• Extensive value engineering input after design completion
Result:
• Delay in the beginning of construction of at least 6 to 7 months
• Cost to the owner of hundreds of thousands of dollars in financing costs, rising cost of materials
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMOwner’s Perception Questionnaire
Distribution: To owners through Davis and the suggestion of various
industry professionals
Responses: 11 total received
All respondents have worked with CMs
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMFindings
• All but one respondent believes that CMs should be brought onto projects ASAP
• Most believe large cost savings possible, nearly the same savings in schedule
• Most do not believe quality changes
• Criteria for using CMs: 3 – Always
1 – Never
6 – When Project Is Complicated
5 – Quality Savings
4 – Cost Savings
4 – Time Savings
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMPositives
• Manage client’s expectations
• Realize time and cost savings
• Identifying design problem areas
• Presenting alternatives
Negatives
• Divisive
• Bring own problems and issues to project team
• Impediment to decision making
• Overpaid and overvalued
• Of little value on small, uncomplicated projects
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMProject Specific Questionnaire
• 12 project responses received
• 8 from projects with CMs, 4 without
• For CM projects, all but one brought CM onto project ASAP
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMAreas of positive CM impact
• Design and redesign efficiency
• Project coming in on budget
• Ease of owner’s role in construction process
• Number and severity of construction disputes
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMAreas with little CM impact
• Quality Issues: Building turnover
Building performance
Building maintenance
Overall satisfaction
• Overall project delivery speed, construction speed
• Number of undesirable design changes madePotential factor affecting CM performance
• Contract type: lump sum vs. cost plus
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Owner’s Perception of CMConclusions
• Value added – Lessening complications
- Reduce cost, schedule
- Design efficiency
- Managing expectations
• CMs need to be team players and consider the needs of the owner, architect, and contractor
• Distinction made by many respondents between good and bad CMs
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Analysis IntroductionAnalysis
LEED design analysis
Goal
To determine the building’s current compliance with LEED design standards and the steps and costs necessary to improve this rating
Method
Analyzing building in accordance with published LEED standards, examining initial and life cycle costs as well as benefits
Expected Results
Improved building marketability through improvements in mechanical performance, air quality, and a LEED building designation
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisWhat is LEED?
LEED was created to:• define "green building" by establishing a
common standard of measurement • promote integrated, whole-building design
practices • recognize environmental leadership in the
building industry • stimulate green competition • raise consumer awareness of green building
benefits transform the building market
source: www.usgbc.org
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisVentana
CategoryCategory
ExistingExistingPointsPoints
AddedAdded TotalTotal NotesNotes
SustainablSustainablee
SitesSites
88 11 99
Water Water EfficiencyEfficiency
00 22 22
Energy and Energy and AtmospherAtmospheree
11 22 33
Materials & Materials & ResourcesResources
11 55 66
Indoor Indoor EnvironmeEnvironmentnt
77 55 1212 Add tobacco free Add tobacco free policy to meet policy to meet prereqprereq
Innovation Innovation & Design& Design
00 11 11
TotalsTotals 1717 1616 3333 Silver LEED ratingSilver LEED rating
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisWater Efficiency
• Low flow fixtures
• Minimize building water usage
• Utility savings
• Environmentally friendly, less wasteful
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisWater Efficiency
ToiletsToilets Shower Shower HeadsHeads
FaucetsFaucets
Design Use (Gal)Design Use (Gal) 1.61.6 2.52.5 2.22.2
Redesign Use (Gal)Redesign Use (Gal) 11 1.51.5 1.51.5
Savings (Gal)Savings (Gal) 0.60.6 11 0.70.7
Uses / DayUses / Day 44 4.84.8 44
Savings / DaySavings / Day 2.42.4 4.84.8 2.82.8
Cost of Water, Cost of Water, SewageSewage
$ 0.03433$ 0.03433 $ 0.03433$ 0.03433 $ 0.03433$ 0.03433
Savings / YearSavings / Year $3851.99$3851.99 $7703.98$7703.98 $4493.99$4493.99
Total SavingsTotal Savings $16,049.96$16,049.96
ROI PeriodROI Period 251 days251 days
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisEnergy & Atmosphere
• Reduce utility costs through improved building performance and system efficiency
• Minimize effects of energy production on environment
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisEnergy & Atmosphere
Energy Energy Cost/ Cost/
SavingsSavings
% % SavingSaving
ss
AdditionAdditional Costal Cost
Payback Payback Period Period (Yrs.)(Yrs.)
BaselineBaseline $125,500$125,500
As designedAs designed $5,009$5,009 3.993.99 ------
Water, 2” EIFSWater, 2” EIFS $7,883$7,883 6.286.28 ($92,850($92,850))
Hot Water Hot Water BaseboardsBaseboards
$1,311$1,311 1.041.04 $252,00$252,0000
192192
More Efficient HVACMore Efficient HVAC $5,359$5,359 4.274.27 $83,283$83,283 1515
Additional 2” EIFSAdditional 2” EIFS $855$855 0.680.68 $8,339$8,339 1010
Tinted WindowsTinted Windows $1,705$1,705 1.361.36 $36,275$36,275 2121
Triple Pane WindowsTriple Pane Windows $2,027$2,027 1.621.62 $153,49$153,4944
7676
Heat Recovery Heat Recovery SystemSystem
$3,100$3,100 2.482.48 $27,000$27,000 99
TotalTotal $26,048$26,048 21.7021.70$22,206$22,206 17.717.7 $25,772$25,772
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisCosts
• Total additional initial cost: $87,972 (0.5% construction cost)
• Additional time and effort
• Reduced material selection, availability
Benefits
• Reduced electric, water utilities
• Minimum yearly savings: $38,256 Maximum payback period: 2.3 years
• Improved mechanical and building performance
• More environmentally friendly design
• Marketable silver LEED rating
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Analysis IntroductionAnalysis
Building Façade Materials Analysis
Goal
To find a more economic building material to use in place of the brick veneer
Method
Analyze the current system and costs, determine possible replacement materials, and evaluate schedule and constructability concerns
Expected Results
• Cost savings due to change in materials
• Maintain quality of building
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeCurrent Systems
• Brick – 18530 ft2
• Stone – 350 ft2
• Glass Curtain Wall – 13952 ft2
• Aluminum Panel – 2804 ft2
Possible Brick Alternatives
• EIFS
• Concrete Panels
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeEIFS
• 3 layers – Insulation board
- Base coat (wire mesh and adhesive)
- Plaster finish coat
• Variety of textures, colors, finishes
• Light weight cladding
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeEIFS Cost Comparison
Brick $ / Brick $ / SFSF
TotalTotal EIFS $ / EIFS $ / SFSF
TotalTotal
$19.36$19.36 $358,733$358,733 $13.75$13.75 $254,879$254,879
Initial Savings: $103,854
30 Year Maintenance Costs:
• Brick: $10,562
• EIFS: $20,754
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeEnergy savings
Heating Heating
Power Power RequiredRequired
CoolingCooling
Power Power RequiredRequired
kWh SavedkWh Saved Yearly Yearly Energy Energy SavingsSavings
BrickBrick 769 kWh769 kWh 57 kWh57 kWh
2” EIFS2” EIFS 628 kWh628 kWh 47 kWh47 kWh 151151 $1156$1156
4” EIFS4” EIFS 532 kWh532 kWh 40 kWh40 kWh 254254 $1950$1950
30 year life cycle savings
• 2” EIFS - $128,342
• 4” EIFS - $152,162
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadePotential Quality Issues
• Water entry
• Impact damage
• Maintenance
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeMinimizing Water Entry
• Architectural input into design and detail of joints
• Qualified sealant and EIFS contractors
• Qualified inspectors
• Repair cracks as soon as possible if and when they are formed
• Overlap reinforcement at corners, openings
• Protect materials during installation
• Use of flashing
• Water barrier over external sheathing
• Minimize snow and ice accumulation against building
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeMinimizing Impact Damage
• Heavy mesh usage in high impact areas
• Base coat with higher resin levels
• Educate residents
Maintenance
• Use mild detergent for cleaning
• Acrylic finishes reduce dirt pick up, help maintain system colorfastness
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Building FacadeConclusions
• Life cycle savings: $125-150K, Initial savings $100K
• Manufacturer and architect input, design details
• Quality control procedure during design, construction
• Qualified applicators
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
ConclusionsOwner’s perception analysis
• CM strengths and weaknesses determined
• Addition to project team ASAP
• Complex projects
• Time and cost savings
• CMs need to show commitment to team
• CMs need to be able to balance owner’s expectations with needs and wants of architect, contractor
• Early and persistent involvement during design
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
ConclusionsLEED Analysis
• Silver rating can be attained
• Additional benefits outweigh costs
• Marketing advantage through responsible design, lower utility costs, improved air quality
Façade Analysis
• $125-150K life cycle savings seen, initial cost lowered more than $100K
• Quality control process needed during design, construction to ensure no reduction building performance
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Acknowledgements
Peter Ege
Hasan Alseyegh
Dr. John Messner
Dr. David Riley
Moses Ling
Mom and Dad
Michael & Stefanie
My grandparents
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
Questions?
VentanaVentana Mark Mey Mark Mey 912 “F” Street N.W. 912 “F” Street N.W. Construction Management Construction Management
Washington, D.C. 20001Washington, D.C. 20001 2005 Senior Thesis2005 Senior Thesis
IntroductionIntroduction
Owner’s Owner’s Perception of Perception of CMsCMs
LEED AnalysisLEED Analysis
Building Façade Building Façade AnalysisAnalysis
ConclusionsConclusions
LEED AnalysisOther Added Points:
• Bicycle rack ($1200)
• Additional commissioning
• Recycle construction waste
• Use materials with recycled content
• Certified wood
• Low VOC materials
• Entryway grate
• LEED accredited professional
• CO2 Monitoring Systems ($50,000)
• Environmental smoke prerequisite
