Technical Assignments
The first technical
assignment focuses on the construction site’s existing conditions. The assignment covers the delivery system for
the project, a summary schedule, a summary of the systems being installed in
the building, an overall cost and the relative costs per square foot. The assignment continues on to explore the
project site plan, the local conditions for construction and summary of the
local market, and some more detailed information concerning the client and their
particular needs.
Existing
Construction Conditions
·
Project Schedule Summary pdf
·
Building Systems Summary pdf
Summary
Memo
The following report is a summary of the overall project. The summary includes the way the project is
being delivered and the structure of the project relationships. There is an overview schedule with a
narrative to give a rough idea of the order of activities. The report also includes two preliminary
estimates using basic estimating methods to compare with the actual contract
cost. The report includes a site plan of
the existing site conditions and some temporary facilities. There is a review of the local construction
methods and conditions. Last, but most
important, there is an overview of the owner’s information and key values while
building the project.
The Smithsonian Institution Patent Office
Building is a very unique project.
Located in downtown DC, it takes up two square city blocks. The project was delivered as a traditional
Design-Bid-Build project with a CM agency to help oversee construction. The method seemed very appropriate based on
the owner’s experience and the unique demands of the project.
The
schedule depicts the long design time as well as the congestion the project
will feel due to overlap of trades when construction gets into full swing. The site is very tight, being in the center
of the city. Also, the courtyard poses
several issues due to the lack of access through the building. The building has a wide variety of building
systems, highlighted by its existing structurally arched masonry and the use of
the chimneys as mechanical chases.
The
estimates used to find cost information on the project appeared to be very
inaccurate due to the unique constraints of the project. The actual cost per square foot was much
higher than the estimates bore out. The
local construction conditions in DC favor concrete construction, which will be
used in the courtyard. Also, though the
project does little recycling, many of the historical materials in the building
will be restored and reused. Though the
storage of the materials will lead to further congestion.
Smithsonian
Institution is a unique client who has many attributes of a government agency,
however they tend to favor higher end work and finishes. The historical nature of the building is of
utmost importance to the owner, creating some unique situations and opportunities. The key interests of the owner lay in timely
completion due to the significance of the opening date, the 170th birthday of
the building and the 4th of July. Also, the
level of quality expected is very high.
All in all, the project is very complex and unique.
The
project is being delivered using a Traditional Design-Bid-Build method with a
CM agent. The owner, Smithsonian
Institution (SI), is experienced in construction. They have three separate museums being housed
within the Patent Office Building and each has very specific requirements for
the space they will occupy. SI has spent
a great deal of time in design tailoring the design to accommodate each
museum. The traditional method is
advantageous when the owner is experienced and has very set ideas about the
design of the building. Also, time was
not a critical issue when the project began, having several years to develop
the design and revise it before sending it out for bid. SI also chose to use a CM agent to assist in
the construction process. The CM agent
assists in the preconstruction phases to bring out constructability issues. With the considerable size and high quality
finishes required SI was glad to have someone else helping to monitor the
project, looking for problems and other areas of concern.
Narrative
It
is pretty obvious, when looking at the CPM schedule below, the project had a
very long design period. The design
period includes the schematic design, design development, and the creation of
the construction documents. When the
documents were completed there was a separate contract to perform the original
demolition work as well as cleaning and repointing the façade of the
building. There was also a new roof, and
new windows put on the building. Once
the first contract was finished, the bid documents for the current project went
out, and the project was bid over a three year period.
Once the contract was awarded to
Hensel Phelps to renovate the building, the first steps were the mobilization,
then demolition and abatement of the building.
Due to the sheer size of the building, there is excessive overlap of
activities. Once areas have been abated
of all hazardous materials the work on the chases can begin. First structural supports are put in where
necessary to support upper floors while cutting the chase openings. Next the structural reinforcements are
installed in the chases to make up for the structural brick that was
removed. Then the mechanical and
plumbing systems run their risers through the chases. Once all of the mechanical work is in place
the chases can be framed. Occurring
concurrently is the demolition of the floor slabs to run the electrical conduit
within the floors. Once the conduit is
roughed in the floor can be poured using concrete.
Once all of the basic MEP work is roughed in the chases can be
closed, followed closely by drywall and plaster. When all of the necessary coats of plaster
are in place the painter can come through and paint the walls and
ceilings. When the painter is through
with certain space, the area can be fitted with lights, louvers, fixtures, etc. The flooring is then installed, whether it is
marble, tile, carpet, or wood. Once the
MEP fitout is well under way, the commissioning of the various systems can
begin. When an area has all of its
finishes, the museums can begin to move in and take them over. Lastly, there is some sitework that needs to
be accomplished as well as the demobilization of all of the trailers,
equipment, etc.
Demolition
·
Abatement
- There is abatement requirements for both asbestos and lead. The lead is existent in the current paint on
the walls. The paint has not been
removed ever since the original construction of the building, and has undergone
several renovations and remodeling efforts.
There was limited asbestos since the building was complete before asbestos
was popular and therefore was only used in a limited capacity during the last
major renovation in the 1950’s.
·
Demolition
– The major area of demolition for the project relates to the expansion of the
existing chimneys to make room for the pipe chases. Throughout the project there are over 500
chases that need to be located and opened, typically from floor to
ceiling. Then they need to be expanded,
often both wider and deeper, to accommodate the duct or pipe running vertically
through the space. There is also some
demolition required for through wall penetrations for the duct and pipe as
well. Also, there are an extensive
number of through floor penetrations for electrical conduit since it is run in
the floor in all of the gallery spaces.
Structural Steel Frame
·
There
is steel reinforcement, steel angles, needed for the existing granite slab
throughout the North and West wings of the third, third mezzanine, and fourth
floors.
·
In
the mechanical chases, often steel C channel is bolted into the masonry walls
for support if the chase is expanded from its original size.
·
In
the courtyard there is structural steel spanning the auditorium area. The connections are mostly bolted, though at
the beam splices there are full penetration welds as well.
·
The
erection of the steel requires a 500 ton mobile crane with an extension to
reach over the building into the courtyard.
The locations to set up the crane were limited due to the downtown
location. G Street between 7th
and 8th Streets needed to be closed for two weeks to erect the steel
in the courtyard.
Cast in Place Concrete
·
The
formwork for the concrete for the vertical placements was all built in place
from wood, or used the soldier beams and lagging that were in place for the
excavation.
·
The
formwork for the piers and pile caps consisted of some gang forms and wood
forms for some of the unique shapes required.
Mechanical System
·
The
mechanical system is split into two separate parts, one running up from the
basement through the second floor, the other starting at the top floor and
feeding down to the third floor.
·
The
mechanical rooms for the lower floors is are located in the basement of the
West wing. The mechanical and electrical
equipment take up almost the entire basement of the West wing.
·
The
mechanical rooms for the upper floors are in the North wing and the north half
of the West wing.
·
The
mechanical system is an all air system with vertical distribution using duct
through existing chimneys.
·
The
fire suppression system is an all water system.
Due to the historical nature of the building there are some spaces that
do not have sprinklers so as not to take away from the historical nature of the
space, such as the Lincoln Ballroom.
Electrical System
·
The
electrical system feeds the building with two 13.8 KVA lines coming into the
basement at two separate points.
·
The
building, besides having two separate feeds, has an UPS system with a diesel
generator to maintain power.
Workers
moving transformer into basement
Masonry
·
The
building is an existing load bearing masonry building. Near the foundation the walls are several
feet thick.
·
The
majority of the building is brick; however there are granite and marble
columns, and the façade is made up of sandstone, granite, and marble.
·
Where
there has been demolition the building is, as much as possible, to be built
back with brick and block. The use of
similar materials lowers the risk of structural issues related to uneven
expansion and contraction.
·
A
unique note for the masonry is when new brick is put into place; the brick used
must be uniquely different from the existing brick. The specifications require the unique brick
to ensure that in the future it is easier to identify which was original and
which was installed in the renovation for historical purposes. The contractor therefore used both blonde and
concrete bricks for the new construction.
·
Scaffolding
was required in the interior of the building when doing work on the
chases. The scaffolding was used for two
reasons:
·
To
support the existing structure when demolition undermined supports for the
floor above
·
When
doing work at some of the higher elevations.
Some of the grand spaces have ceiling heights approximately 40 feet
above the existing floor.
Support of Excavation
·
The
support system for the excavation of the courtyard consists of soldier beams
and lagging.
·
The
support system remained in place and served as the rear form for the cast in
place concrete walls in the courtyard.
·
Since
the excavation had portions of existing building along the west, north, and
east faces dewatering was only an issue due to rain. When necessary a pump was brought in to
dewater the courtyard.
Actual Cost
·
Total
Building Renovation Cost per Square Foot (per base bid): $261.78/SF
·
MEP
System Cost per Square Foot (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire
Protection): $94.24/SF
D4 Cost Estimate
·
What
is D4? - D4 is software for estimating projects based on historical project
costs. The program has a database of
projects and the database can be searched by a list of criteria to find
projects similar to the project being estimated. Once a list of similar projects is put
together, the user chooses the projects best most like their project and using
the software can “Smart Average” them.
The software weighs the different buildings to account for number of
floors, floor heights, etc. The outcome
is an estimate split up into the 16 CSI divisions. The user then has a base estimate to work
from and can make adjustments for the unique characteristics of their actual
project.
·
D4
Base Estimate
·
Adjusted
Estimate
|
CSI Division |
Area |
D4 Original Estimate |
Adjustment |
New Amount |
Reason for Adjustment |
|
1 |
General Requirements |
$5,298,710 |
$6,000,000 |
$11,298,710 |
4 trailers, Staff of
20+, 3 year job, trucks for supts,
money for parking |
|
2 |
Sitework |
$5,496,093 |
$5,000,000 |
$10,496,093 |
extensive lead &
asbestos abatement, demolition work, CY
work |
|
3 |
Concrete |
$10,924,196 |
$0 |
$10,924,196 |
repouring all of the
floors, CY foundations &
floor |
|
4 |
Masonry |
$2,109,917 |
$1,000,000 |
$3,109,917 |
all masonry bldg, lots
of repair work |
|
5 |
Metals |
$4,910,729 |
$0 |
$4,910,729 |
|
|
6 |
Woods & Plastics |
$1,030,431 |
$2,000,000 |
$3,030,431 |
repairing historical
wood, large amount of exposed wood |
|
7 |
Thermal & Moisture
Protection |
$1,754,023 |
$0 |
$1,754,023 |
|
|
8 |
Doors & Windows |
$1,942,231 |
$0 |
$1,942,231 |
|
|
9 |
Finishes |
$4,763,065 |
$3,000,000 |
$7,763,065 |
high end finishes,
hand made, materials from
overseas |
|
10 |
Specialties |
$3,573,145 |
$0 |
$3,573,145 |
|
|
11 |
Equipment |
$1,776,191 |
$0 |
$1,776,191 |
|
|
12 |
Furnishings |
$1,348,894 |
$1,000,000 |
$2,348,894 |
casework, auditorium
seating |
|
13 |
Special Construction |
$1,136,200 |
$2,000,000 |
$3,136,200 |
blast resistance,
measurement & control
instrumentation |
|
14 |
Conveying Systems |
$1,847,123 |
$2,000,000 |
$3,847,123 |
installing multiple
elevators |
|
15 |
Mechanical |
$7,791,697 |
$10,000,000 |
$17,791,697 |
two systems, extensive
ductwork, new sprinkler system |
|
16 |
Electrical |
$6,723,695 |
$10,000,000 |
$16,723,695 |
high end security
system, new data lines, UPS
system |
|
|
Totals |
$62,426,340 |
$42,000,000 |
$104,426,340 |
|
RS Means SF Cost Estimate
Dimensions: Courtyard
- the new construction portion of
the building.
Assumptions:
·
1 Story Building
·
24’ Story Height
·
Precast Concrete w/ Steel Frame
Revisions to Standard
Data:
·
Interpolation between 24,000 SF and
27000 SF to get numbers
{Formula = 24,000 +
(25,000-24,000)/(27,000-24,000)}
·
Modification from 640 LF of Perimeter
to 700 LF of perimeter (4.70 / 100LF)
$2.82/SF
= (60 LF * 4.70 / 100)
·
Change to Padded Seats costs $207 EA
for 300 seats
$207 * 300 = $62,100
RS Means Estimate:
|
$111.81 / SF + $2.82 / SF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$114.63 / SF |
X 25,000 SF = |
$2,865,750 + |
$62,100 = |
$2,927,850 |
|
|
Comparison of Estimates to Actual Costs
·
D4:
The D4 Estimate
was considerably lower than expected.
The projects used to “Smart-Average” in order to come up with an
estimated project cost were not very similar to the Smithsonian Institution
Patent Office Building. The projects
used ranged from an arts center, to the National Archive II bldg. The trouble lies in the unique nature of the
Patent Office Building. Estimating for a
renovation project varies significantly from building to building because of
each building’s distinctive history.
·
RS
Means:
The RS Means
estimate appears to below what the courtyard should probably cost. The Smithsonian Institution is sparing no
expense for their project, and the high end finishes they are using is not
apparent in the SF cost of the courtyard.
The SF cost is less than half of what the SF cost for the entire
building is for the base contract. Since
the courtyard is basically a new project within the renovation, the cost per SF
should probably be a little less than the rest of the building, since there is
limited demolition and no abatement. The
estimate also cannot show the lack of access to the courtyard that will raise
costs of doing any work requiring equipment in the area.
Site Plan of
Existing Conditions
·
Site
Plan featuring temporary facilities, property and boundary lines, existing
and new utility lines, traffic flow, and adjacent buildings. (Site plan is not currently complete but will
be soon)
Preferred
Methods of Construction
·
Washington,
DC is well known for its concrete construction due to the height limitations on
buildings within the city and the ability to have smaller space between floors
with a cast in place concrete building rather than a steel structure.
·
Since
the site is downtown, there is limited space within the construction
boundaries. Nonessential uses of space
are, when possible, moved off-site. For
example, parking is off-site at local parking decks and other available
locations.
Recycling/Dumping
·
Recycling
is being done for the office paper used on site.
·
There
are several materials in the building that are being restored and reused. There are existing tile and marble floors
that have been taken up to be cleaned and put back in place.
·
Tipping
fees in the Washington area run $350 to get a 30 yd dumpster pulled and dumped.
Soil/Subsurface Water Conditions
·
The
soil found when excavating in the courtyard …
·
Since
the courtyard is within the building footprint, there were minimal problems
with onsite water. The only time it was
an issue was due to inclement weather.
Smithsonian Institution
·
“The
Smithsonian, as an independent trust instrumentality of the United States,
conducts scientific and scholarly research, administers the national
collections and performs educational public service functions, supported by its
trust endowments and revenues, gifts, grants, contracts and funds appropriated
by the Congress.” (Taken directly from http://newsdesk.si.edu/)
· The Patent Office Building is going to house three distinct art museums: The National Portrait Gallery, The Smithsonian American Art Museum, and The American Art Archives. The building is being renovated because of a number of issues related to the age of the building. When a building reaches a certain age the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems become outdated. There is significant wasted energy, and there are a number of hazards related to the asbestos and lead in the building.
·
The
total cost of the building, including previous work to clean the façade, fix
the roof, and replace the windows, combined with design and development costs
and some planned future work, will be approximately $210 Million.
·
The
quality expected in the building is extremely high. The level of finishes required in the
interior spaces are the highest possible on their respective scales. Many items are hand made, or made to resemble
the buildings original makeup, as well as restoration of existing materials
that have undergone 170 years of wear.
The evidence of the strong interest is very clear in the specifications
for the building through the quality control measures and the very specific
nature of the specifications for finish materials. Also, the project is an historical building
as well as an art museum, both of which are of an extremely public, visible
nature and the visitors coming into the building will have high expectations,
therefore the owners want to meet the expectations coming in. Also, there is a whole section of the
specification related to the historic nature of the building.
·
The
schedule is designed to have the building substantially complete and open to
visitors on July 4th of 2006, 170 years after its original
construction on a significant American holiday.
The schedule includes some phased occupancy to allow the museums to all
have some space within the building before the grand opening, as well as
working out the commissioning of the systems and the move-in of the significant
amount of art to be displayed.
·
The
safety is of utmost importance due to the hazardous contents and the age of the
building creating the potential for very dangerous situations. The owners’ emphasis on safety can be clearly
seen through their hiring of a general contractor with a track record for
safety, and their requirement of a full-time safety manager on site throughout
the entire project.
·
There
is, as mentioned above, phased occupancy for the building. The entire West wing of the building is
turned over to the owner more than a year in advance of the substantial
completion of the project.
·
The
keys to completing the project to the owner’s satisfaction lay in:
·
Completing
the project in a timely manner, due to the significance of the grand opening
date.
·
Providing
a project up to the quality expectations of the representatives of the multiple
museums who will be occupying the space.
·
Completing
the project within a reasonable range of the budget.
·
Having
no major injury throughout the construction.
The second technical assignment concentrates
more on some of the key features of the construction. There is a more detailed schedule, shifting
from 30 to 200 items. There is an
assemblies estimate of a particular portion of the building. There is a summary and analysis of the
contracts employed on the project. The
assignment asks for a breakdown of the way the project staff is allocated. The assignment also includes the process of
coordination that was followed as well as the areas where issues occurred. The last item is a summary of the meetings
attended at the PACE Roundtable Seminar.
Analysis
of Key Construction Features Wednesday October
27, 2004
·
Detailed
Project Schedule pdf
·
Critical
Industry Issues pdf
Summary
Memo 10/27/04
The following report is a a more in depth analysis of certain
features of the construction that set this project apart. The analysis covers a more detailed project
schedule broken down by wing and by activity.
There is an assemblies estimate of the structural system in the
courtyard. There is an overview of the
contractual relationships on the projects and their appropriateness. There is a staffing plan for the general
contractor showing the way the project is broken up and managed. The design coordination section covers the
plan for coordinating the installation of the MEP systems in the building and
some of the areas of conflict. Included
is a write up of certain sessions from the PACE roundtable meeting held at the
Penn Stater Hotel & Conference Center on October 7th. Last is a brief overview of the soils report
that was not available for the first technical assignment.
Included in this
submission are a detailed project schedule, an assemblies estimate of the buildings courtyard structural
systems, an overview and evaluation of the contracts used on the project, the
staffing plan for the general contractor, an overview of the plan for the MEP
coordination, a write-up of the PACE roundtable event and an overview of the
existing soils conditions on site. The
highlights of the submission are the dual systems employed in the courtyard
structural system and the differing costs.
The contracts employed on the project are rather straight forward with
lump sum contracts being used in all instances.
The highlight of the contracts was the use of a best value selection
process for the general contractor. The
staffing plan is of a typical nature for how Hensel Phelps usually staffs a
job, though due to the size of the job there is a large staff on site. The age and historic nature of the building
introduce a number of interesting aspects into the design coordination for the
MEP systems. The key area of trouble in
the field tends to come from the conversion of the old chimneys into mechanical
chases. The critical industry issues
write up covers the Performance Contracting, Green and High Performance
Buildings, and the Leadership Jump Start sessions. The direction the roundtable has pushed my
research interests has been towards LEED rating and green building
systems.
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
The assemblies
estimate looks at the structural systems in the Courtyard of the Patent Office
building. The courtyard’s structural
elements were chosen because the courtyard has two different structural systems
being used. The west half of the
courtyard is structural steel with a one way slab. The east half is a structural two way slab
with concrete cast in place columns.
Around the perimeter of the courtyard is a structural concrete wall with
varying height (the auditorium section in the west half slopes downward and has
higher floor to ceiling height. The
courtyard will also be looked at in detail in the third technical assignment
with a detailed estimate.
Material Takeoff
Material
Takeoff Data
Data
|
Item |
Dimension |
Quantity |
|
CIP Columns |
14' Tall,
15" square |
35 |
|
Steel Columns |
18' Tall, 48
plf |
24 |
|
Steel Columns |
18' Tall, 58
plf |
5 |
|
One Way Slab |
30' x 6' |
1 |
|
|
200' x 7' |
1 |
|
|
20' x 40' |
1 |
|
|
53' x 16 |
1 |
|
Totall |
|
3250
SF |
|
Two Way Slab |
80' x 43' |
1 |
|
|
53' x 3' |
1 |
|
|
33' x 6' |
1 |
|
Totall |
|
3800
SF |
|
Slab on Grade |
|
7050
SF |
|
W shape Beams &
Girders |
3250 SF |
1 |
|
CIP Walls |
18' x 53' |
2 |
|
|
18' x 16' |
1 |
|
|
14' x 75' |
2 |
|
|
14' x 53' |
1 |
|
Total |
|
5000
SF |
RS Means Costwork Estimate
|
Source |
Line Number |
Description |
Quantity |
Unit |
Ext. Material Incl O&P |
Ext. Installation Incl O&P |
Ext. Total Incl O&P |
Zip Code Prefix |
Type |
Release |
|
Assembly |
A10301202280* |
Slab on grade, 4"
thick, light industrial, reinforced |
7,050.00 |
S.F. |
$13,481.43 |
$16,020.35 |
$29,501.78 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B10102030900* |
CIP col, sq tied,200
K,14' sty ht,14" col,196 PLF wt,4000 PSI conc |
35.00 |
V.L.F. |
$407.73 |
$1,679.63 |
$2,087.36 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B10102083800* |
Steel columns,125 KIPS,20'
unsupported height,48 PLF weight,8" wf |
24.00 |
V.L.F. |
$851.76 |
$149.93 |
$1,001.69 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B10102085000* |
Steel col,200 KIPS,20'
unsupported height,58 PLF weight,12" wf |
5.00 |
V.L.F. |
$215.08 |
$31.23 |
$246.31 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B10102173800* |
CIP slbs, 1 way,sgl 15'
span,200 PSF supimp,8.5" thk,306 PSF tot |
3,250.00 |
S.F. |
$13,394.06 |
$23,719.41 |
$37,113.47 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B10102206600* |
CIP bm&slb,2 way,25x30',200PSF
supimp,20"col min,8.5" slb,341PSF tot |
3,800.00 |
S.F. |
$22,801.90 |
$40,275.82 |
$63,077.72 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B10102418980* |
Wf b&g,35x30'
(BXg),200 PSF supimp,36" d,.874 SF/SF fprf,281 PSF tot |
3,250.00 |
S.F. |
$39,502.13 |
$16,420.98 |
$55,923.11 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
Assembly |
B20101017400* |
Conc wall reinforced, 8'
high, 12" thick, plain finish, 3000 PSI |
5,000.00 |
S.F. |
$25,254.00 |
$71,765.85 |
$97,019.85 |
20004 |
Union |
2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$115,908.09 |
$170,063.20 |
$285,971.29 |
|
|
|
*Note:
The table above was put together using RS Means Costwork 2004 Program
which allows the inupt of the zip code of the project for location cost
calculations as well as the year of the project start to convert for time value
of money.
When reviewing the data it is interesting to
not the steel system employed on the west half and the concrete system on the
east half show a significant difference in price. The column systems are comparable, but when
looking at the slabs employed on both, the one way slab used on the west half
cost about half again as mush as the two way slab on the east half when the
cost of the steel beams and girders are taken into account. There seems to be a prime opportunity here to
find an alternative system that would make the courtyard one consistent
structural system (making construction simpler) and at the same time making the
system itself less expensive from a materials standpoint.
Hensel
Phelps - GC
·
The main contract for the construction of the
building was a lump sum contract given to the GC on a best value decision
process
·
Hensel Phelps bid was, in fact, the highest
of the bids put in
·
The reasoning behind the Best Value selection
was mainly due to the historic nature of the project and the emphasis on
preservation of the building and its unique materials
·
The owner felt that using a lowest bidder
selection process would result in a lower quality final product from the
desired results
·
The project has no OCIP or CCIP requirements,
there are insurance requirements, but they are of a standard nature for
construction projects and in line with Hensel Phelp’s normal insurance
requirements, (eg. General Liability, Workers Compensation, etc.)
·
The bonding on the project is a little
unusual, the GC has a performance bond for 100% of the contract value, however
the payment bond is only for 50% of the value of the base contract
·
The contract contains no incentives, rewards,
shared savings clauses, nor liquidated damages clause
Subcontractors
·
The contracts between Hensel Phelps and its
subcontractors is a standard lump sum contract used for all of its subs
·
The insurance and bonding requirements from the
owner are passed on in the same format to all of the subcontractors
·
The contracts follow the same lump sum format
as the main contract between Hensel Phelps and Smithsonian for simplicity of
management, changing to a different style of contract could lead to a variety
of complications
Hartman-Cox
Associates
·
The contract with the architect was
originally on an hourly basis, with the architect submitting a log of the hours
spent by themselves as well as the consulting engineering firms
·
The contract was amended later to change to a
lump sum contract due to the excessive tracking work needed by both the
architect and the owner in order to maintain proper billing procedures
Bovis
Lend-Lease
·
The contract with the Construction Management
Agency is assumed to be a Lump Sum contract, which would fall in line with the
rest of the contract types
·
The CM is focused on managing the
construction process so the insurance requirements would match those of the
contractors and subcontractors, with the exception of liability relating to the
work in place
·
It is possible that the CM may have Errors
and Omissions Insurance due to their
involvement in constructability reviews and the potential for liability
in that area
Appropriateness
of Contracts
Hensel
Phelps
·
The lump sum contract, chosen with the Best
Value selection method, seems quite appropriate due to the focus of the owner’s
interests on the quality of the final
product
·
Using the Best Value process allows the owner
to weight other aspects of the bidding organizations including the experience
of the project team and the thoroughness of the construction plan, budget,
schedule, etc.
·
Smithsonian Institution has worked with
Hensel Phelps on other projects in the past, namely the new National Air and
Space Museum at Dulles Airport, which may have influenced Smithsonian’s
decision to use Hensel Phelps
Subcontractors
·
Due to the size of the project and the
complexity, the use of a boilerplate contract simplifies the process to simple
modifications from a universal base contract
·
There are obviously some modifications based
on scope of work and preferences of subcontractors on certain terms and
clauses, however the contracts are very consistent
·
Using a boilerplate contract for all of the
subcontractors seems very appropriate considering the number of subs employed on the
project and the long duration
·
The contract type also is appropriate because
of its alignment with the main contract between Smithsonian and Hensel Phelps
Hartmann-Cox
Associates
·
The use of an hourly contract for the design
firms seemed very inappropriate
·
The fact that the contract did not match the
project was born out when the contract changed to a lump sum partway through
·
The use of the lump sum seems appropriate,
again, because of its alignment with the contracts for the rest of the project
and the amount of work it saves for both the designer and the owner
Bovis
Lend-Lease
·
Using a lump sum contract is the right choice
for the construction management firm for much the same reason as for the
general contractor, the level of quality requires a knowledgeable and
experienced builder
The
alignment of all of the contract types saves the owner a considerable amount of
work because the system they use to track all of the companies in their employ
is all the same format and they are getting billed in the same manner by all
parties. The owner is experienced in
construction and was pretty wise in their decision for the proper delivery
method for the project and the selection process they used in choosing a
contractor.
|
|
Staffing Plan
·
The staffing plan for Hensel Phelps is fairly
standard following the set up they typically use on a project
·
The main division is between the field staff
and the office staff
·
The Project Manager heads the office team
·
The Project Manager is in charge of all of
the project documentation and overseeing of the contractual relationships on
the job
·
The Project Engineer is directly under the
project manager
·
The Project Engineer performs the accounting
and key documentation for the project
·
The Project Engineer also serves as the main
conduit of information flow between the owner, architect, Construction Manager,
and the Office Engineers
·
The Office Engineers function under the
Project Engineer and are divided up among specification sections and their
respective subcontractors
·
The Office Engineers are responsible for the
submittals, RFI’s and necessary procedures related to their spec sections and
the respective documentation
·
There is also an Office Engineer assigned to
tracking the change orders and potential change orders due to the vast number
of changes on a project of this size
·
The Project Superintendent is the respective
head of the team that runs and performs the
actual construction of the building
·
The Project Super focuses on getting the
project built and maintaining the quality, schedule, and safety aspects of the
job
·
The Project Super also runs the construction
of the mock-up to work with subcontractors performing their work for the first
time and to ensure the result meets the expectations of the designers and the
owner
·
Directly under the Project Superintendent are
several Area Superintendents and General Foreman who are responsible for
specific sections or aspects of the building
·
The Area Supers are divided up with one
taking the sitework and courtyard construction, one taking the lower half of
the existing building, and one taking the upper half of the building
·
The General Foreman are split into the Masonry
Foreman due to the extensive masonry work throughout the building, and a
Foreman in charge of the chases/vertical risers for the mechanical work
·
The Area Supers and the General Foremen are
all designated certain managerial aspects for the project, such as equipment
management, material storage, etc.
·
Under the Area superintendents are the Field
Engineers
·
The Field Engineers are responsible for the
layout of work for the respective areas of the Supers
·
The connection between the field and the
office teams lies in the Quality Control department with a manager in the
office to focus on documentation and a field inspector to review work and
ensure proper installation
Overall
The staffing set up for
the project works well. Hensel Phelps is
a large firm and has been using the same general staffing plan for a number of
projects over many years. The main
complication for this project lies in the size of the project and the
coordination of the large staff it requires.
There are communication problems, though daily meetings between the
field staff and the office staff clear up most difficulties and help focus the
work for that day. The project is manned
at approximately the right number of personnel.
Most staff members work approximately a 50 hour week. Adding one or two people to the project would
lighten the individual load of a few people, but would add to the coordination
needed for the whole project and in the end most of the staff’s load would not change
significantly. The integration between
the field and the office is fairly strong.
Hensel Phelps has a fairly regimented program for personnel coming up
through the ranks and upper level personnel are familiar with the duties of the
other staff and know who’s responsible for which tasks. They are also there to assist in making sure
the newer staff can do the work expected of them. There is a strong atmosphere of guidance
without overbearing control. The
staffing plan is also distributed to the subcontractors, Construction Manager,
the Design team, and the owner. Sharing
the staffing plan with the project team allows for the communication to go more
smoothly between the different entities on site. The owner and all of the subcontractors still
have a main point of contact, but they are also aware of the duties of the
entire team and it is easier for them to know whom to consult in various
situations and
conflicts.
Scope / Contract Requirements
Coordination of MEP work is required by contract
for the Mechanical/Plumbing,
Electrical, and Fire Protection Contractors. The contracts call for the overlaying of
respective shop drawings to identify areas of conflict and the resolution of
those conflicts. The first step required
is for a schedule of the order of coordination drawings listing the areas of
main
concern and the dates when the coordinated drawings will be submitted to
the designers. The mechanical
contractor, Pierce Associates, will take the lead in coordinating the drawings.
Intensity
Since the building is an
art museum, the mechanical coordination does not appear at first glance to be
an intensive one. The age of the
building and the unique structure make the building rare by nature, the systems
used in it have to function accordingly and therefore tend to be somewhat
complex so they do not impact the nature or use of the building. The mechanical areas will require a fair
amount of coordination due to the amount of equipment needed to supply a
building with such immense size.
The use of an all air
system increases the amount of space the mechanical system will take up. Duct work is one of the most space consuming
systems in a building. The building’s
layout by wing causes the systems to have long runs of duct, pipe, and conduit
in order to feed the various spaces in the building. On top of the layout, the system is split
into two parts, one feeding up from the basement and the other feeding down
from the fourth floor. Having two
mechanical rooms means having to coordinate two separate mechanical rooms.
One of the details of the
building that simplifies the coordination process is the lack of ceilings in
the various spaces. There are very few
spaces in the building that have a ceiling besides the structure of the floor
above. The mechanical rooms and the
basement spaces have exposed MEP work running openly. The electrical conduit is run in the floor
slabs. Most of the duct that feeds the
spaces is run in vertical chases that do not have horizontal runs on the floor
but feed the space from the sides.
One of the unique areas
that requires coordination is the cooling tower. The cooling tower requires a new steel
structure to be erected on top of the roof.
The cooling tower will require coordination between the steel and the
mechanical lines that feed the cooling tower.
Deadlines
The shop drawings, after
the plans have been coordinated, must be submitted to the respective engineers
for approval of any changes that needed to be made. The schedule of submissions for the drawings
was drawn up in advance based on the construction schedule of when those areas
would be built.
Problems, C/O’s & Field
Conflicts
The key problems
associated with the MEP systems focus on the use of the former chimneys as the
riser space for the mechanical chases.
The chases are typically 1 ft by 1 ft when they are first opened
up. The chases need to hold the
ductwork, as well as some other plumbing and mechanical risers. In almost every case the chases need to be
widened in order to fit the MEP work in place.
Widening the chases creates a number of structural issues due to the age
of the building and the fact it’s structural masonry. There are questions about the structural
stability of all of the extra holes and openings being made. Also, the reinforcement to support the
structure is typically steel channel which expands and contracts differently
from masonry and could lead to cracking and other structural issues.
The age of the building
also means that there are not a good set of As-Built drawings to work from when
the systems were designed. Many problems
arise when opening the chimneys to see the existing size. Often the structural engineer has to come to
site because a chases do not conform to the typical structural details for
reinforcing shown in the drawings.
Once installation of the
MEP rough in and equipment began, weekly coordination meetings started. The meetings look at the 4-week look ahead
schedule to find areas the subcontractors will be working that may have conflicts. The conflicts are worked out in advance to
minimize schedule impacts
One of the solutions for
coordination in the West Basement, the main mechanical and electrical space,
was the use of metal racks to support some of the MEP runs. The
racks hold up the lowest layer of ductwork and piping. The system enables the contractors to have
two tiers of MEP systems running down the corridor in the basement. The system also detracts from the amount of
structural support needed from the arched masonry ceiling above.
One of the major changes
that occurred with relation to MEP coordination was in the East Basement. Originally the MEP systems were to run
exposed from the ceiling as in the West Basement. The space is going to be used for certain
offices and the occupants did not want exposed systems running through the
corridor (the ceiling height was low to start).
The systems were changed so the mechanical and electrical systems run in the slab, requiring
the excavation of trenches due to the amount of conduit and ductwork going down
the corridor. The change required an
extensive amount of coordination to locate where the crossover of systems was
underground and also to work around the foundation as much as possible rather
than coring through the footings.
In the area where there is a ceiling (North
West of the 3rd floor) there
is a conflict of the mechanical equipment due to limited space above the
ceiling, resulting in the lowering of the ceiling. In the Luce Center, one of the “Great Spaces,”
there are display cases which require electric hook ups, the conduit needs to
be run under the floor for appearances sake and the floor is existing slate and
not easily fixed in case of a mistake or change.
In the courtyard the MEP systems have been
re-coordinated several times because of multiple changes from the owner, there
are extensive Mechanical and Electrical systems running above the ceiling in
order to support the auditorium. The
re-coordination effort is a strain on the personnel because they have already
performed the work and are in the process of planning the construction only to
have the whole area changed and they have to start again,
almost from scratch.
Session
1: Performance Contracting I: Rewards & Incentives
During
the first session, it was interesting to learn the contractors’ views on the
idea of rewards and incentives in contracts.
All of the contractors tended to be agree that some sort of reward or
incentive was usually a good thing in a contract. There was unanimous approval for shared
savings clauses.
There
was general agreement that performance based fees worked, though they felt
there should be some more objective criteria for assessing the
performance. They referred to the more
subjective areas as “working for tips.”
The other issue raised about performance based fees was the potential
for personality clashes between the contractor and the owner that could lead to
unfair assessments for the contractor.
When
the idea of incentives came up there developed some interesting conversation
about the manner in which owners went about dispensing the incentive. One example where an employer wanted to hand
checks directly to the GC’s employees was considered a serious issue. The manager felt the payment could lead to a
“mutiny” from other employees on other jobs who were not being compensated in
an equivalent manner when they were working to the same level. Also, the potential for new employees could come
to expect the incentives as money they were entitled to on every job. Also, because the employees were new they
might not perform in the owner’s best interests but try to get the most money
out of the owner, in effect working in their own best interest.
Other
incentives that were discussed were early completion incentives, safety awards
and the potential for more work from the owner.
One of the questions raised during the discussion was whether or not
early completion bonuses led to an overall lower cost for the project for the
owner due to the shorter period on site, or if the contractors were building in
extra money into their bid to cover the cost of earlier completion.
After
the discussion of fees the discussion moved to try to define what high
performance contracting actually meant.
The industry members present tended to agree that it went beyond being
on time and on budget for the project.
They felt serving the customer’s needs, beyond the requirements of the
contract, was where the step above came from.
The
key to being a high performance contractor, from the point of view of the
companies present, was in the people working for the company. The personnel needed to be able to adapt to
changing conditions, have continuity in education, and that success for the
project needed to be defined up front.
When the project was of significant length, the success might need to be
redefined multiple times. The question
was raised by the students about the relationship between contract incentives
and repeat clientele. The industry members
said that most of their work where they had incentives was with customers who
were repeat clients.
The
last topic discussed was the idea of a performance specification. The industry members said that if the spec
was a “true” performance specification then it would work, however most
performance specs were “hybrid” specs where some items were specified by name
and took away the performance potential for some of the systems. Also, there tended to be problems where there
were too many customers to please, such as at the Pentagon, where so many
people had a preconceived notion of what they were getting. Also, the key seemed to lie in the submittal
process to ensure the products submitted met the intent of the specification,
and the owner needed to be involved to see exactly what they were getting.
Another
question raised by industry members was why do incentives not always work
in contracts, certain contractors seem
to not work toward getting the incentives.
Session
2: Emerging Markets II: Green and
In
the second session the topic started with why do people pursue green
buildings. The main responses seemed to
be driven by the bottom line, whether that was governmental incentives, higher
turnover of merchandise, improved marketing, or possible fundraising
opportunities. The questions that were
raised were what are the legal aspects of a contractor pursuing the LEED
certification for a building, and one of the subs drops the ball, taking the
certification down a level. Who is now
the responsible party if the building does not reach the level specified? Is it the responsibility of the GC when a sub
came up short? What are the damages to
the owner?
The conversation then turned to a
delineation of what exactly we were talking about. The comment was raised that we were of course
talking about LEED, since it’s possible to be green without getting a LEED
certification. Another comment was
thrown out that LEED is basically equivalent to Energy Star on electrical
appliances, etc. If someone wants a TV
that uses low energy then they buy one with an energy star symbol, if they want
a building like that, they expect a LEED certificate.
The perspective then moved to that
of the companies. What are the actual
costs of gaining points at each certificate level. How do the costs change by region. Also, the business case needs to be proven
for companies to really be on board.
Someone brought up the point that when people built houses, etc., a long
time ago they were designed to be comfortable.
When air conditioning was developed we stopped designing that way and
just loaded up on the AC. Now we’re just
reverting back to what made sense in the first place.
The suggestion was made to come up
with a checklist of reasons to obtain each point with the incremental cost
changes associated with each point. For
example, if someone were looking at the point for the bike rack. The checklist would show the value/intent of
the point, a few reasons why someone might choose it, state the up front cost
of buying the appropriate number of bicycle racks and showers if necessary, and
the life cycle cost increase or decrease for the point. There would need to be a significant amount
of study to show the cost per SF to get each point since they are somewhat
interdependent. It might be possible to
generalize it to what is the minimum cost per SF to step from the bare minimum
of one certification to the next. There
would be less adjustment and the dependence of the points would balance
themselves out.
Another area that could be
researched would be which points are most and which are least often obtained on
a project. Then also correlate them to
what level of certification the building received. One area of suggestion, when comparing the US
to Europe, was cradle to the grave analysis of energy input into various items
involved in construction, as well as LEED point items. One question raised was how many owners get a
LEED certification, then decide not to pursue the certification on another project. What reasons do they have for this, is it the
cost of documentation, or are the projects no longer green, etc.
When recycling moved into the
forefront of the discussion, the issue was raised of how could the logistics of
recycling be handled. The area of
concern seemed to lie in the enforcement of the recycling plan. It was suggested that recycling could be
improved significantly through education of the workers, in the same manner
that safety has. Also, planning to
minimize waste on site can save a significant amount of non-recycled
garbage.
Guest
Speaker: Chris Hewitt of AISC: “Managing steel prices and a volatile
market.”
Chris
gave a brief overview of the myriad of issues that were causing the price of
steel to rise. He started by showing how
originally the price of steel was actually artificially low in the US due to an
oversupply, a strong dollar, and cost pricing of the milling and
fabrication. Recently, China has been
beginning to build up its infrastructure, and with the size of China the
affects of their purchasing has had a significant financial impact
worldwide. On top of that the American
dollar value has dropped, shipping prices are rising, and global demand has
increased. All in all the price of steel
has just been moved much closer to the global price of steel. The effect of China’s influence is not
limited to the steel market, the effect will also be felt in wood and cement as
well.
He then reviewed the five V’s that
have an influence on the steel prices.
Volume of work is actually less than what the American steel fabricators
can handle currently. The businesses can
handle about half again as much work as they are currently performing
(throughout the country, that does not mean that individual companies can
handle that much more work). Velocity,
the standard mill and fabrication cycle has not changed recently by any
significant amount. Value, mill prices
have risen by approximately 50%, raising project costs directly by 1.5-2%. Variety, many contractors are stockpiling
rebar in stock sizes to keep their prices artificially low for the time
being. With steel, stockpiling is not
easy due to the large variety of sizes specified in drawings. Volatility, the price of steel has been
unpredictable for the last 9 months, which has led to higher prices mainly to
protect those giving prices. All of the
issues together are leading to an increase of 10-12% for projects overall,
regardless of the materials used.
Some of the ways contractors can
manage the process is to bring the specialty contractors in early to get their
perspective and influence in minimizing the cost to the project. Some of the other ways to manage the costs
are through the management of expectations, through realistic risk
identification and acceptance, consistency completeness & coordination of
structural drawings.
Session
3: Leadership Jump-Start for Entry
Level/Undergraduates
The last session of the day focused
on Leadership, the characteristics needed for leaders, and the ways new hires
can learn to become good leaders. The
discussion started out in simple terms, set expectations, learn to be a good
follower as a starting point to being a good leader. One of the keys was in observing traits of
good leaders and people that others want to work for. Too often students rely on their technical
skills, they need to learn to delegate and give proper guidance when
delegating. Also, the delegation of
responsibility and authority need to go along with the onus of the task.
The students felt that they could
benefit from more feedback from companies.
The industry members replied that the students needed to learn to read
the feedback they were already getting.
Possibly a class on reading body language would be beneficial. The idea that motivation and initiative were
the most commonly sought traits arose.
Also, the idea that the company’s goals, mission, values, vision, etc.,
should be thoroughly driven into the new company members. Also, new hires should be given an
understanding of the potential growth path that is available to them and that
through their understanding they can define their own path through the
company.
The value of appropriate mentors was
touted as a strong method for weaving new staff into a company. The comment that if you don’t make a mistake
then you’re not trying hard enough. The
new hires should make mistakes, but also should own up to them immediately so
they have an opportunity to learn and grow.
Also, the reasons for making the mistakes should be worked through so
the errors are legitimate and educational, not through laziness or
ignorance. A potential research question is what first
and second year hires in a company find to be their most valuable resources and
what resources they wish they had available, as well as what they wished they
new about companies before they went to work for them.
The areas that industry members said
they were expecting from new staff was commitment and flexibility, the challenge
and reward aspects of the construction industry as an incentive, people have to
be ready to respond and make decisions because those are what’s needed in
construction. Also, new members of the
staff should be ready to challenge the company to make them work, learn to be
good at face to face conversation. The
issue of
reading body
language was reiterated. Lastly, the
effective use of email since the “now” generation has a tendency to avoid
confrontation.
- The soils found on
site were consistent with the prevailing soils in the area, mainly Silty
Sand, Clayey Sand, and Lean clay
- Some construction
debris and brick fragments were found in the samples
- The water table
was not encountered in any of the boring samples, nor evident in the holes
within 24 hours after the samples were taken
- Based on the
location of some of the clays found, there is potential for water
appearing and dewatering will most
likely be needed
General Site Preparation Suggestions
·
The existing clay and clayey soils should be
removed from the site
·
The remaining sand should be stockpiled for
reuse as backfill
Foundation Recommendations
·
The soil is quite capable of supporting a
standard spread footing, but some of the underlying clay layers will most
likely lead to some differential settlement
·
A deep foundation system is suggested to
remove the effects of the underlying clay soils
·
Pressure injected concrete piles are
suggested
·
Driven piles are not suggested due to the
impact it may have on the existing structure
Excavation
·
The suggested shoring method for excavation
support is sheeting and shoring
·
The depth of excavation ranges from 20 to 25
feet
·
The max effective stress value of 25 degrees
and max cohesion of 150 psf is recommended for preliminary design of the sheeting
and shoring system
Chemical Analysis
·
A geoprobe of the soils on site were taken to
assess the presence of hazardous compounds within the soil
·
The test found the presence of arsenic,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc
·
The levels of contaminants found were low
enough that the soil was classified as non-hazardous for disposal purposes
The final technical assignment turns
more towards a more focused look at certain aspects of construction. There is a more detailed breakdown of the
site with different layouts for the various phases. A summary of the temporary utilities employed
on the project, as required by the specification. There is a detailed estimate requirement of a
specific system in the building, in particular a system that will most likely
be analyzed later on in the thesis.
There is a requirement for an in depth general conditions estimate. The last portion is the proposed methods to
be used in the research analysis in the Spring.
Alternate
System and Methods Analysis
·
Detailed
Systems Estimate pdf
·
General
Conditions Estimate pdf
·
Research
Analysis Methods pdf
The submission of Technical Assignment
Includes the Site Layout Planning with the three main phases: Excavation, Erection, and Interior work. There are minimal changes between the phases
because the building is a renovation project.
The temporary Utilities are fairly simple because the contractor can use
the existing power, water, etc, while the construction going on. The Contractor does need to coordinate the
switchover from existing to the new utilities in order to maintain
operations. The detailed systems
estimate shows a large variation from the previous two estimates, mainly due to
the unstated assumptions in the square foot and assemblies estimates that the
building project is new construction.
Since the project is a renovation the detailed estimate takes into
account the placement methods needed and therefore bears a higher cost of
installation. The general Conditions
estimate worked out to be approximately 3% of the overall construction
budget. The research and analysis
methods go into detail about the goals and objectives of the research and there
is preliminary version of the survey to be used for the research.
·
Excavation
Site Plan features the Courtyard Excavation work
·
Erection
Site Plan features the Erection Plan for the courtyard structure
·
Interiors
Site Plan features the order of
work throughout the interior of the building
Temporary Utilities
The use of
the utilities required to run the renovation are somewhat unique because the
building is a renovation project. The
specification section covering the use of the existing building states that
when the existing utilities are not available for use, when they are being worked
on and changed over, then the contractor should base their use from the
specification section 1500.
Use
of the Existing Building
The existing building must be
maintained in a weather tight condition.
The use of existing utilities
is allowed until such time as they need to be removed to install new utility
lines or replace the existing lines.
(Coordination of the change over is obviously the responsibility of the
contractor.) Permits must be obtained
from Smithsonian Institution in order to perform welding and cutting, because
the building is historic the owner wants to be aware of all work involving a
potential fire. Tools and equipment
causing vibration must also request permission from SI before doing work due to
the potential damage the vibration can cause to the Historic Building. The chart below shows the limitations on the
equipment to be used in the building.
|
Frequency |
Particle Velocity |
|
1-10 Hz |
6mm/sec |
|
10-40 Hz |
6-13 mm/sec |
|
40 Hz and above |
13 mm/sec |
Temporary Utilities
·
Temporary Utilities
·
Sewers and drainage
·
Water service, metering, and distribution
·
Sanitary facilities, including toilets, wash facilities, and
drinking-water facilities
·
Heating and cooling facilities
·
Ventilation
·
Electric power service
·
Lighting
·
Telephone service
Since the building is very old, there are issues relating to the
different expansion and contraction of materials due to changes in
weather. In order to limit the change in
materials due to the temperature, the building is maintained at a relatively
constant temperature using two (2) 40 ton temporary chillers and two heaters
while it is under construction. The
project has not had to add separate services for electricity, sanitary or storm
drainage. All of those requirements are
running from the buildings existing utility supplies and the systems have been
coordinated so there is a direct switch-over from the old to the new system in
all cases.
Support
Facilities
·
Temporary roads and paving
·
Wash racks
·
Dewatering facilities and drains
·
Project identification and temporary signs
·
Waste disposal facilities
·
Field offices
·
Storage and fabrication sheds
·
Lifts and hoists
·
Temporary elevator usage
·
Temporary stairs
·
Construction aids and miscellaneous services and facilities
Security
and Protection Facilities
·
Environmental protection
·
Stormwater, sediment, and erosion controls control
·
Tree, plant, and animal protection
·
Pest control
·
Site enclosure fence
·
Security enclosure and lockup
·
Barricades, warning signs, and lights
·
Covered walkways
·
Temporary enclosures
·
Temporary partitions
·
Noise control
·
Weather protection
·
Fire protection
·
Existing storm water drains
Environmental
Requirements: Concrete Placement
Cold Weather
concreting:
·
Frozen ground: Do not place
concrete on frozen ground.
·
Do not place concrete when temperature is below 40 degrees F,
except with prior approval of Smithsonian Institution
·
Place concrete in cold weather in accordance with ACI 306.
Hot Weather
concreting:
·
Do not place concrete when atmospheric conditions endanger quality
of concrete.
·
Place concrete in hot weather in accordance with ACI 305.
·
Cover reinforcing steel with water soaked burlap if necessary to
maintain steel temperature not exceeding ambient air temperature immediately
before
·
embedment in concrete.
·
Use water reducing retarding admixture when concrete temperatures
exceed 80 degrees F or other adverse placing conditions, as approved by COTR.
At time of
placement, provide concrete temperature not lower than 50 degrees F, or higher
than 90 degrees F. Maintain surfaces receiving concrete at approximately same
temperature as concrete being placed.
Detailed Estimate Takeoff Notes
for Concrete
Below
is shown the Concrete Takeoff for the courtyard. Concrete is used in several capacities. Obviously the slab on grade is concrete, the
elevated slab is also concrete, though only half is structural two way while
the other half is supported on steel beams.
The walls are structural concrete, 18” thick, and half of the columns in
the Courtyard are also concrete.
|
Item |
Dimension |
Quantity |
|
CIP Columns |
14'
Tall, 15" square |
35 |
|
Steel Columns |
18'
Tall, 48 plf |
24 |
|
Steel Columns |
18'
Tall, 58 plf |
5 |
|
One Way Slab |
30'
x 6' |
1 |
|
|
200'
x 7' |
1 |
|
|
20'
x 40' |
1 |
|
|
53'
x 16 |
1 |
|
Total |
|
3250 SF |
|
Two Way Slab |
80'
x 43' |
1 |
|
|
53'
x 3' |
1 |
|
|
33'
x 6' |
1 |
|
Total |
|
3800 SF |
|
Slab on Grade |
|
7050 SF |
|
W shape Beams &
Girders |
3250
SF |
1 |
|
CIP Walls |
18'
x 53' |
2 |
|
|
18'
x 16' |
1 |
|
|
14'
x 75' |
2 |
|
|
14'
x 53' |
1 |
|
Total |
|
5000 SF |
|
Concrete
Columns (#) |
Dimension
1 (in) |
Dimension
2(in) |
Height
(ft) |
CY |
|
24 |
16 |
16 |
14 |
22.12 |
|
4 |
14 |
24 |
14 |
4.84 |
|
1 |
30 |
30 |
14 |
3.24 |
|
7 |
30 |
30 |
18 |
29.17 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concrete
Slabs |
SF
area |
Depth
(ft) |
CY |
|
|
SOG East Half |
3800 |
0.42 |
58.64 |
|
|
SOG West Half |
3250 |
0.67 |
80.25 |
|
|
Elev Slab East Half |
3800 |
0.83 |
117.28 |
|
|
Elev Slab West Half |
3250 |
0.67 |
80.25 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concrete
Walls |
SF
area |
Depth
(ft) |
CY |
|
|
|
5000 |
1.5 |
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Amount
of Concrete |
|
|
741 |
CY |
Detailed Estimate Takeoff Notes
for Steel
Below
is the takeoff of the Courtyard’s steel structural system. Steel is used for the columns and beams in the Auditorium area of
the courtyard which makes up a little less than half of the courtyard
area.
|
Steel Member |
Quantity |
Length (ft) |
Total Length (ft) |
Weight (lb) |
Weight (Tons) |
|
|
Columns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W 12 x |
87 |
10 |
18 |
180 |
15660 |
8 |
|
W 12 x |
120 |
18 |
18 |
324 |
38880 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W 12 x |
26 |
3 |
8 |
24 |
624 |
1 |
|
W 14 x |
26 |
5 |
8 |
40 |
1040 |
1 |
|
W 16 x |
26 |
4 |
10 |
40 |
1040 |
1 |
|
W 18 x |
35 |
3 |
18 |
54 |
1890 |
1 |
|
W 21 x |
50 |
5 |
13 |
65 |
3250 |
2 |
|
W 24 x |
62 |
14 |
18 |
252 |
15624 |
8 |
|
W 30 x |
116 |
2 |
30 |
60 |
6960 |
4 |
|
W 30 x |
99 |
4 |
12 |
48 |
4752 |
3 |
|
W 38 x |
120 |
9 |
64 |
576 |
69120 |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Weight |
84 |
There is a large change in the cost of the
structural system from the previous estimates.
In reviewing the differences I feel the reason for the increase in this
estimate is the disparity of using the two separate structural systems has come
out. There is an inherent efficiency in
using a single system for an entire structure.
By using two different systems for the east and west halves of the
courtyard structure, there is an increased cost and increased time to
construct. Also, the fact that the
courtyard is in the interior of a building being renovated was more evident
because the placement methods for the steel and the concrete now were taken
into account. In the square foot and
assemblies estimates there was an inherent assumption in the cost data that the
building was new. These two major items
account for the majority of the cost differences from the two preliminary
estimates to the current detailed estimate.
The general conditions estimate was
put together using MC2. Areas where the
specific costs and amounts were not known (permits, temporary storage, etc) a
lump sum estimate was filled in using an educated guess of the amount needed
for the project and a rough idea of the cost.
The general conditions estimate shows
the major portion to be going into staffing for the job. Since each of the superintendents and the
project manager receive cars, those costs were built into the estimate as
well. There was no need to put money in
for a site fence, one was already present.
There needed to be money for trailers, but because the site is very
tight there is minimal room for trailers and not as many as would be typical of
a project this size with more space.
Since there is limited space there needs to be money for staff parking
offsite (travel expenses). The project
also requires regular progress photos.
Overall the estimate makes the cost of
the general conditions around 3% of the job cost. The percentage seems low for a typical
project, however the size of the project throws off the relationship normal to
a construction project. Also, the
program used to do the estimate uses salaries and some other costs that appear
low based on the contractor performing the work. The size of the project staff also creates
different levels to the staff that can not easily be delineated in the
estimating software.
Problem
Statement: There are no
LEED registered art museums and a general lack of interest in green building
from museums and similar facilities. Green building is a theme that
should be universal in construction and arts' centers would be a large stepping
stone in
convincing
people green building is not just a small niche in the market. Since most buildings are not toured on a
regular basis by large numbers of people, it is rare for the advantages of
green building to be showcased to the public.
Integrating green design and construction into a building aimed to
showcase and teach the public is an ideal setting for demonstrating the value
green techniques can bring to a building.
Goals: Showing LEED
certification is not only viable but advantageous for museums and arts centers
would go a long way to show green building is practical in almost all facility
types. To properly show LEED as being
viable it is necessary to pinpoint the challenges for these building types and
show how they can be overcome or alternative systems which will fulfill the
requirements and be better for the environment.
Objectives:
1. Literature
Review
1.
Read 12 relevant and current articles on
issues with greenbuilding
2.
Review of LEED Point system and narrow down
the areas of the system that are most challenging for museums and arts’
centers.
3.
Talk/email with the design manager from
Smithsonian Institution at the
Patent Office Building and see
what concerns they have with LEED and why more environmentally friendly systems
and techniques were not used.
4. Talk w/ Penn
State Office of Physical Plant Project Manager to gain some insight the
differences between a museum facility and a regular classroom facility and the
challenges with applying LEED to an arts’ center.
2. Study
1.
Analysis of points areas for museums to focus
2.
Develop Reasoning behind museums as next
logical step for LEED
3.
Study similar facilities and arts’ centers
which are close to meeting LEED requirements
4. Review market
data for LEED from USGBC website and analyze for points aimed at by different
building types
3. Outcome - review data and show if museums should go
green
1.
Show challenges specific to museums/arts’
centers
2. Demonstrate via similar
building types and answers to interview questions that Art Museums have equal
opportunity and reasons to go green/LEED
4. Future Research
- find shortcomings of research and new areas and ideas created by outcomes
1.
Show two areas of research shortcomings with
potential for further research
2. Show three new
areas opened up by the research for further study
Interview
Questions
Opening Statement: LEED is a growing portion of the building
market. Thus far there are no LEED
registered art museums and a general lack of interest in green building from
museums and similar facilities. Arts' centers would be a large stepping
stone in convincing people that green building is not just a small niche in the
market. Since most buildings are not
toured on a regular basis by large numbers of people, it is rare for the
advantages of green building to be showcased to the public.
Unstructured
Interview: Smithsonian Institution
1. What is
Smithsonian’s take on the LEED point systems and does Smithsonian plan on using
it on any projects in the near future?
2. What special
concerns does a museum have which will make building a LEED certified facility especially challenging?
3. What reasons are
most appealing to SI for having a LEED certified building?
4. What issues
might affect an art museum from attaining points in the following areas:
·
Sites? (access -
loading/unloading of exhibit items)
·
Water? (chemicals
used in restoration, green roof)
·
Energy? (requirements
for maintaining painting quality, daylighting)
·
Materials? (low
VOC’s, recycled materials, regional materials)
Structured Interview: Office of Physical Plant at
1. What are the key
reasons Penn State has started building LEED certified buildings?
2. What special
concerns does a museum have which might make building a LEED certified facility
challenging?
3. Penn State has
decided to build LEED certified buildings, are there any building types where
the possibility of LEED is discounted, and why?
4. What issues
might affect an art museum from attaining points in the following areas:
·
Sites? (access -
loading/unloading of exhibit items)
·
Water? (chemicals
used in restoration, green roof)
·
Energy? (requirements
for maintaining painting quality, daylighting)
·
Materials? (low
VOC’s, recycled materials, regional materials)
This page was last updated on Monday, January 24, 2005.
This page was created by Robert M. Leicht and is hosted by the AE Department.