Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion. Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion. Presentation Outline. Project Overview.

Transcription

1 Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion Available Alternatives with a Baltimore County Correction System Separate Facilities Baltimore County Detention Center Courthouse Correctional Facility Problem: Overcrowded Problem: Declining Conditions Centralized Facility Includes: Additional Housing Units 66 bed net increase Administration Areas Parking Garage, SF Total Project Delivery Project Cost Multiple Prime Lump Sum Contract w/ CM Agent Fixed Fee Owner Baltimore County Fixed Fee Initial Bids VE Items Cost / SF $80.9 ($.) Total Cost $6,80,7 ($,780,000) Architect/Engineer DMJMH+N Lump Sum CM Agent Gilbane Building Co. Hard Cost TOTAL $6. $,7,00 $69,8, Multiple Contractors

2 Project Schedule - Construction Began: May 00 - Original Anticipated Completion: January 00 Project was over budget in 00 Construction delayed approx. months for value engineering process - Extended Anticipated Completion: April 00 Owners Primary Concerns ) Budget ) Schedule ) Security Proposed Alternatives - Computer Generated Mock-up Inmate Housing - Pre-Cast Concrete Modular Units Composed of: Dormitory or Cell Unit Plenum Chase Repetitive Construction Mock-ups Primary Purposes of Mock-ups: ) Coordination between trades ) Practicality of maintenance/operation ) Aesthetical Reviews 8 SF 6 SF Plywood Dormitory Chase Mock-up Plywood Cell Chase Mock-up Issue: Prolonged construction time of BCDC Expansion plywood dormitory & cell chase mock-ups Cause: Insurance disputes and lack of coordination between the trades Effect: Later start date of mock-up erection and an additional week construction duration Solution: Computer Generated Mock-up

3 What is a computer generated mock-up? D AutoCAD Drawing D submittal drawings converted to D drawings Purchased by contractors Cost Comparison Plywood Dormitory/Cell Chase Mock-ups D CAD Drawing Savings: Description $,000 - $9,000 Cost $,000-9,000 9,000 $6,000 ( st yr) $,0 (ea. add. yr.) Schedule Comparison Plywood Dormitory/Cell Chase Mock-ups D CAD Drawings Savings: Description Activity Duration - weeks week - Week Activity Duration 00 Man Hours Actual Man Hours MHRS 0 MHRS Acceptance within the Industry 0 Acceptance within the Industry Contractors Architect/Engineer Ow ner 6% Approval Rate Acceptable Not Acceptable Indifferent/ No Response Physical Dormitory Mock-up Computerized Dormitory Mock-up: D CAD Drawing

4 Conclusions : - Save Money - Reduce Construction Time - Accepted by the industry - Allows for prefabrication - A viable alternative for the BCDC Expansion - Future beneficial construction technique Existing Foundation Design - Column & Strip Footings - 7 Footings - Different Footing Sizes - Repetitive Design Cost & Schedule Comparison - Based on ASCE-7 00 Original Design Redesign Cost $69,9 $8,90 Duration days days Footing Sizes 0 Footing Sizes Savings w/ Redesign = ($89,78) + 0 days Conclusions - The additional concrete material cost cannot be justified since the footings were poured directly - In order to save money with a more repetitive design the actual total number of footings must be decreased However. - The 00 concrete code change saves: $0,890

5 Existing BCDC Composed of: - Flat Plate Solar Collectors - Closed Loop System Used for: - 60% of Space Heating - % of Preheated Water BCDC Expansion Originally Designed with: - Horizontal Fire tube Boilers - Domestic Hot Water Generators Redesigned with: - Flat Plate Solar Collectors Closed Loop System Results from F-chart The designed system will accommodate for 8.7% of the expansions hot water needs: Cost Comparison Initial Cost of System Life Cycle Cost Payback Period Savings: Original Expansion Boilers/Generators $7,87 $,96,6.7 years Over 0 years - $,9,00 Annually - $9,87 Proposed Expansion $700,000 $,7,6 6 years Conclusions An : - Existing BCDC employs an active solar system - Initial cost of the system is outweighed by the life cycle savings - With the prices of natural gas rising 0% within the next 0 years an active solar system is beneficial investment for owners

6 Issue: / of the way through the project over 0% of the contingency was w used Cause: Excessive number of change orders due to the lack of coordination between the design and construction of the project Effect: Project over budget in 00 and had to be delayed months for value engineering Solution: Design-Build delivery in place of CM Agency Goal of Analysis - To show a design-build delivery is a a more effective delivery for correctional facility construction; specifically for the BCDC Expansion Objectives of Analysis - Decreased Budget - Accelerated Schedule - Value Engineering Items - Increased Innovation - Constructible Design - Utilization of New Technologies 6 Case Studies Federal Projects - INS Federal Detention Center: NY - Michigan Youth Correctional Facility: MI - U.S. Penitentiary: FL State or Municipal Projects - Lexington-Fayette County Detention Center, KY - El Paso Jail Annex, TX - Rivers Correctional Institution, NC Case Studies D/B Correctional Facilities Finished On or Ahead of Budget Finished On or Ahead of Schedule 0% Finished On or Below Budget 67% Finished On or Ahead of Schedule Positive Response Recieved % Value Engineering 6 D/B Correctional Facility Case Studies 9.6% 0.0% 6.7% Innovation Constructibility New Technologies CM/GC A/E All were effectively implemented with a design-build delivery However, implementation of Value Engineering and Innovation was extremely successful Conclusions: A : Allows for the implementation of: - On or below budget project - On or ahead of schedule project - Value engineering - Innovation - Constructible Designs - New technologies 6

7 Summary A allows for the successful implementation of: - - A - Operation of a closed loop active solar system Collectors Hot Water Heat Transfer Fluid Auxiliary Heat Pumps Storage Tank Heat Exchanger Cold Water Qualifications for Case Study ) Design-Build Correctional Facility ) Located in the US ) $-00 million price range ) Completed in the last 0 years ) Parties involved had prior experience with non- design-build delivery correctional facility projects Survey Result Criteria # of positive responses (X) from the case study projects implementing each objective: X < 0% : Objective cannot be effectively implemented with a design-build delivery 0% < X < 7% : Objective can be effectively implemented with a design-build delivery X > 7% : Objective can be implemented most effectively with a design-build delivery 7