Jonathan Nelson Construction Management Dr. Messner DC Youth Center Laurel, MD 29 September 2008 Technical Assignment 1 Submission 1

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Jonathan Nelson Construction Management Dr. Messner DC Youth Center Laurel, MD 29 September 2008 Technical Assignment 1 Submission 1"

Edwin Fox
5 years ago
Views:

1 Jonathan Nelson Construction Management Dr. Messner DC Youth Center Laurel, MD 29 September 2008 Technical Assignment 1 Submission 1

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA YOUTH CENTER LAUREL, MD PROJECT TEAM OWNER DC Office of Property Management CLIENT Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services ARCHITECT DMJMH&N STRUCTURAL ENGR DMJMH&N CIVIL ENGINEER Delon Hampton & Associates MEP ENGINEER Schlenger/Pitz CONSTRUCTION MGR Temple Group GENERAL CONTRACTOR Tompkins Builders / Hardie Industries J.V. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Lee & Associates The DC Youth Center is a $42 Million, 88,000 SF juvenile rehabilitation facility which will be able to provide a full range of education and health services for up to 60 students. The campus fosters learning and development with open, shared spaces for students, a colored CMU and stucco façade, windows and storefronts. The five building facility includes: Academic & Vocational Dept. Health and Social Services Kitchen and Cafeteria Administration Wing 120 Seat Theater Central Courtyard 150 Parking Spaces STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS Strip Footings and SOG Steel Columns and Load Bearing CMU Walls Metal Deck on Open Web Joists Pre-Engineered Steel Structure Exposed Wood Trusses and Decking ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Centrally Controlled Electronic Security Uninterrupted Power Supply Motion Sensitive Surveillance System Metal Detector & Sally Ports 3 PH 277 V Fluorescent Lighting Freestanding Gymnasium Outdoor Basketball Court Football Field Baseball Diamond Outdoor Track Warehouse 3 Housing Units CONSTRUCTION LSDB Requirements Minority Requirements LEED Silver Rating Bullet and Impact Resistant Assemblies Institutional Fixtures and Assemblies Sloped Metal and Flat PVC Roof MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Roof Mounted AC Units Energy Recovery Ventilator Gas Fired Furnace with DX Cooling Full commercial kitchen VAV Terminal Units Dental Exam Room JONATHAN NELSON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ENGR.PSU.EDU/AE/THESIS/PORTFOLIOS/2009/JKN119

3 Executive Summary The District of Columbia Youth Center is a $42 Million rehabilitation facility for youth offenders. The campus will comprise of 5 buildings and include educational, recreational, medical, social and food services for up to 60 students. A Campus Administration building houses all the non security staff and services. A Gym / Warehouse provides an indoor basketball court, storage and a garage for maintenance. Three housing units provide the youth with their own room and common spaces for use during the day. The Department of Youth Services (DYRS) will occupy the space and in order to fulfill their mission, requested the campus be an open atmosphere that promotes its mission. The combination of security and accessibility for the facility created a unique project. A design build delivery, LEED Silver certification, large scale abatement and extensive security system make the project worth investigating further, specifically its schedule, cost and construction methods. The design build delivery was chosen to complete the project as quickly as possible because the existing facility is inadequate for DYRS to fulfill its mission. A slow abatement process forced the GC to excavate and pour concrete in the winter months and compress the remainder of the schedule. The total hard bid of the project was $42 Million. Each of the buildings serves a different purpose and the finishes and costs per square foot are very different. The project has a little bit of everything office spaces, medical rooms, sally ports, a theatre, gym, cafeteria, a track and ball field, and a technology center. Pinning the number down with a rough order of magnitude estimate is difficult. Because of the security that must be in place, the facility has assemblies that would not typically be encountered on other projects. High impact drywall, fully grouted interior CMU walls, bullet proof glass, detention windows, fixtures and fences are a few of the uncommon elements seen in the one story buildings. Page 1 of 15

4 Table of Contents Cover Page Project Abstract Executive Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 Project Schedule Summary Milestone Schedule Narrative 3 4 Building Systems Summary 5 Project Cost Summary D4 Estimate R.S. Means Estimate Actual Cost Evaluation Existing Conditions Narrative Site Plans Local Conditions 13 Client Information 13 Project Delivery System 14 Staffing Plan 15 Page 2 of 15

5 Jonathan Nelson ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 1 Procurement of Construction Service 0 days 11/29/ /29/ Program Design 36 days 11/29/2006 1/17/ Design Development 300 days 1/18/2007 3/12/ Construction Documents 309 days 2/15/2007 4/22/ Notice To Proceed 0 days 1/11/2007 1/11/ Abatement of Existing Buildings 152 days 3/21/ /18/ Clear Site & Demolition 133 days 10/4/2007 4/7/ Site Utilities 177 days 1/3/2008 9/5/ Site Finishes 237 days 3/7/2008 2/2/ Excavation 75 days 11/19/2007 2/29/ Campus Administration 302 days 11/27/2007 1/22/ CA 113 days 11/27/2007 5/1/ CA 52 days 3/18/2008 5/28/ CA 197 days 2/7/ /7/ CA Watertight 0 days 7/17/2008 7/17/ CA 173 days 4/8/ /4/ Interior CA 195 days 3/18/ /15/ Testing & CA 86 days 8/28/ /25/ CA Complete 0 days 1/22/2009 1/22/ Housing Units 272 days 1/8/2008 1/22/ HO 69 days 1/8/2008 4/11/ HO 41 days 6/2/2008 7/28/ HO 148 days 2/22/2008 9/16/ HO Watertight 0 days 8/29/2008 8/29/ HO 153 days 4/14/ /12/ Interior HO 156 days 4/3/ /6/ Testing & HO 110 days 8/4/2008 1/2/ HO Complete 0 days 1/22/2009 1/22/ Gym / Warehouse 319 days 2/20/2008 5/11/ G/W 56 days 2/20/2008 5/7/ G/W 33 days 6/24/2008 8/7/ G/W 155 days 4/4/ /6/ G/W Watertight 0 days 10/7/ /7/ G/W 188 days 4/16/2008 1/2/ Interior G/W 79 days 10/16/2008 2/3/ Testing & G/W 69 days 2/4/2009 5/11/ G/W Complete 0 days 2/2/2009 2/2/2009 DC Youth Center Project Milestone Schedule 2008 Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Procurement of Construction Services Program Design Design Development Construction Documents Notice To Proceed Abatement of Existing Buildings Clear Site & Demolition Site Utilities Campus Administration Housing Units Gym / Warehouse Excavation CA CA CA Watertight CA Technical Assignment 1 29 September 2008 CA Interior CA Testing & CA CA Complete HO HO HO HO Watertight HO Interior HO Testing & HO HO Complete Gym / Wa G/W G/W G/W G/W Watertight G/W Interior G/W Testing & G/W Complete Critical Path Split Milestone Project Summary External Milestone Task Progress Summary External Tasks Deadline Page 3

6 Schedule Narrative The project began design in November of 2006 when the general contractor came on board to assist with the program design. Wanting a quick turnaround, the owner chose a design build delivery. The project will replace an existing facility and required removal of hazardous materials and demolition of three buildings and utilities. Each building is only one level and required minimal excavation however winter conditions slowed the excavation and SOG pour. Once the foundation was down, the load bearing masonry walls controlled the schedule. Water tight for the Campus Administration and the Housing Units came in July and August respectively. The Gym / Warehouse was designed as a pre engineered steel structure for quick erection so the building could serve as storage to procure materials in a timely manner. Anchor bolt misplacements and an underperforming subcontractor have pushed the watertight date for the Gym / Warehouse to October. The MEP schedule is tight because of the complexity of the systems. The electrical work includes an extensive security system with closed circuit television and 7 control stations. The nature of the project calls for trades to have multiple crews in different buildings. Subcontractors must work in spaces as they become available, not after they finish one section. The original completion date was set for December of 2008 but with abatement and permit delays in the beginning of the project, it is now expected to finish in January. Page 4 of 15

7 Building Systems Summary Demolition The project site was at the same location of an existing, unused facility that includes many buildings. The new rehabilitation center is placed at the center of the property requiring demolition of three buildings. Prior to demolition each building had to be abated for lead and asbestos. The buildings once served as an aquatic center, school and housing. It took seven months to remove the hazardous materials before the buildings could be removed and excavation could begin. Structural Steel Frame A combination of structural steel and load bearing masonry was used for the facility. Steel was used for clerestories support, columns and girders for the mid span of flat roofs, joists for the Campus Administration (CA) building and storefront framing in the housing units (HO). A 90 ton mobile crane was sufficient for erection at CA and a 30 ton mobile crane at HO. The Gym/Warehouse (G/W) used an all steel structural system. A 115 ton mobile crane was used to erect columns and rafters while a lull and scissor lift was used to place purlins and bracing. Because of the great accessibility of the site, cranes were able to easily move along the outside of the buildings to make the picks. Cast In Place Concrete Cast in place concrete was used for the strip footings, foundation walls, slab on grade, mezzanine floors and roof slab. Formwork for slab on grade and the foundation was wood and mezzanine and flat roofs had a metal deck with pour stop. SOG and footings were directly placed and elevated slabs were pumped. Precast Concrete Project had no substantial precast members. A few window lintels. Mechanical System Each building has its own mechanical room and is accessible from the exterior of the facility. Systems include gas fired furnace, direct exchange cooling, propane, roof top units. Heating and cooling is forced air. Fire suppression is a wet sprinkler system. Electrical System Main transformer 480V 3PH 2000A Uninterrupted Power Supply with 5000KW Diesel Generator 180 / 270 V 3PH distribution for all lighting and equipment 108 / 120 V 3 PH for receptacles Over 100 CCTV surveillance cameras and centrally controlled electronic locks Page 5 of 15

8 Masonry Fully grouted, reinforced load bearing back up wall with colored CMU façade was designed for CA and HO. Grouted connections to steel and SOG. Pipe scaffolding used with lull to feed block. On the curved façade of CA there is a glass block wall supported by angles that allow for daylight into the Student Commons area. Exterior Wall Assemblies 4x8 colored CMU façade up to 10 4 from SOG and stucco on dens glass and metal stud above Glass storefronts at major entrances. Clerestories are located at the South and North of CA. The G/W has the same colored CMU but it joins a metal siding panel rather than stucco. Excavation Deepest excavation went to 2 6 below grade. No excavation protection was needed for the foundation. Utility lines went as deep as 15. For these holes, the excavation was tiered to provide a safety from collapse. Dewatering system used was simple sump pumps in existing SWM drains and in newly excavated areas. Water runoff was a contiguous problem on site because of the large, unseeded areas and frequent rain. Page 6 of 15

9 Project Cost Summary D4 Cost Estimate Statement of Probable Cost Project Information Prepared By Jonathan Nelson Prepared For Tech. Assignment 1 AE 481W 29-Sep-08 Projected Size Projected Location MD - Annapolis Building Height Varies Projected Date Jan-08 Building Use Civic/Gov. Foundation SOF No. of Buildings 5 Exterior Wall CMU Site Size Interior Wall GYP 1st Floor Size Roof Type MET 1st Floor Height 0 Floor Type CON Number of Floors 1 Project Type NEW Building Costs Division # Label Projected % Projected Sq. Cost Projected 0 Bidding Requirements ,323 1 General Requirements ,317,533 2 Existing Conditions ,739 3 Concrete ,431,247 4 Masonry ,349,965 5 Metals ,841,872 6 Wood, Plastics, and Composites ,704 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection ,892 8 Openings ,362 9 Finishes ,341, Specialties , Equipment ,041, Furnishings , Special Construction , Conveying Systems , Mechanical ,874, Electrical ,910, Fire Suppression , Plumbing , HVAC , Electrical ,105, Earthwork , Exterior Improvements , Utilities ,689 Total Building Costs ,702,631 Page 7 of 15

10 R.S. Means Estimate Building Cost Description SF LF Housing Units Base Cost Perimeter Adj. Height Adj. Cost Unit QTY Face Brick w/ CMU Back Up, Steel Joists CCTV EA Dryer EA Total $2,361,430 x3 per SF Gym / Warehouse $7,084,290 Face Brick w/ CMU Back per Up and Rigid Steel Frame SF Up to 15 Tier Manual Telescoping Seats Seat Gym Divider SF Scoreboard EA 1.5" Wall Mats SF Lockers EA Locker Bench LF Amplifier EA Speaker EA CCTV EA Total $3,936,016 Campus Admin. Office Medical Office Elementary School Brick on Block, Steel Deck Roof per SF Brick on Block, Steel Deck per Roof SF Brick on Block, Bearing per Walls SF CCTV EA Flag Poles EA Broiler EA Walk In Cooler EA Walk In Freezer EA Dishwasher EA Food Warmer Counter EA Range EA Lockers EA Bench LF Seating (auditorium) EA Seating (classroom) EA Examining Table EA $7,171,937 Sub Total $18,192,243 City Index Annapolis, MD x 0.9 Assume 2008 Costs x 1 $16,373,019 Page 8 of 15

11 Actual Project Costs Cost Cost / SF % of Project Cost Design $ 3,541,670 $ % Site work $ 7,265,890 $ % Structural $ 3,480,751 $ % Mechanical $ 7,329,472 $ % Electrical $ 8,980,814 $ % Campus Administration $ 16,625,919 $ % Housing Units $ 8,772,738 $ % Gym / Warehouse $ 6,084,112 $ % Building Construction $ 31,482,770 $ % Project $ 42,069,216 $ The estimates for the project came very far under the actual cost. This was expected because not only is it a rough order of magnitude estimate, but also it is an uncommon project that combines different types of buildings. R.S. Means was furthest off because it could not account for the high cost per square foot of mechanical and electrical systems. D4 was a little more accurate because of the averaging function. A combination of a school, small medical office and another, presumably similar facility was used to model the cost. After all that though, the project is not common enough to be matched on this level because of the combined security and accessibility of the facility. An assemblies method will prove to much more accurate. Page 9 of 15

Site Plan Narrative The satellite photo shows existing conditions prior to Notice to Proceed. The entire facility is mostly unused and rundown.

12 Site Plan Narrative The satellite photo shows existing conditions prior to Notice to Proceed. The entire facility is mostly unused and rundown. A few buildings at the southern end are used by DYRS and North of the site, not shown is the current Oak Hill Youth Center accessible by River Road. The existing conditions require considerable demolition but the site is very accessible in terms of deliveries and equipment and parking for workers was not an issue. The spread out site allowed for multiple crews to be working simultaneously without interfering with each other s work. Page 10 of 15

15 Local Conditions Laurel, MD is located half way between Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD. As such, there was plenty subcontractors available and this did not place any restrictions on construction methods. Tipping fees for the area were XX and parking for the site was not an issue. Subsoil have not obtained reports yet. Track is built just off the 100 year flood plain, wetlands nearby. Client Information The owner of the project is District of Columbia Office of Property Management (OPM). They oversee maintenance and construction of all the district s property regardless of which agency uses it. The agency to occupy the DC Youth Center is the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS). The DC Youth Center is being built so that DYRS may better fulfill its mission of providing educational, therapeutic, recreational and cultural enrichment programs to detained juvenile offenders. The existing facility (Oak Hill Youth Center) is not conducive to their mission. Expectations for the project are to receive a building that is durable and minimizes maintenance. Because the facility will be inhabited by juvenile offenders, it is likely the building will receive a lot of abuse throughout the years. Using durable materials such as detention rated glazing, high impact drywall and interior CMU partitions will minimize the replacement of materials. The schedule of the facility is important but flexible as the existing facility is still operational. The original project completion date was June 5 th 2008 and is now projected to be January 22 nd Milestones of interest to the owner, other than completion is bringing the security system online and substantial completion. DYRS must have each security guard become familiar with the buildings systems before they can bring any youth into it. The sooner the system is online, the sooner the switch can be made. At substantial completion, office personnel will begin moving equipment, etc. into the space. Page 13 of 15

16 Project Delivery System The DC Youth center is being delivered as a Design Build project with a construction manager. Using a construction manager is typical for OPM s projects to assure quality and timely completion but the CM is not at risk and holds no contracts with the GC or any other players. A design build, hard bid delivery was decided upon in interest of time to replace the existing, inadequate facility. The contractor was selected based on best value. A joint venture for the general contractor is to fulfill minority participation requirements by the owner. Hardie Industries is the minority partner. A single MEP contractor was selected to ease coordination issues. Awaiting bond and insurance information. Page 14 of 15

17 Staffing Plan The design build delivery called for increased general conditions cost to process submittals in a timely manner. The joint venture divided responsibilities at each level but Tompkins Builder s had more experience overall and filled the top positions. On site each person reports directly to the Senior Project Manager or General Superintendent but among the different disciplines, there are more informal lines of communication. Page 15 of 15

Section 4 - Design and Construction Overview

Section 4 - Design and Construction Overview 4-1 Building Architecture/Enclosure The Pearland Recreation Center and Natatorium houses a recreation center and natatorium as shown in Figures 4-1.1 First