Ventana 912 F Street N.W. Washington, D.C

Transcription

1 912 F Street N.W. Washington, D.C Mark Mey Constuction Management The Pennsylvania State University Architectural Engineering 2005 Senior Thesis

2

3 Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary Project History Building Architecture Existing Conditions Depth Study: Owner s Perception of Construction Management 24 Executive Summary of Analysis Overview Ventana Case Study Owner s Perception Analysis Case Study Projects Analysis Conclusion Breadth Study I: LEED Analysis Executive Summary of Analysis Overview Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere Materials & Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Conclusion Breadth Study II: Building Façade System Executive Summary of Analysis Overview Cost Analysis Schedule Impact Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems Conclusion Summary and Conclusions Credits and Acknowledgements References i

4 Table of Contents Appendices Site Plan A D4 Parametric Estimate Data B RS Means Estimate Data C Assemblies Cost Estimate Data..... D Superstructure Estimate E General Conditions Estimate F Owner Questionnaires G Summary Schedule H LEED Point Chart J Façade Energy Savings Calculations.... K Figures Figure 1. Project Organizational Chart Figure 2. Davis Staffing Plan Figure 3. Building Costs Figure 4. Estimate Comparison Figure 5. Owner Payment by Month Figure 6. Cumulative Cash Flow Comparison Figure 7. General Contractor Cash Flow by Month.. 23 Figure 8. Savings by Changing to Low Flow Water Fixtures. 37 Figure 9. Energy Savings Benefits and Costs Figure 10. Façade Change Cost Savings ii

5 Executive Summary Executive Summary This thesis analyzes the Ventana Condominium building located in downtown Washington, D.C. Project information was first gathered so that an understanding of the building could be developed. Among the areas researched were the project s delivery method, local conditions, client information, and the building s architecture. Cost and schedule information were also thoroughly evaluated. After developing knowledge of the building in these fields, several areas of research and analysis were proposed for the project. The overall goal of these analyses are to find areas where the project can be enhanced while considering value engineering, schedule reduction, and constructability. The first analysis performed is research on project delivery methods focusing on owner s perception of construction management. The objectives of this research include determining how owners currently view construction managers and the projects that they are a part of and to show the value that a CM can bring to a project by being brought onto a project team early in the design phase. In order to obtain this information, two different questionnaires were sent out. One was a general questionnaire to gauge the owners overall opinion of and experience with construction managers and the other was project specific and sought to show a difference between projects with and without a CM in several areas. Early CM involvement is particularly important when considering LEED design, as is the case with the next analysis. The second area of research was a LEED analysis of the building. An environmentally friendly and energy efficient building is desirable for both potential buyers and the community. Responsible design would lead to lower energy costs as well as better air quality and would improve the building s marketability. The building s compliance with LEED design standards was assessed, followed by an evaluation of the steps necessary to get the building to different LEED ratings. The final analysis sought to find a more economic material to use on the façade in place of the brick veneer. Material costs were compared and constructability of potential replacement materials was analyzed. Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) was the only material that appeared to be a suitable replacement and was further analyzed for cost and schedule impact. Its effects on the buildings mechanical properties were also considered, as were quality control procedures to minimize potential problems with the system. 1

6 Project History Project History Building Name Ventana Location 912 F Street N.W. Washington, D.C Site The building is located in the downtown historical district of Washington, D.C. between an existing 10 story Marriott Hotel and the National Insurance Building, which is 6 stores tall. The lot is 13,332 square feet and includes several existing buildings, among which are 3 historic town homes which are to be preserved. The site slopes from front to back and has approximately a 10 foot difference in elevation. An overview of the construction site plan is included in Appendix A. Building Occupancy and Function There are multiple retail spaces located on the lower floors of the historic buildings to be rented to various commercial businesses as well as one or two story condominium units to be sold to individuals which contain between one and three bedrooms. In addition to these primary uses, a parking garage will also be built into the building on the basement level. Size The building will be a total of 120,000 square feet of which 72,000 are residential. Stories Above Grade / Total Levels The lot s slope creates a scenario such that there is an additional story above grade on the alley side of the building. There are 14 stories total which includes a 1A level that is situated only on the side of the building facing the alley. All stories are exposed on the alley side, which allows for owner entrance to the parking garage on the basement level. 12 stories are above grade on the front façade against F Street. Dates of Construction March 2004 October 2005 Construction Cost $17.8 Million (Construction Only) 2

7 Project History Primary Project Team Owners Douglas Development Corporation Faison Associates Architect Shalom Baranes Associates, PC CM/GC Davis Construction Corporation Mechanical Engineer Metropolitan Engineering Structural Engineer Tadjer-Cohen-Edelson Civil Engineer Wiles-Mensch Project Delivery Method and Contracts The project delivery system for Ventana condominiums is The system was selected because of the need to involve the CM early in the project due to a large amount of preconstruction work. Several of the items that needed to be addressed early on were the foundation, which is composed of several interwoven systems and is large in scale due to poor soil conditions, the complexity of the parking garage to be placed on the basement level, and the design change from apartments to condominiums. Another important aspect of the project resides with the existing buildings on site. There are 3 historic buildings which are to remain. They are to be selectively demolished and renovated into retail stores on the lower levels and condominiums on the upper floors. This work requires a good deal of investigation and adds to the load that is placed on the front end of this project. Davis Construction has a preexisting relationship with the owner, Douglas Development, and was able to negotiate a contract at a GMP. This arrangement worked well because it allowed Davis to enter the project early and begin some of the preconstruction work while much of the building was still being designed. Because of the continuing nature of the design work, a GMP contract was ideal. This arrangement allows the contract amount to be shifted up or down to reflect changes in the design as they came out, while still giving the owner a good idea of what the budget would be. A graphical model of the organizational chart is included in this section. The owner, Douglas Development, partnered with Faison Associates. Faison acts as the owner s representative and charges Douglas a fee for their services. The design work is being performed by the architecture firm of Shalom Baranes Associates, who also worked for their cost plus a fee. The architect, in turn, held the same contract type with structural, mechanical, and civil design engineers. Davis, after negotiating the GMP with Douglas, then subcontracted their work to various subs for lump sum contracts. A representation of some 3

8 Project History of these companies is available on the organizational chart, showing subcontractors performing some of the early work to be done on site, including layout, site utilities, and demolition work. Subcontractors for the project were chosen by competitive bid. The owner required that at least 3 subcontractors bid on each contract, and the winner was chosen by the lowest bid that Davis was confident with. This meant that the amount seemed reasonable and that the company had sufficient capacity to carry out the project. Davis and the subcontractor would then agree to a lump sum contract based on that subcontractor s bid. This arrangement is also typical between a subcontractor and a GC when competitive bidding is involved. With the project team in place, Douglas Development required that all contractors working on the project be covered with liability insurance. Davis took out a $1 million general liability policy and a $5 million dollar umbrella policy that covers excessive claims, primarily due to third party injury or financial loss. Subcontractors are also required to carry liability insurance of the same amount and are to provide a certificate of insurance for this particular project as proof of their coverage. The shoring subcontractor, for example, must carry a $20 million dollar policy because of the potential of damaging the neighboring buildings. The owner also desired that all subcontractors purchase payment and performance bonds. The cost of the bonds totaled about 0.8% of the projects total cost, which was a modest amount, but necessary to guard against any failures on the GC s or subcontractor s part. Davis was able to waive some of the bonding requirements for subcontractors that they could verify are healthy companies, especially ones with which they do a substantial amount of business. Some of the companies that remained bonded were the skin trades of the building. They were bonded for at least $100,000 because of the need to keep the building watertight, especially with regard to the expensive interior finishes in the units. The contract and insurance structure of this project both appear to be the best way to have set up the project team given the owner s objectives. Davis was able to come on the project early and help with preconstruction and offer value engineering ideas as a result of their contract. Cost was also kept to a minimum with respect to the purchasing of insurance and bonds, where the amount a company was insured for reflected the amount of risk they carried. From the owner s perspective, this was sensible as they did not pay extra for unnecessary protection while maintaining that which they did need. 4

9 Project History GMP Owner Douglas Development Paul Millstein Cost + Fee Lump Sum CM / GC Davis Construction Peter Ege Owner s Representative Faison Associates Rob Gentile Site Utilities RB Hinkle Robert Eiden Selective Demo JGK Structural Engineering James Konnick Piles & Caissons Berkel & Co Contractors Inc Chris Higgins Site Utilities Kalos Construction Company, LLC Peter Branson Selective Demo Aceco, LLC Steve Smith Survey & Layout Thomas A. Maddox Tom Maddox Cost + Fee Site Utilities Mid Atlantic Pipe Service, Inc Tim Nippes Site Utilities Potomac Electric Power Company Mildred Joyner Survey & Layout So-Deep Mark Goldman Architect Shalom Baranes Jose Bou MEP Engineer Metropolitan Engineering Chris Marrow Civil Engineer Wiles Mensch Mary Ramsey Structural Engineer Tadjer-Cohen- Edelson Peter Hults Fig 1. Project Organization Chart 5

10 Project History Staffing Plan Davis has a number of personnel assigned to this job. Full time field supervision is performed by a superintendent, who by contract is assigned full time to this job only. The superintendent is responsible for overseeing construction on site with duties include accepting deliveries, coordinating project safety, and managing the subcontractors. Other Davis employees on site include a carpenter, who in addition to other tasks was responsible for erecting the temporary on site offices. The other employee is a laborer to assist the carpenter and the superintendent as needed. The most immediate office supervision is taken on by the project manager, who is also required by contract to devote all of his time to this project as well. Among the project manager s responsibilities are awarding subcontracts, ensuring that the superintendent has everything that he needs on site to perform the work, and scheduling the project. Assisting him is an assistant project manager, whose primary tasks include processing submittals, transmittals and other performing other tasks to relieve the burden on the PM. Above the project manager is a senior project manager followed by the project executive, who is in charge of overseeing multiple projects at the same time. The executive will shift the amount of time he spends on a project around based on which phase the project is in. Typically, he will have 3 or 4 projects under way at any given time. These are the employees that will be directly billed to this project. Project Executive Senior PM Superintendent Project Manager Carpenter Assistant PM Laborer Fig 2. Davis Staffing Plan 6

11 Project History Local Conditions Inside Washington D.C., most high rise buildings are designed as concrete frame structures due to the height restrictions enacted by the local government. Concrete allows lower floor to floor height and architects can fit extra building in the same amount of space, allowing Ventana to reach 12 stories without exceeding the 120 height restriction. The soil conditions on site are undesirable, with the soil being composed of very poor organic clayey soils. The water table on site is high, but due to the relatively shallow foundation, it stays approximately two feet or more below the lowest portion of excavation. Because of this, a dewatering process did not have to be used, but the soil does tend to trap rain water on portions of the site. Construction parking on site is nonexistent due to its location in the city. Workers have to arrive at the site through their own means and many use the Metro railway, park in garages, or feed nearby meters. Client Information The owner of the building is Douglas Development Corporation, a self described entrepreneurial real estate development company. They have served markets in Washington D.C. as well as Maryland and Virginia since They pride themselves especially in their work with preservation of historic buildings, which puts this project right in their line of work. The reason that Douglas chose to build this project was to capitalize on the major residential boom that is taking place in the city. The condominiums start from the upper $300,000 range and increase to nearly $1 million for a unit. The owner s cost goals involve spending money to develop high end condominium units to attract the appropriate type of buyer while staying within their budget. To do this, they have focused on quality in areas where it matters most to the customer, such as finishes and other upscale comforts within the units. Because of various delays in design and building that have happened due to changes in the market and scope of the project, Douglas would like the building completed as soon as possible, if not quicker. Because of their previously existing relationship with Davis, the owner is aware of their excellent safety reputation and is not exceptionally concerned given their track record. The owner has allowed Davis a wide range of latitude on safety issues, showing their trust in them. Sequencing is an issue that is very important to the owner. They would like the completion of several floors at a time so that they can schedule closing on units and complete their sale before the rest of the building is finished. Douglas is concerned in this area for the logistical purposes of 7

12 Project History construction sequencing as well as starting to realize a return on their investment as soon as possible. There is also a phased occupancy requirement on this project, which is broken into 4 different phases. The owner estimates that they will only be able to close and have residents move into two units per day, which spreads the completion of the first and last units out to nearly two months apart. Keys to completing the project to the owner s satisfaction include keeping the project under budget and on time. As stated previously, there have already been a number of delays and design changes coupled with a rise in market prices. Minimizing the effects that these issues have on the project will be of the utmost importance and will be the focus of the analyses to be performed in this report. 8

13 Building Architecture Building Architecture The front of the building consists of the three story town homes with facades to remain, as well as one leg of the condominium tower that reaches the street. The main condo portion of the building is L shaped with the majority of the building set back from the street along the alley to the rear of the site. There are separate entrances to the town homes from F street and one entrance to the condominium tower, as well as the parking entrance from the alley in the rear. The portion of the tower that reaches the street is two stories shorter than the rest of the structure and houses some of the larger units. It is also distinct in appearance because the curtain wall is nearly entirely glass so that little distinction can be made between floors, whereas the rear leg of the building shows its skeletal structure with two story windows divided by a brick veneer that hides the members. Codes The building code used is the District of Columbia construction codes supplement of 1999 which includes revisions of the 1996 BOCA code, as well as the ICC international mechanical code of 1996 and plumbing code of It also includes the BOCA fire prevention code of 1996 and the NFPA electrical code of Zoning / Historical This lot is zoned DD/C-4, which is the shopping district overlay of the downtown historical district. There are 3 historic town homes on site that are to remain. The interiors will be selectively demolished and converted into retail stores and condos and the facades will be refinished. Demolition The historic buildings are currently wood framed structures with masonry exterior walls. Portions of both of these materials will be removed or replaced. The slab on grade will also be removed or relocated and much of the building will receive a new foundation system. One of the hazardous materials encountered in the building is asbestos, which can be found in numerous places. These include mastic in the floor tiles and roof flashing, and insulation around pipes. Another item that was encountered in the buildings was bird excrement, which also had to be removed prior to mobilization. Also in the buildings and on site were abandoned sewer tunnels, wood logs, piles and old foundations, all of which had to be addressed in demolition plans. 9

14 Building Architecture Excavation Support The National Union Building to the west was supported using bracket piles. They were used because the combination between poor soil conditions on site as well as the weight of the building resulted in a concern that traditional underpinning would be inadequate. The same was true of the Marriott Hotel to the east. Bracket piles were installed only where the pile caps from the new building would undermine an existing building footing. The historic buildings on site were, however, supported by traditional underpinning. The street side of the excavation was supported using soldier piles and lagging boards, as was the western portion of the alley side to support the existing sewer line. Structural The structural system of the building consists of reinforced columns and scattered beams with a two way flat plate slab. The foundation system is also cast concrete with auger piles and pile caps connected by a web of grade beams. Formwork for most of the concrete structure will be traditional hand built forms. For the round columns in the building, metal forms are used that are able to be clamped in place. For placement, concrete deliveries are made to the street side of the building and placed using the tower crane and a bucket. Mechanical System The building mechanical system consists of a number of split system heat pumps. An outdoor compressor is located on the roof for each individual condominium unit. Each unit also has a small mechanical room inside of it that contains an indoor unit to provide the compliment for the system and distribute air throughout the unit. The heat pumps use a fan to force air through a system of ducts in the units. There is also a separate set of pumps for the lobby with a mechanical room above on the second floor. 4 outdoor units will also be placed on the roofs of the townhouses to accommodate the retail stores after they become occupied. Air supply for the corridors runs off of a separate air handling unit which contains an indirect gas furnace and an outdoor condensing unit. There is a shaft which runs down the middle of the building to supply the corridor. Next to this shaft is ductwork for the pressurization of the stairwells for fire code purposes. Fans for stairwell pressurization range up to 10,500 CFM. Two other large fans are used to exhaust the garage in the basement at 3000 and 7500 CFM. Other exhaust fans in the building include those for dryers, kitchen exhaust and bathroom exhaust and range from CFM. 10

15 Building Architecture A main fire control room is located adjacent to the main lobby, between the lobby and a townhouse. It has its own entrance door from the exterior of the building. The fire suppression system in the building consists mainly of a wet pipe system, with the exception being the garage, which has been designed as a dry pipe system so that it doesn t freeze. The building is 100% sprinkler protected. Electrical system The electrical system in the building consists of 3 switchboards. One is a 1600A service that serves the retail space of the building. A second switchboard is sized at 2000A and mainly serves the condominium units for lighting and receptacles. The third switchboard provides power to many of the equipment systems in the building, including the elevators, the fire pump, the heat pumps, and the generator. The emergency generator is sized at 200kW and designed to run on diesel fuel for 8 hours. The electrical system throughout the building is a 208/120V 3 phase 4 wire system. Electricity is used for the systems already mentioned as well as baseboard and cabinet heaters in the condominium units and in the garage and lobby. The main electrical room is located on the basement level in a room adjacent to the room that houses the generator. The lighting system in the building is being redesigned due to cost considerations and preliminarily consists of a number of different lights, including fluorescent and incandescent light which could be recessed, surface mounted or in track lighting. Telecommunications The telecommunications systems in the buildings stem from the main telecommunications closet located in the basement with smaller closets on each floor. They consists of both a cable and telephone line which branches off at each floor and serves all units. Transportation There are 3 elevators located in the building. The first is a shuttle elevator designed to run from the lobby to the third floor. It runs on the street side of the building near the main entrance and serves only up to the height of the floors of the existing historic buildings. The other two elevators run together for the entire height of the building. The stairwells operate in a similar manner, with 1 stairwell going from floors 1-3 and two that cover every floor. Design Coordination MEP coordination was required by contract as noted in the specifications. The subcontractors were very hesitant to agree to the idea, and getting them to work together has been a difficult but 11

16 Building Architecture increasingly necessary process. The electrical contractor in particular initially saw little value in his participation, since he believed he took up very little space and could work around other contractors. Advantages of these meetings are now being realized as a number of conflicts have been discovered. During the course of their work, the subcontractors meet once a week to discuss the coordination drawings, with more frequent meetings used as necessary. The coordination process begins with the mechanical contractor, who creates a 2D drawing of the systems that they are responsible for. This is done one floor at a time a few weeks ahead of actual construction so that any changes that need to be made can be taken care of. An FTP server has been created on the internet for easier sharing of these drawings. The mechanical drawing is passed on to the fire protection contractor after the mechanical systems have been drawn in place. After the fire protection contractor overlays his pipes and sprinkler heads, he passes the drawing on to the electrical subcontractor, who finishes the drawing. After the trades have completed overlaying their systems, the master drawing gets sent back to the mechanical contractor, who then searches for and labels potential conflicts. They do this by drawing a revision cloud around the conflict with a brief description of the problem. The drawing is then passed along to Davis. At this point, the coordination meeting is held between the various trades and solutions to these conflicts are proposed and agreed upon. In attendance are the various MEP trades as well as the assistant PM and some of the field personnel. After a revised plan has been made, Davis creates a final overlay which is forwarded to the architect and structural engineer for approval. There have been a number of areas that have presented problems for the coordination of MEP systems. One of the largest is the architecture of the buildings. The historic building layout presents problems with the desired plans of the units located in them. The locations of pipes and fixtures relative to existing floor joists and walls are somewhat less than ideal. One example is that the floor joists will probably have to be cut and an area boxed out for tub boxes to be placed beneath the bathtub drains. The layout of the new building also presents a number of problems. The architect tried to keep floor to ceiling heights as large as possible, with a bulkhead along one wall to carry all of the mechanical systems 12

17 Building Architecture to the far end of the units. The result has been a fairly tight space in which to fit a number of systems. Another problem that has arisen resulted from an assumption by the mechanical contractor that the fire protection pipes would be attached close to the underside of the slab above, allowing him enough room to design floors in the manner that he wanted to. In some instances, this assumption does not hold true. Some ductwork has to be rerouted and two 45 degree angles are used to avoid other systems instead of one 90 degree angle around the point of conflict. Locations of other systems need to be adjusted as well as areas of overlap are discovered. A final example of a coordination problem resulted from the drawings, where light fixtures were represented by a symbol instead of being drawn to scale. In the bathroom, as well as in the area around the stove in the kitchen, there is not enough room to house the lighting unit along side of the other fixtures around it. The bathroom, for example, is calling for both an exhaust fan and a light to be centrally located in the room, which has caused a problem without seeing the size of the light fixture accurately represented. A number of problems have already been identified and far fewer conflicts will arise as a result of the efforts put forth so far. The owner s insistence on these meetings has turned out to be great foresight on their part, as several of the contractors probably would have refused to participate in this process, which would have resulted in at least the conflicts listed above, costing the owner valuable time and money. Masonry Masonry is used in the form of CMUs in the building for partition walls in the basement as well as brick for an exterior finish. Brick is also used alongside the curtain wall in the front and rear elevations of the building and in areas next to the existing buildings. There is also some architectural stone used on the front portion of the tower that extends to the street. In order to place all of this material, the masonry contractor is using a variety of different scaffolding systems. Along the front of the building, they are going to build tube scaffolding due to the limited amount of work involved. On the rear of the building they decided to use hydraulic scaffolding due to a fair amount of area to be covered as well as the height that they must reach. The portion facing the Marriott Hotel will be both hydraulic and swing scaffolding. 13

18 Building Architecture Material will be passed up to the masons as they proceed up the building through the use of a material hoist. Curtain Wall The curtain wall consists of metal panels, glass windows, and aluminum framing for the mullions and headers. The mullions are mostly prefabricated to ensure quality control as well as for quick installation. For installation, embeds are placed into the slab when the deck is poured. These embeds will be used to fasten the curtain wall headers and footers. Windows will then be installed from the interior of the building. The manufacturer of the curtain wall system worked with the architect to help develop the design and then proceeded to make detailed shop drawings of the system. There was a collaborative relationship between the two entities prior to the bidding of the work. 14

19 Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Estimate Summary Cost Type Total Cost Cost / SF and Percentages Building Construction Cost $16.3 Million $ / SF D4 Parametric Estimate $14.0 Million $ / SF R.S. Means Sq. Ft. Estimate $13.9 Million $ / SF Total Project Costs $33.0 Million $ / SF Mechanical System Costs $2.73 Million $22.77 / SF Electrical System Costs $1.1 Million $9.17 / SF Structural System costs $3.8 Million $31.67 / SF General Conditions $2.24 Million 12.6% of Construction Cost Design Cost $1.8 Million 10.1% of Construction Cost Fig 3. Building Costs The actual construction cost of Ventana Condominiums is just under $16.3 million dollars, exclusive of site work. The first estimate performed for a comparison was done via the D4 parametric cost estimating software. Four buildings where used and a smart average was taken from their information. The first two buildings used were high rise residential buildings, one being 111 Jones Street Apartment Complex in San Francisco, CA. It is a 9 story, 127,000 square foot building, making it fairly comparable to Ventana at 13 stories with 1 basement level and an area of 120,000 square feet. The second is the Bachelor s Office Quarters in San Diego, CA, a 10 story, 111,000 square foot building. Both of these buildings are concrete construction, the same as Ventana, with minor differences such as exterior finishes. These buildings were the only two residential buildings that were comparable, so two hotel buildings were also used in order to get a more complete estimate. These buildings were chosen to be of similar size and construction as well, and serve a similar function. These two buildings were a 12 story Hampton Inn in Chicago and a Sheraton Inn in San Diego, CA. Both of these buildings were also concrete construction. A summary of the D4 Parametric Estimate is included in Appendix B. D4 yielded an estimate of approximately $14.0 million dollars, which was $2.3 million dollars, or 14% off of the actual cost. Some of the key areas of difference can be seen on the accompanying graph on the next page. 15

20 Existing Conditions Cost / Division $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Cost Comparison Actual Cost RS Means D4 Parametric $ CSI Division Fig 4. Estimate Comparison Concrete and masonry work on the projects differed, but the two evened each other out. Masonry turns out to be more expensive on the actual project, perhaps due to the stone work on the building as well as the sometimes large exterior areas that receive a brick finish. More is also spent on the project than is seen in the estimates in woods and plastics, due in part to the amount of wood used in the renovation of the historic buildings. Doors, windows and finishes also account for more of the difference. This is due to the upscale nature of the condominium units compare to that of the ordinary apartments to which they are being compared. Finishes have to be more expensive to meet the customer s expectations, and the windows used in the curtain wall system take up more area than traditional apartment or hotel windows. The final large difference can be seen in the mechanical system, where Ventana has a number of individual heat pumps and other equipment that leads to a higher than average cost. The second estimate that was used to compare the construction cost to was an RS Means square foot estimate, using an 8-24 story apartment building as the basis for comparison. In order to get an accurate estimate, the architect s fee was taken out of the equation, adjustments were made for perimeter and story heights, and the basement and a list of appliances was added on. To compare Means on a division by division basis to the actual project, a division number was assigned to each portion that contributed a cost to the building, with estimates being made on portions of the building that had dual 16

21 Existing Conditions makeup, such as the exterior walls and interior partitions. The data used for this estimate analysis is included in Appendix C. From this, a comparison was then made in a similar manner to that of the D4 cost software. Mechanical and electrical systems were the only two divisions with very close correlation between the actual cost and the estimate. One of the areas with the biggest differences was again finishes due to the level needed for the condominiums compared to that of an apartment. Many of the other areas of difference occurred because of the difference in percentages of the materials that make up the construction of the building, such as the masonry and metals divisions. Woods and plastics were also more expensive, due to the wood reconstruction of the historic buildings and the higher quality of woodwork needed in the units. Assemblies Estimate The assembly that was estimated was the main building s superstructure. The structure of Ventana appears to be very unique in that the sizes of the members are not represented in the Means estimating guide. In order to properly estimate the superstructure, the dimensions had to be plugged in to the general systems equation found at the beginning of the estimate section. One example of the poor correlation was that the grade beams in the building were often larger than typical grade beams due to the substandard soil on site. This condition resulted in greater beam depths than those that could be estimated directly from Means. For those values, one dimension was often close enough to interpolate up from, making the assumption that the relationship was nearly linear. Underpinnings were also assumed to be similar in cost and construction to the grade beams and were estimated accordingly. Another estimating difficulty resulted from the wide range of column sizes, with most of them being rectangular. Means only provides data for square columns. As a result, actual dimensions were inserted into the formula at the beginning of the section in Means while making assumptions for the proportionality of rebar reinforcement. The other assumptions were that the costs remained fairly linear and that changing from a square to a rectangle had little effect on unit costs. The final challenging area resulted from the design of the building floor slabs. The slabs themselves are two way flat plates, but there are some beams along the walls and the elevator shaft. This system was estimated as two separate systems, the flat plate and then separate 17

22 Existing Conditions beams. There is probably some overlap in cost based on this method. Pile caps, piles, and stairways were more straightforward and corresponded more closely with Means values. A summary of information gathered to complete the assemblies estimate is available in Appendix D. Because of all of the reasons listed above, as well as the inherent degree of error involved with the assemblies estimate, it was expected that the value would be off by around 10-15%. It is hard to gauge the exact amount that the estimate is off, since the actual building estimate was done to correspond to follow CSI Masterformat and the assemblies estimate follows the Uniformat system. For comparison, the assumption has been made that the concrete cost used in the estimate added to the cost for the piles will result in the budgeted superstructure cost. Using this assumption, the actual budgeted amount is $3.3 Million. The amount arrived upon through the Means assemblies estimate was somewhat lower, topping out at $2,647,488. The difference between the two is almost 20%. The result of the estimate shows how difficult it is to accurately estimate a project based on its assemblies, especially when the project is unique in its design. If the interior systems of the project had been estimated as well, they too would have come in far under the actual number because of Means inability to account for the high end finishes being used in the building. While an assemblies estimate gives a ballpark idea of what their costs are going to be, the actual construction cost may be much higher. Detailed Superstructure Estimate The estimate for the building s superstructure is similar with to the assemblies estimate made by Means in that it is significantly lower than the actual cost. The assemblies estimate was 20% low and the detailed estimate comes in about 16% low. While closer to the actual number, it still falls beyond the typical error for detailed estimates. The budgeted numbers by the GC are done by Masterformat, so there is not an exact number or the superstructure. Combining the cost of the piles, concrete, and portions of the miscellaneous metals, however, it can be assumed that the budgeted number falls around $3.5 Million dollars. The number obtained from the estimate from means is only $2.9 Million dollars. A detailed account of how this estimate was reached is available in Appendix E. 18

23 Existing Conditions Since both of the estimates are fairly far removed from the actual building cost but are similar, one can assume that the building cannot be properly estimated using Means. One possible reason for the expense of the building can be attributed to higher cost of materials of late, especially rebar and concrete. The estimating manual that was used was an older addition, requiring an adjustment due to the increased cost of construction between the years. This index may not quite account for the whole difference in cost. Other reasons may stem from the congested nature of the project, resulting in an increased time to take deliveries and place the concrete. There is very little room to stage forms and to assemble rebar, resulting in slower production and corresponding higher labor costs. Some of the additional cost may also be attributed to the concrete sub s insurance, which may be higher than normal due to the liability involved with the potential damaging of neighboring buildings. Finally, there is the chance that human error was present in the calculation of both estimates in the form of miscounting or invalid assumptions. For the detailed estimate, several assumptions were made. First, floor slabs on even numbered levels between 4 and 10 were assumed to be identical as were even floors between 5 and 11. While almost the same, the varied somewhat in the amount of rebar they carried as well as minor variations on portions of the slab itself. There is also an increased cost the higher off the ground the floors get, which is difficult to accurately account for. Another assumption that was made was to allow 5% extra for rebar waste and overlap. The actual number estimated may not be similar to this. Further, interpolations were made for the HSS posts and beams used in the building due to a minimal amount of Means data on these items. Reshoring was assumed for 4 floors at a time, and the combined area of the 4 largest floors was used to calculate their cost. Smaller items such as embeds were also not taken into account due to a lack of information, which may add up to a significant amount. Finally, there is always the possibility of a measurement or counting error, where it is more likely that an item is missed altogether rather than counted twice. General Conditions Estimate Through Means, the general conditions of this project were estimated to be just under $2.3 Million dollars. The detailed estimate is shown in Appendix F. This amounts to almost 13.0% of the cost of building construction, which is higher than average. The cost of the general 19

24 Existing Conditions conditions that was estimated by the CM is very similar, however, at $2.24 Million dollars. One of the possible reasons that the percentage seems high may be that several million dollars have been value engineered out of the building, resulting in a deceptively high percentage in comparison to the potential value of the building. Errors in the estimate will stem mainly from unfamiliarity with the exact project necessities. Some assumptions had to be made during the estimating process which may not have been entirely accurate. The first major assumption that was made involves the salaries of employees that are not listed in Means, such as a carpenter, senior project manager, and the project executive. The amount of time that these individuals spent on the project was also assumed based on conversations with the PM. Another set of assumptions that were used were that the average value was taken when a range was given for items such as temporary heat, light, and power as no exceptional requirements were made for any of these areas. Temporary heat was assumed to be used on 2 floors at a time during the months of November thru February based on the needs of pouring concrete during that time as well as keeping workers warm and productive. Finally, the CM fee and the payment and performance bonds were taken to be the minimum of the numbers given by Means due to the ongoing relationship between the owner and CM. Items such as bonds and insurance, as well as the commissioning and final cleaning of the project, could have a large impact on the general conditions cost since they are listed as a percentage of the total project cost with a range given. Cleaning and commissioning were taken as the average values of the range given, leaving room for error either way. Summary Schedule The design length of this project is extremely long, dating back to early in 2001, with some design issues still being worked out. This is due to a redesign from apartments to condominiums as well as several down turns in the market, coupled with other design changes due to budget overruns. The construction manager was brought in early in the design process, but separated from the design when the project changed from apartments to condominiums. They then became part of the process again to offer preconstruction services, especially relating to the historic buildings and the selective demolition process. The overall length of the construction portion of the schedule ranges 20

25 Existing Conditions from March 2004 October 2005, with early completion being ideal. A summary schedule has been included in Appendix H for reference. Cash Flow Being aware of the cash flow of a project is useful for both the general contractor and the owner. The owner wishes to know the amount that he will be billed every month and make provisions to come up with that amount of funding. For the GC, the difference between the amount of work done on the project and the amount that they have successfully billed for has to be financed by them. As a result, the GC needs to have sufficient resources to cover this gap. The graph below charts the payments made to the contractor each month by the owner. Payments peak in March of 2005, where the owner will pay over $2 million dollars Owner Payment by Month Payment (Dollars) Owner Payment 0 Feb-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Feb-05 Month Apr-05 Jun-05 Aug-05 Oct-05 Fig 5. Owner Payment by Month A side by side comparison of the cumulative amounts of cash paid out by the GC and the owner shows both the disparity that must be funded by the contractor as well as the overall rate at which money is being spent throughout the project. The project is most cost intensive beginning early in 2005 and lasting through April or May, where it begins to level off. 21

26 Existing Conditions Dollars $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Oct-03 Cumulative Cash Flow Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04 Nov-04 Month Feb-05 May-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 GC Cumulative Owner Cumulative Fig 6. Cumulative Cash Flow Comparison The general contractor begins running a cash deficit immediately by being in the position of paying for construction and waiting for the billing cycle to end before they can be reimbursed. At its peak in February of 2005, the GC has spent over $1.7 million dollars more than they have been reimbursed for. A source must be found to fund this difference, which has to be accounted for prior to taking the project on. The amount of interest paid on any money borrowed also has to be factored in against the profit made on the project. A monthly breakdown of the GC s deficit or profit is shown on the next page. The time value and cost of borrowed money means that all project members have to be aware of how much money they will need to have available at any given time. Without sufficient resources, subcontractors or the GC may go bankrupt or the owner may be unable to make payments to the project members, resulting in lost time or a failed project. 22

27 Existing Conditions $1,000,000 GC Cash Flow By Month Cash Deficit (Surplus) $500,000 $0 -$500,000 -$1,000,000 -$1,500,000 Feb-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Feb-05 Apr-05 Jun-05 Aug-05 Oct-05 GC Cash -$2,000,000 Month Fig 7. General Contractor Cash Flow by Month 23

28 Owner Perception of CM Owner s Perception of Construction Managers Executive Summary of Analysis The purpose of this analysis is to determine owner s current perceptions of construction managers and the value that they bring to a project. Of particular interest are their impressions of when a construction manager should be brought onto a project team and the effect of bringing a CM aboard early during the design phase. Two questionnaires were sent to owners in order to gain some insight into various owners beliefs about CM s involvement and value on projects. The first was a general questionnaire aimed at determining what overall perceptions are and to determine areas of perceived strengths and weaknesses in the CM delivery method. The second questionnaire was project specific and sought to sample a number of projects and determine the realized benefits or deficiencies resulting from using or choosing not to utilize a CM on projects. An attempt was also made to determine different variables that affect a CM s performance on project. The volume of responses was disappointing, but yielded some valuable and useful information. Most owners already believe that the ideal time to bring a CM onto a project team is during design or as soon as possible, yet there are many negative perceptions about CMs that prevent a CM from being used at all on many projects, or in the case of Ventana, being utilized to their ability. A lot of these perceptions involve instances where the construction manager does not buy into the team philosophy. There are also many owners that will only use a CM on a project that is complicated, regardless of whether or not they believe that time or cost savings could be achieved by utilizing this delivery method. On Ventana, a great deal of time and effort was spent value engineering the building, resulting in great cost to the owner. Had Davis been utilized differently in their role as CM, the negative impact of the redesign of the building could have been minimized. Davis was brought on during conceptual design and was able to make cost related decisions that affected design early, but were separated from the design process during the program switch from apartments to condominiums. Much of the time spent value engineering was on finishes and appliances added by the architect during this time. Therefore, it is not only important to utilize a CM s services early, but throughout the entire design process. Owner s perceptions need to be understood and perhaps changed in order to prevent such situations. 24

29 Owner Perception of CM Overview If brought onto a project early, construction managers have the ability to control budgetary decisions, enhance building constructability, and help owners realize their goals by helping balance budget, schedule, and expectations. The Construction Manager is therefore in a unique position to level the needs and wants of the architect, owner, and the contractor, yet many do not know how their client s value the contributions that they can make to a project. By understanding what owner s perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of the CM delivery method, construction managers can better market themselves as well as better serve their clients. Ventana provides an interesting case study to determine potential value added by a construction manager because of the amount of time and money lost redesigning and value engineering the building. As the CM on the project, Davis had a chance to help prevent this situation, but was separated from the design process when it was most important for cost control. This situation raises some important questions about how owners view construction managers, when they feel it is best to utilize them, and what value they believe CMs bring to a project. Two questionnaires were developed to try to determine owner s current perceptions along these lines and can be seen in Appendix G. The first questionnaire is designed to determine the general impression held of CMs, such as their impact on time, cost, and quality, as well as the biggest advantages and disadvantages of using them. From this, a general understanding of expectations can be seen, and potential areas for improvement, whether in image, practice, or both can be evaluated. The second questionnaire is project specific and seeks to find realized results of completed projects, some which utilized a CM and some that did not. Comparing these projects against one another and against average projects show areas where CMs perform and those where they do not, at least in the eyes of the owner. Ventana Case Study The CMs involvement on Ventana is unique in several respects. First, Davis is both the CM and the GC. This puts Davis in a more sympathetic position than most construction managers are in and creates one less potentially adversarial relationship between parties on the project. Secondly, Davis has a previously existing relationship 25

30 Owner Perception of CM with the owner. The owner should already have an expectation of what their CM can do for them and be able to utilize them accordingly. A number of situations kept this from being the case, however. Davis was brought on early during conceptual design and was able to make decisions that affected design, such as adding a deep foundation system for the parking garage. The separation on this project occurred afterwards, however, when the project shifted from apartments to condominiums. The architect knew that the building would now be a high end condominium and designed it as such, but the owner could not afford the drawings at the time. Davis was then brought back into the design process by value engineering the building after the drawings were completed. The results were a drastic delay in the start of construction. The building would have been completed 6 or 7 months ahead of its current schedule for approximately the same cost had the design been affordable in its initial conception. This delay ended up costing the developer hundreds of thousands of dollars, taking into account the cost of material increases as well as the cost of borrowed money and their operation costs. The delay in beginning construction was exclusively because the owner did not have the funding to build the project as designed. Had Davis been able to monitor the owner s expectations and budget against the design, this situation could have been avoided, resulting in large time and cost savings. Among other things, the questionnaires in this analysis seek to determine whether situations such as that found on Ventana are isolated incidences or a result of owner s perceptions of the use and value of construction managers. Owner s Perception Questionnaire The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine owner s current perceptions of construction managers and the value that they can bring to a project. From this, a better understanding of perceived strengths and weaknesses can be seen, enabling CMs to evaluate themselves in certain areas where they may be viewed as weak and to better market their strengths. Questionnaires were distributed through Davis to owners that they have worked with as well as to other random owners suggested by various industry professionals. Though many were sent, only 11 responses were returned. The data gathered is not strong in a 26

31 Owner Perception of CM statistical sense, but can be powerful in showing overall trends and certain perceptions of construction managers. The first question was designed to see if the owner had ever worked with a construction manager on a project, and the answer was without exception yes. Several responses were sought from industry professionals who had not worked with construction managers in order to determine why that was the case and what their perceptions were, but none were found. While another perspective would have been interesting, this does show that the construction manager has worked its way into many levels of construction and will be given a chance to prove its worth to much of the construction industry. The next question asked what the owners believed was the ideal time to bring a construction manager onto a project. All but one said as early as possible during the design process. This shows that when their services are deemed necessary or valuable, construction managers will most likely be brought on to the project early, which often works out for the benefit of the project. With so many owners leaning in this direction, it should be easier to convince those who do not believe that adding a CM early is the better way to manage a project. The question then becomes on what type of projects do owners want to use construction managers and for what means? Another important item to note that as was the case with Ventana, early involvement doesn t necessarily mean constant involvement. The issue for CMs does not appear to be convincing owners about their value early, but rather their constant value throughout the design process. The next group of questions sought to find what owners believed was the effect that bringing a CM onto a project early during the design phase would have on the project s cost, quality, and schedule. All respondents believed that the cost of the project would lessen or stay the same, with many believing that significant cost savings could be achieved. The responses for schedule were similar but with one respondent believing that the schedule would be lengthened, seemingly based on possible divisiveness and inserting conflicting points of view based on later responses. Bad experiences on CM projects seemed to play a large role in some of the negative responses offered by the owners. Owners believe that quality will more or less not be influenced whether or not a CM is on the project, with some believing that it will be enhanced and some worried that the CM will not understand the design intent and reduce the quality through cost cutting measures. 27

32 Owner Perception of CM Overall, most owners believed that they could achieve cost and time savings by bringing a construction manager onto a project early. There are still some respondents that believed that there would be little or no affect, however, which would lead one to believe that they would not use a construction manager as they would not see any benefit. CMs with a good track record would be able to point to past accomplishments in such instances and show where they were able to save time and money on past projects and be able to sell their services. On Ventana, Davis was able to do this as evidenced by their repeat business with the owner. Unfortunately, this also shows that bringing a CM on early is no guarantee of success in any of these areas, even if the problems are not the CM s fault. When asked when they would use a construction manager on a project, 3 owners said always and one said never. The other 7 had different criteria, with most agreeing that they would use one if the project was complicated, and some responding that they would if they could save time, cost, enhance the project s quality, or achieve all of these. The data that is most interesting here is that a potential cost or time savings doesn t necessarily mean that an owner will hire a construction manager; rather it hinges more upon the complexity of the project. While cost and time have some importance, overall complexity seems to have more weight. One respondent even wrote that their value is lost in small or uncomplicated projects. This corresponds well with the owners responses when asked what they believe the biggest advantages and disadvantages of construction managers were. The biggest disadvantage that was reported was that the construction manager tends to be divisive, pitting other project members against each other such as the owner and architect. If the value of a CM is in easing the complexity of a project and smoothing the whole construction process, then it makes sense that they need to be good team players and be able to balance the needs of the owner, architect, and contractor. If the most important reason that CMs were used on a project were cost or schedule items, then teamwork would be more of a secondary concern. Other related weaknesses of construction managers that were offered are that they can actually be an impediment to decision making and can create their own problems and issues. Many agreed that the construction manager needs to work for and with the owner and have an interest in the project and its goals, not just their own bottom line. The rest of the disadvantages seemed to stem from bad experiences and mainly revolved around the idea that they are overpaid and 28

33 Owner Perception of CM overvalued. Perceptions such as these can prove to be hard to overcome as they are based on past observed problems where a few experiences are construed to be representative of the failures of the construction management trade in general. Perhaps only by working with these individuals on a successfully run, construction manager led project where teamwork is shown to be important and cost or time savings are realized will these owners begin to rethink their position. When asked about their overall impressions of construction managers, several responses differentiated between good CMs and bad ones, saying that the good would smooth the construction process whereas the bad were actually a hindrance to it. Most owners make the distinction, but a few are turned off to construction managers in most instances for some of the reasons listed above. By demonstrating concerns for the owner, the design, and highlighting previous accomplishments, good construction managers can separate themselves from those who owners are wary of and begin to earn respect and trust for themselves and the profession in general. The biggest stated advantage of the construction manager is that they can manage client s expectations. CMs need to be able to show the owner that they have their best interests in mind and can deliver the proper combination of quality, cost, and schedule that will return the best results for the owner. Part of managing the owner s expectations is helping to manage the architect and balance the needs of all project members. On Ventana, the CM was unable to fully perform this role as evidenced by their absence from most of the design process. If brought onto a project, the construction manager needs to be able to have the proper level of authority and involvement to make decisions. Otherwise, it is not hard to see how some owners can believe that construction managers are overpaid and undervalued. Other areas of perceived strength are the ability to realize time and cost savings through cost monitoring, as well as identifying problem areas and presenting alternatives. Overall, owners have a fairly polarized view of construction managers. It seems that many either enjoy working with them a great deal or hope to avoid them at all costs based on prior experience. The key for many owners is that the construction manager needs to be a team player and work for the benefit of the project and not just themselves, which could become a good selling point for construction managers who are able to demonstrate such a commitment. The other important factor for CMs is to show how exactly they will smooth the operations of potentially complicated projects for the owner, since 29

34 Owner Perception of CM much of their perceived value is in this area. Finally, many owners know inherently that construction managers should be brought onto a project during design, but as seen with Ventana, they need to show that they need to have continuous input throughout the design process while taking into account the needs of all project members. If these factors are all taken into account, construction managers should be able to sell their services as valuable to owners on many projects. Project Specific Questionnaire The project specific questionnaire was designed to show realized results both from projects with a CM on board and those without. A scale was developed so that reported values could both be compared to the owner s idea of an average project and also to one another. From this, areas where construction managers were successful in practice and those where they may have not been as efficient can be seen. Variables that affect the performance of a construction manager on a project were also sought. A total of 12 project responses were received, 8 where a CM was used and 4 where one was not. Again, for statistic purposes, this number of responses does not make a compelling enough argument to present as persuasive material or as representative of all projects, but it does provide for an interesting comparison in some key areas. In practice as in their ideal responses, construction managers were brought onto projects early during the design phase in all but one instance. This reinforces the idea that owners already see the value that construction managers can bring to a project early on if and when they decide to use them. The challenge for the construction manager then is to show that their services are of value. The other questions in the questionnaire were designed to see in which areas they bring value to a project as perceived by the owner. Design and redesign efficiency was the first area where construction managers showed value. Half of the respondents said that the process was more efficient than average and only one said that it was less efficient, and that was the project where the CM was not brought on in the beginning. When compared with projects without a CM, there is an obvious distinction in favor of projects in which a construction manager is used. A more efficient design process can lead to a faster overall project and lead to cost savings for the owner. The next question asked sought to determine the nature of design changes that the owners had to incur. Both types of projects were 30

35 Owner Perception of CM similar, with half of the projects needing drastic or unwanted changes and half where changes were minimal. In this survey, it made very little difference whether there was a CM on the project as to the severity of design changes necessary. When this question is tied into the question on budget, another area of value is noticed. When asked how closely the project came into budget, projects with construction managers came in almost exactly on budget on average, whereas those without were over 3 of 4 times. This shows that whether or not a construction manager is on the project, sometimes unwanted changes will need to be made, but with a CM there is a better chance that the project will end up on budget as a result of these changes. This pair of questions shows that the CM does not always make drastic changes to the building, but when they do there is often a budgetary reason that makes it necessary. Budget is the area where CM projects did the best when compared against the non- CM projects. The next two questions sought to determine any effect on schedule, namely the overall project delivery speed and the speed of construction. Surprisingly, projects without a construction manager did better than average here as well as better than CM projects. 6 of the 8 projects had a slower than average overall project delivery speed when administered with a CM delivery method compared with none from the non CM group. The construction speed was somewhat better in comparison for CM projects, but with slightly more respondents reporting that it took longer than average to complete. It is hard to determine where the time loss occurs, since the design was reported to be efficient, the construction was about average, and in a later question turnover was reported to be better than average. From the data gathered, construction managers appear to provide for time savings in several key areas. Overall, however, owners did not see the cumulative effect of these benefits on their project. This is one area where perceptions may be different from the reality of the situation, or one where a bad sample of projects was taken. The next several questions turned up results that showed better than average ratings for both delivery methods, with the non-cm projects edging those with construction managers on them. These included the quality of the turnover of the building, the building s performance with respect to expectations, and the overall satisfaction with the building. Building maintenance costs with respect to expectations showed about average values for both delivery methods with a slightly better result for projects with construction managers. At best, it appears that 31

36 Owner Perception of CM adding a construction manager has little benefit when it comes to these quality related issues. This matches the beliefs that the owners set forth in the first questionnaire. The final two questions asked the difficulty of the owner s role on the project and the severity of construction errors or disputes on the projects. Here, there was a clear advantage for projects with construction managers on them. The difficulty of the owner s role was eased a great deal with 6 of 8 respondents saying that their role was smoother than normal compared with an average rating for those on non-cm projects. There were also noticeably fewer construction errors or disputes on projects where a CM was used than those without. Since projects where construction managers are not used are supposed to be the less complicated projects, this says volumes for the abilities of some construction managers to handle their biggest perceived duties like managing the owner s expectations and helping ease project complexity. One interesting variable that seemed to have an affect on the success of the CM projects was that a cost plus fee contract seemed to yield results that did not meet expectations while those projects that used a lump sum contract were able to exceed expectations. Without exception the projects where a lump sum arrangement was used yielded better results than those that did not. While the sampling is small, it may say something about how the level of risk that the construction manager takes relates to their performance on the project, or how different relationships affect perceptions. If the owner has to monitor the costs incurred by the CM constantly, the difficulty of their role increases, money becomes more of a concern, and a more antagonistic relationship can develop. Conclusion In order to better serve their clients, construction managers need to understand the perceptions owners have of them and the value that they can add to a project. Fortunately, many already practice bringing CMs onto projects early during the design phase when they are used. Knowing under which circumstances owners are willing to use construction managers then becomes the key. Most owners believe that there is a cost and schedule benefit to using a construction manager in certain situations. Some believe that there is always room for a construction manager on a project while others believe that they should only be used if the project is complex, and some believe they 32

37 Owner Perception of CM are valuable if some combination of time or cost savings and improved quality can be achieved. The most important factor for construction managers to avoid the negative connotations is to establish themselves as a team player and demonstrate their ability to manage the owner s expectations. They also need to show that they can take some of the burden of a potentially complicated project off of the shoulders of the owner and make the whole process run more smoothly. If they are able to do these things, then they will be able to gain the trust and respect of other project members and will be able to run a more effective project. The biggest tangible benefit provided by a construction manager is the budget control that they exercise on the project. Other areas that they prove to be proficient in are aiding in the efficiency of design and redesign, removing the burden of the project from the shoulders of the owner, and lessening the amount of construction disputes and errors. To convince many owners, construction managers have to market and prove themselves in these areas. Those that are committed to teamwork and helping their client and the project should succeed. 33

38 LEED Analysis Breadth Analysis I. LEED Analysis Executive Summary of Analysis Since most of the building s materials have been value engineered to save costs, other areas where value may be added to the building have to be analyzed. The purpose of this analysis is to determine compliance with the LEED rating system for green buildings. A LEED rating would increase the value of the building and make it more marketable. This is accomplished through means such as improving the efficiency of the buildings mechanical and water systems which results in lower monthly bills for the residents. Improvements in air quality and overall comfort will also appeal to potential residents. Finally, an increasing percentage of the population is becoming environmentally conscious, and a more sustainable building may be desired for its responsible design. The building was first analyzed to determine its current level of sustainability, which fell well short of LEED certification. Main areas of deficiency are in the energy and atmosphere category, as the building barely meets code with its current design. Potential areas for improved design were analyzed, along with their initial and life cycle cost implications. Without drastic changes in the building s design or cost, the building can easily achieve certification and even a silver rating. 34

39 LEED Analysis Overview The LEED certification system was designed to measure the degree of a building s sustainability. A more sustainable building can be attractive to potential owners for several reasons. The first is that improved efficiency in the building s systems can lead to lower utility costs for the residents of the condominium. Improvements in air quality and building comfort will also appeal to buyers. Finally, an environmentally conscious public may be swayed by the building s responsible design. The project was analyzed in each of the six main LEED design categories and areas for improvement were researched along with their potential initial and life cycle cost implications. A point by point summary of the building s compliance can be seen in Appendix J. Sustainable Sites This is the category in which the building is currently the most compliant with LEED standards. An erosion and sedimentation control plan is already in place in the building s set of civil drawings, meeting the prerequisite. The project s site is the first area where points are gained. Located in downtown Washington, D.C., the site selection is good for a green building, gaining credit for site selection, development density, and its easy access to alternative transportation. Another point can be gained if a bicycle rack is added to the garage. Adding a rack will allow the residents to keep a bicycle on site and not have to find room in their unit to keep it, and will provide them with an alternative means of transportation to reduce traffic and fuel costs, should they decide to use it. Two bicycle racks with sufficient capacity can be placed near the elevator in the parking garage, resulting in an extra cost of approximately $1200. The building also gains two points for it s built in storm water management system. A tank is located in the basement with sufficient capacity to reduce discharge to predevelopment levels, and it contains a filter to treat the rainwater that passes through. This helps control water levels and reduces the building s effect on the surrounding environment. Ventana currently meets the requirement for reducing the effects of a heat island on areas outside of its roof. All of the building s parking spaces are underground and the concrete pavers used on the site have a reflectance of around 55%, which is greater than that required. The 35

40 LEED Analysis roofing manufacturer named in the specifications also makes an energy star compliant roof with a high reflectance and emissivity that can be installed in lieu of a regular roof. Although there are condensing units on the roof, 80% of the roof s surface is still available for this application, exceeding the required amount. Using a highly reflective roof will minimize heat gain through the roof and help to lower the building s extremely high cooling demand and related energy costs, as well as aid in minimizing the heat trapping effect which raises the temperature in densely populated areas. Finally, the building gets a point for minimizing light pollution. There are no exterior lights or signage that project light off of the site and track lighting is used near exterior walls in the units. The result is a building that fits into the community that it is built in and is not an eyesore for its neighbors due to glare from its lighting system. Water Efficiency The building s current design does not allow for any points in this category. The building s footprint takes up the entire site, so it does not qualify for water efficiency points in relation to landscaping. Two points can be gained however, in the reduction of water use in the building. Sloan produces a product called Flushmate which provides a pressure assist flush and reduces the consumption needs of the typical toilet from 1.6 gallons per flush down to 1.0 gpf. These are not compatible with all specified toilets, but are with at least 16 brands. The architect should be able to find a suitable toilet to fit their needs in which the Flushmate can be installed. The typical unit runs for almost $100 at stores such as Home Depot, but could probably be purchased for less money, especially in bulk. The initial cost of installing these pieces of equipment is approximately $11,000 for the whole building. Reduction from life cycle costs associated with a lower water bill help eliminate this initial cost with a return on investment period of less than one year, as will be discussed later. Low flow shower and faucet heads are also available. Shower heads come both with and without aerators. Those with aerators maintain pressure, but cause a temperature drop between the water at discharge and the temperature by the time the water hits the base of the shower due to the introduction of air into the water. Those without an aerator maintain temperature and sufficient pressure, but the pressure fluctuates and causes a massaging showerhead affect. 36

41 LEED Analysis The non aerating shower head may be the better choice and would not cost any additional money over the showerheads specified, but may reduce options available to the architect and slightly minimize perceived quality. This change would reduce the water flow from 2.5 gpm down to 1.5 gpm. Similarly, faucets are available with aerators that can reduce the flow from the specified 2.2 gpm down to 1.5 gpm. There are a number of faucets available for a cost and quality similar to that of those specified. The results of these water saving measures can be seen in a life cycle cost analysis of the systems. For the analysis, a 4.8 minute shower time per person, 4 minutes of faucet time per day, and 4 flushes per day are assumed. Occupancy of each condominium is also assumed to be two people. From the published value of the cost of water from the DC Water and Sewer Authority of $34.33 / 1000 gallons, there is a potential savings of $43.94 per day for the entire building. For a typical unit, a savings of $20.88/month is realized. Over a 15 year period, the savings for the building is $229,540 taking into account the initial costs incurred. For the minimal initial cost and the amount of work involved finding suitable fixtures to meet quality standards, it is certainly worth making the change to more efficient fixtures. A breakdown of cost savings can be seen in Figure 8 below. Water Savings Toilets Showers Faucets Gallons (Initial Design) Gallons Used (Redesign) Savings / Use Uses / day Gallon Savings / Day Cost of Water and Sewage ($/gal) Cost Savings / Year (Dollars) Total Cost Savings / Year Return on Investment Period (days) 251 Figure 8. Savings by Changing to Low Flow Water Fixtures Energy & Atmosphere As designed, Ventana meets the prerequisites for this category as well as the credit for not using a HCFC refrigerant, but nothing else. Without realizing energy savings on the building, the LEED rating loses much of its meaning. Currently, the building is designed to meet but not exceed code. Calculations were performed by the mechanical engineer to determine code compliance with ASHRAE and 37

42 LEED Analysis showed that the building performs reasonably well during the heating season but exceeds cooling load amounts. The result, when the two seasons are added together, is a building that exceeds code requirements by approximately 3%, falling well short of LEED goals. The equipment chosen for the building is also designed to meet but not exceed standards. Heat pumps have the bare minimum Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio of 10 and baseboards in the units are electric resistance units, which are inefficient uses of energy. Improving the building s energy efficiency can become a costly task. Using equest energy modeling software, the baseline requirements for the building were calculated. From there, the building s design features were calculated and compared to the building baseline. Individual substitutions were then made to determine the effect of changing different building systems. After determining changes that would have an effect on the building, the cost of making the change was determined and a life cycle cost of the change was ascertained. Results of this analysis are included in Figure 9 below. Energy Payback Cost / Savings % Additional Period Energy Savings Year / Year Savings Cost (Years) Baseline $125,500 As designed $120,491 $5, % $0 With 2 EIFS, water credits $117,617 $7, % -$92,850 N/A Hot water baseboards $124,189 $1, % $252, More efficient HVAC system $120,142 $5, % $83, Additional 2" EIFS $124,645 $ % $8, Tint Windows $123,795 $1, % $36, Triple Pane $123,473 $2, % $153, Heat Recovery System $124,260 $3, % $27, Total Possible $26, % Figure 9. Energy Savings Benefits and Costs The largest savings seen are realized through other changes made for LEED. Minimizing water consumption by changing to low flow fixtures nearly cuts the water heating load in half, resulting in large savings in the gas heat used. Changing the exterior façade from brick veneer to EIFS also helps insulate the building and is analyzed in the second breadth analysis. Substituting the heat pumps with a SEER of 10 with those that have an average SEER of 16 through Carrier further reduces energy consumption in the building, but at an additional cost. This initial cost is offset by the savings realized by changing from a brick to an EIFS system and by life cycle energy savings, although the payback is not as quick as most owners would like. 38

43 LEED Analysis By adding a heat recovery system to minimize the loss of energy due to ventilation, further energy savings can be realized. With a modest payback period, the heat recovery system will recycle some of the buildings energy that is usually lost and also improve building air quality. Some of the other changes that can be made include changing the windows from double pane, low-e windows to triple pane or tinted windows. The existing windows are fairly efficient, however, and only modest energy gains can be realized through changing the current system, with very long payback periods. A change can also be made from the current system of electric baseboards to a hot water system. The building already shares a hot water tank and would split the bill associated with its use, so the problem of metering the utilities individually is not changed. The payback period, however, is very long and the extra initial cost makes the change almost impossible given the project s early financial problems. By using EIFS instead of brick, upgrading the efficiency of HVAC components, and adding the heat recovery system, an energy savings of $22,205 can be realized over the calculated baseline cost of the building. This results in a 17.69% energy savings and one point towards LEED. An additional credit can be obtained by making all of the changes listed above, but are cost prohibitive and the benefits realized are minimal. With the EIFS value engineering switch, the total cost off all of these changes is an additional $25,772, meaning that the payback period for the whole system of changes is just over one year. A final point can be obtained by ensuring that the 3 rd party that the owner hired to help commission the building s systems is involved during the building s design process to help smooth the commissioning process. By monitoring the design and submittals, the designed system efficiency can be achieved, resulting in better overall system performance in the building. Materials & Resources This category is an area for good potential gains on the project if material selection and use is monitored by the contractor. The benefits gained by achieving the guidelines set forth here are environmental in nature and do little to increase the value of the building itself, but are part of being a good member of the community. There is also no additional cost for changing to more environmentally 39

44 LEED Analysis friendly materials and methods other than perhaps the time and effort spent tracking down the materials and ensuring that the goals are met during construction. The building meets the prerequisite by having a recycling room located next to the elevator entrance in the basement, making it convenient for the occupant to take them out on the way to their vehicle. For two points, a construction waste management plan can be put in place to divert at least 75% of building waste from the landfill. In order to achieve this, the CM needs to develop recycling goals and have a number of containers on site to sort the various building materials. Enough of the materials used are recyclable to make these credits possible, but the CM needs to keep the subcontractors motivated to sort the materials. Placing different trash chutes on the floors of the building as it expands upward can help make it easier and offering some incentives if recycling goals are met can help increase chances that goals will be met. Recycling materials would result in some extra cost and space requirements due to the number of separate recycling bins necessary to hold the different materials, but charges to dump the materials into the landfill would be reduced resulting in possible overall cost savings. Using materials with recycled content is also a possibility on this project. From the budgeted costs of the building, the dollar value of recycled materials was calculated and can be at least 11.4% of the materials used in the building. The biggest item on the list is gypsum board made with 100% recycled content, of which 4% is from postconsumer sources. With the amount of gypsum board used on the project, this amount adds up quickly. Other materials that were used that contain recycled content are steel studs, reinforcing steel for concrete, paint, carpet, and insulation. In order to achieve these credits, the architect would have to specify their use and suppliers or manufacturers that carry materials with recycled content. All of the products used in the calculations were found on the California Integrated Waste Management Database website and appear to be readily available, but some would require a change of specified manufacturer and perhaps a slight change in cost due to location or the source itself. A point is already available in this category for locally manufactured materials. By being careful about which manufacturer is used from the specifications when given an option, almost 25% of the materials come from a regional source. In some instances, this eliminates 40

45 LEED Analysis certain manufacturers from consideration and may not result in the most cost effective material to be chosen. Resulting costs from different manufacturers would have to be weighed to determine the best combination of products to achieve the regional materials goal and keep any extra costs to a minimum. The final point that can be gained in this category is through the use of certified wood. Structural members, sheathing, formwork, and solid white oak flooring are all available from manufacturers either in Maryland or Virginia for use on the project that have been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. This results in a wood usage for the building of which over 75% is certified, far exceeding the criteria established. Indoor Environmental Quality In order to meet the prerequisites for this category, the building needs to be designated as a smoke free building. There is legal precedence for doing this, as condominium associations are capable of enforcing this regulation. As part of the signed contract, there needs to be a provision requiring that there will be no smoking whatsoever in the building. There are both pros and cons of doing this. The negative is that by doing this, the potential market of buyers is reduced by between 20 and 25 percent, based on the portion of the adult population that smokes. The marketability may increase among the nonsmoking population, however, if they know that they will not have to smell their neighbors smoke. There are several buildings that have already successfully done this, as well as a number of owner s associations that are making a push for smoke free condominiums. Existing points in the building start with the choice of carpet. Shaw Contract, who is the specified carpet manufacturer, makes a number of carpets that comply with the low-emittance standards put forth by the Carpet and Rug Institute. In fact, they have the most brands of any carpet manufacturer listed. Using materials such as this reduce harmful odors shortly after building start up and help the general well being of the occupants. Other low emitting materials can be specified by the architect for additional reduction of gasses. Concerning adhesives and sealants, OSI s Proseries line of products is readily available and has a drywall and subfloor adhesive that meets requirements. Titebond is another popular product that produces a compliant multipurpose adhesive, as 41

46 LEED Analysis does ACE Hardware for a multipurpose flooring adhesive. DAP also makes a number of adhesives and sealants that are VOC compliant. Duron is specified for interior paints and produces a line of paints that contain no volatile organic compounds. The choice of exterior paint would have to be changed from Valspar, which is not compliant, to something like a VOC compliant Sherwin Williams brand, which is listed as an acceptable manufacturer in the specifications. Composite woods are also available from locations such as Panel Source, which has medium density fiberboard (MDF), plywood, and particleboard panels which do not contain urea-formaldehyde resins and also contain recycled materials towards materials and resources credits. These products are not available everywhere and would take coordination and communication between the architect, CM, and subcontractor to make sure quality, compliant products were bought and used. A combination of these various products will minimize the harmful effects of off-gassing by new building materials often seen after a building becomes operational, such as occupant discomfort or sickness. Another area where the building has existing points in this category is in daylighting and views. The condominium units have two story windows that allow a sufficient amount of light to reach every room in the unit except bathrooms and closets. The open two story floor plan allows a straight line of site to the glazing from almost everywhere in the units. Sufficient daylighting minimizes daytime use of electricity and gives the occupant a sense of connection with the exterior environment. Conclusion With careful selection of building materials as well as minor changes in some of the building s systems, a silver LEED rating can be achieved on Ventana. The result is a more energy efficient, environmentally friendly building that will appeal to potential condominium owners. In order to achieve these results, the architect and CM need to work together to develop and monitor building performance goals and materials used during construction. The owner will also need to be part of the collaborative effort on the project and needs to be willing to make a small additional investment in the building. All told, the extra initial cost to the owner should not exceed $50,000, but the benefits realized by potential energy savings, improved air quality, and being a responsible member of the community will far outweigh this cost. 42

47 LEED Analysis Through the LEED program, the owner can show that they are environmentally conscious and use their silver rating as a marketing tool, and with low energy costs and increased comfort, the building can become more marketable if these measures are taken. Increased coordination between all parties involved with the project is necessary to achieve these goals, making early CM involvement all the more important. 43

48 Building Façade System Breadth Analysis II: Building Façade System Executive Summary of Analysis The purpose of this analysis is to find a more economic material to use for the façade of the building, especially in place of the brick veneer. The location of the brick on the building is such that most of the area covered is far away from street level and other areas where it can be easily seen. Ventana is situated between two other tall buildings and there is a considerable amount of brick that is used above these buildings up to Ventana s roof. The brick on the street side is also set far back from the street and begins several stories high due to the historic buildings at the front of the property. The rear façade contains a lot of brick on all stories, but is in an enclosed alley with minimal traffic. The brick veneer is a prime target for value engineering because there are less expensive materials available that will not diminish from the overall appearance of the building, especially due to the locations where they will be applied. After analyzing the existing façade conditions and doing a takeoff of the area of different key façade materials, RS Means was consulted to narrow down the list of materials that could replace the brick based on cost. These items were then thoroughly researched to determine their constructability in order to realistically determine whether or not they would be a viable alternative. The Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) was the only material to make it through these stages. More research was then conducted to determine the risks of EIFS construction and methods of controlling these risks during the design and construction processes. After determining that EIFS was indeed a good candidate for an alternative to the brick veneer, initial and life cycle costs were compared. Productivity was then analyzed to determine any effect on project schedule. Finally, a list of quality control procedures for the design and construction of the EIFS was compiled in order to ensure a successful project. 44

49 Building Façade System Overview The primary reason for performing this analysis was to find a more economic building façade material to replace the brick veneer on the building without compromising the building s overall aesthetic appeal. The ideal project came in over budget for several reasons, among which are the redesign of the project from apartments to condominiums, downturns in the market, and an initial design that exceeded the developer s resources. Because of these factors, numerous areas were targeted for value engineering, especially with finishes in the building s interior. This resulted in a delay in the start of construction. Any money that is saved by a change of building materials would help make the beginning of construction start earlier, or the money could be put back into the building making the units more attractive to potential buyers. In addition to initial cost, life cycle costs are also important to consider and will be discussed later. Cost was not the only factor under consideration during this analysis, however. Constructability was equally as important due to the limited amount of space available in the urban environment of Washington, D.C. Space needed and necessary equipment, as well as the availability of qualified labor in the area were all taken into consideration while analyzing materials. Cost Analysis After performing a takeoff of the building s façade systems, an RS Means Assemblies guide was consulted to narrow down the large list of possible alternate materials based on cost per square foot. The list of materials was shortened to precast concrete panels, EIFS, and wood, aluminum, or vinyl siding. The sidings were taken out of consideration because of the quality and aesthetics of the material as well as their limited application on high rise buildings in an urban environment. The concrete panels were also eliminated due to schedule and constructability issues. A crane would be needed to lift the panels into place, and the tower crane used for construction is scheduled to be removed well before the façade is going to be finished. Another crane would have to be brought in so that the infills and exterior framing could be completed without schedule delay, resulting in extra costs, a congested site, and nearly impossible construction conditions. EIFS quickly became the only practical alternative. This system was compared side by side with the brick system for initial cost. A summary of the cost results are on the following page based on a 2 insulation thickness. 45

50 Building Façade System The initial savings of $103, indicated that the system was worth investigating further to determine if the additional risks of using EIFS overcome the benefits of the cost savings. The first comparison made was the life cycle cost of the building, including maintenance and energy savings costs. A case study was done by William Egan and Jason Iacovelli 1 concerning the life cycle costs of different façade materials over 30 years. Costs considered with an EIFS system included cleaning the entire system once every 15 years and recoating the system at year 30. Brick was assumed to need to be cleaned and repointed at year 30. The costs that were realized during their study were converted to the cost per square foot and then applied to Ventana. The façade area in the case study was very similar to that in Ventana, making the comparison fairly accurate. The present value of money from the study was used, and the costs were adjusted from 1996 dollars to 2005 dollars. An energy analysis of the savings that could be achieved using an EIFS system was then performed. Since EIFS has a higher resistance to conductivity than brick, the heating and cooling costs of the building can be reduced. EIFS can also reduce unwanted air infiltration into the buiding by up to 55%, further reducting building loads. Energy savings calculations can be seen in Appendix K. The comparison of the total life cycle costs are as follows. Area Brick $ / SF Total EIFS $ / SF Total Savings $19.36 $358, $13.75 $254, $103, With 30 year life cycle for maintenance and energy savings Installation Maintenance Energy 30 year total Brick $358,733 $10,562 $369,295 EIFS $254,879 $20,754 $275,632 Savings $103,854 ($10,192) $34,680 $128,343 Figure 10. Façade Change Cost Savings The cost of repairs would also narrow the cost gap some, although there are many steps that can be taken to minimize the number of problems with the system, which will be discussed later. With a life cycle cost savings of $128,343 the effects of a change of building systems on the projects schedule were then analyzed. 1 Egan, W.F. and Iacovelli, J.W., Projected Life Cycle Costs of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems, Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS): Materials, Properties, and Performance, ASTM STP 1269, P.E. Nelson and R.E. Kroll, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,

51 Building Façade System Schedule Impact The current project schedule allows 5 days each for framing the exterior walls, applying the exterior sheathing, and installing the masonry for each floor. This allows for an even flow of work and no down time for the different trades. The work rate assumed on the masonry work is a little ambitious for one crew, with a productivity rate of 247 square feet per day needed to finish in the time allotted while RS Means states that the average productivity rate is 222 square feet per day. At the end of the project, this would result in the equivalent of 8 extra days of work needed to meet the proposed schedule. The proposed EIFS system can be placed by one crew at an average of 295 square feet per day, which easily keeps up with the productivity rate needed to keep the project on schedule. If all other systems were able to be equally accelerated, the EIFS could actually be finished 12 days ahead of the schedule that the brick is currently on. Because there are other constraints on the system, however, these areas had to be analyzed to see if any impact whatsoever could be made on the schedule. Even adding personnel to the supporting systems such as framing the exterior walls and applying exterior sheathing would not accelerate the schedule, however, as other critical path items prevent the overall reduction of the schedule. The benefit of the increased productivity then becomes an extra 12 days with which to apply the EIFS. Float time would be available, which can be used in a number of different ways. First, the proper quality control measures can be taken and installation can be done correctly without worrying about the pace of construction. Weather will also play a factor with the installation of the EIFS, so there is extra time to use in case the conditions become unfavorable. This will allow the applicator to work during more ideal construction conditions and will lead to better overall quality in the end. Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) An EIFS system consists of 3 layers of materials. The first is an insulating board which can come in numerous shapes and thicknesses. The second layer is a base coat which consists of wire mesh and a coat of adhesive. Finally, a plaster finish layer is applied which can consist of a variety of colors and textures. 47

52 Building Façade System There are many pros and cons in EIFS construction. Some of the primary advantages have already been seen in the system s low cost and relatively quick erection speed. Additional advantages that make EIFS attractive in this application are its design versatility, which enables the architect to create a wide variety of possible looks as explained above. EIFS is also a very light weight cladding, reducing the forces on the rest of the building. By switching from a brick to an EIFS façade, the total building weight is decreased nearly 360 tons. Finally, this system has good insulating properties. A fairly high R value can be obtained with an EIFS system, and since the insulation is located on the outside of the wall system, the structural members stay at a more constant temperature and do not expand and contract as much as they would with many other systems. Unfortunately, there are also numerous drawbacks to an EIFS system. Most of these, however, can be avoided with proper design and installation procedures. The biggest problem with this system is that it is a barrier system designed to keep water completely out, but it does not always have that capability. Once water gets into the system, it is also very hard to get it out. Water infiltration may result in delamination, or the separation of the base coast and finish coat from the insulation. Water can also result in discoloration of the finish, cracking, the damage of interior finishes, and in the worst case, the EIFS detaching from the building. The first area where water can enter in to the system is at failed joints. These include expansion joints as well as areas where the EIFS meets other façade materials, most notably the glass curtain wall on this project. There are many ways in which to minimize the possibility of water entering into these joints. The biggest is to have architectural input on the design of these joints as well as precise joint details included in the drawings. The second key is to have a sealant contractor that is well versed in EIFS construction in order to have proper initial installation. Qualified inspectors are also important to ensure that the joints have been properly installed and may be a member of the company that manufactures the EIFS or a third party. Finally, the choice of sealants is very important. The sealant must be able to resist the weather and also must be compatible with the other systems that it comes into contact with, such as the windows. Another potential point for water entry is cracks that may develop in the system. Besides being an eyesore, these cracks can let a large volume of water in which puts the interior finishes of the building in jeopardy. In no place is that more crucial than in a condominium 48

53 Building Façade System building, such as Ventana. The possibility for litigation is high and the tenants may band together and sue the owner if damages occur. Because of this, a number of steps need to be taken to minimize the potential for cracks to appear. The first and most important way to prevent cracking is proper design and installation of the system. Specifically, reinforcement should be lapped at its edges to ensure that there are no weak spots and diagonal reinforcement should be used at the corners of all openings. In addition, expansion joints should be used wherever there is a change in the underlying material, such as at the base of each floor. These areas are where most of the cracks in the system can occur, and these simple design features will greatly reduce the ability of cracks to form. Additionally, proper installation is just as important as design. Insulation joints should be kept away from the corners of the building and windows. The different layers also need to properly cure before the next layer is placed on top of them, which usually takes 24 hours. Proper steps need to be taken to protect these materials while they are curing, especially from the sun, water, dirt, and freezing. The application of the façade system is to take place over the winter months, so heat will have to be taken into account at certain times. A proper base coat thickness will also lessen the chance that cracks will occur. From a quality control standpoint, the insulation should be kept dry and out of the sun prior to its installation. The perimeter of the system should also be properly caulked to minimize water intrusion. The application is to begin in the month of November and continue through the following June, so cold weather will be a factor. The adhesive that attaches the insulation to the exterior sheathing will not hold if the temperature is below freezing. The temperature in the DC area averages 42 degrees or higher for a daytime high even during the coldest portions of winter, but there is still a chance for freezing temperatures. Either the portion of the building that is being worked on needs to be heated, or mechanical fastening needs to be used. This method may result in more expense and also has the disadvantages of potentially creating uneven portions in the surface of the system as well as points at which heat can escape, minimizing the insulating effect of the wall. Mechanical fastening should be avoided but is a possibility if necessitated by weather. Fortunately some float is built in and the weather can be worked around to a certain extent. 49

54 Building Façade System Other steps that can be taken to minimize the chance of water entering the system include properly using flashing thru the walls at sealant joints, windows, and other wall penetrations. This often requires design coordination, especially with the window contractor, as the flashing and EIFS often have to be put in place prior to window installation. Fortunately, that is already the case on Ventana, and no change in schedule or additional coordination would need to take place. It is also possible to install a water barrier over the exterior sheathing with a drainage channel to try to move some of the water that does get in down through the channel and out at the flashings at joints. Snow or ice accumulation against the building is also a concern, especially in the areas where the roofs of adjacent buildings meet Ventana. In these areas, special considerations will have to be made on how to keep this from happening. Another problem with EIFS is its susceptibility to impact damage. Again, the key minimizing damage is proper design and installation. Heavy duty mesh should be used in high traffic areas. Fortunately, the design of the building is such that windows span the entire balcony and regular mesh can be used outside these locations between the windows. Heavy duty mesh should be used along the rear of the building at the entrance to the parking garage and on the balcony above. Both of these areas are trouble spots, although the EIFS application here will be applied directly onto a CMU block wall, resulting in a tougher overall system. Another measure that can be taken is to use a base coast with high resin levels, which increases its strength. As was the case in preventing water, the base coat is the most important in resisting impact damage, and proper installation is of the utmost importance. If impact damage does occur, it will not spread. The initial damage will not get any worse from an aesthetic perspective, however it should be repaired immediately as water may enter the damaged area. As stated previously, those areas susceptible to the most damage are also those where water entry does not matter, since they are the block walls of the parking garage. Repairs are generally easy to do and can be done quickly and with simple tools, but they do represent a cost that would not be associated with a similar brick veneer façade. The final big problem with EIFS is maintaining its appearance, more specifically cleaning the system. The finish coat is fairly sensitive and cannot be cleaned with traditional machinery such as pressure washers or sandblasters, as well as many cleaning products. A mild detergent should be used whenever necessary. There are ways to reduce the 50

55 Building Façade System number of times the system needs to be cleaned, however. Acrylic finishes can be used which reduce the finish s ability to pick up dirt. These finishes also help maintain the colorfastness of the system, which can be a problem due to exposure to the elements, especially the sun. In general, many of the problems inherent in EIFS can be avoided with proper design and quality control during construction. Residents should also be educated as to the nature of the system, since it appears to be a much more durable material, like stone. An EIFS manufacturer should also be able to review the construction details and installation processes to ensure that they are done properly. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an applicator should be found who is qualified and is established as a quality EIFS contractor. If these safeguards are in place, there is no reason that a properly installed EIFS could not perform as well as any other type of façade material. Conclusion and Recommendations A fairly sizable cost savings was realized when comparing an EIFS to the brick veneer system which the building was designed for. Over a 30 year period, the savings is over $128,000 including potential energy savings that residents will be able to realize due to the insulating value of the EIFS. The schedule was not able to be reduced because of the constraints of other building systems, but there is a better chance that the EIFS system can be completed in the time scheduled than that of the brick veneer with some float time available. The aesthetics of an EIFS system does not depart significantly from that of the original brick system, especially considering the wide variety of looks that the system can attain and the fact that there is very little façade area that can be seen up close due to the building s layout. Based on the cost savings and with the intention of placing a quality control system in place for design and construction of the system, it is recommended that the current system be changed to an EIFS system. The money that is saved could be put back into the building in a number of different places, or could be saved by the owner outright. In order to maximize savings, the system should be applied on site as opposed to being prefabricated in panels and shipped to the site. 51

56 Building Façade System Qualified applicators should be sought to work on the project and the chosen EIFS manufacturer should be able to have input on design and construction. The construction process changes very little from brick to EIFS in terms of staging scaffolding and moving materials vertically through the building by means of a materials hoist to the point of application, and there is no additional machinery required to apply the system. With a quality control process in place and a good EIFS contractor on the job, the risks inherent in the EIFS system will be very minimal and there will be a significant cost savings on the portion of the façade system that is currently designed as a brick veneer. 52

57 Summary and Conclusions Summary and Conclusions For a number of reasons, Ventana came in over budget and needed to go through extensive value engineering before construction could begin. Several analyses were performed to determine areas where further value could be added to the building without reducing the quality of the project. First, owners perceptions of construction managers and the value that they bring to a project were obtained through the use of questionnaires. It was shown that owners prefer to use construction managers on difficult projects where the CM manages the owner s expectations, often resulting in cost or schedule savings. Had Davis been able to perform this role during the entire design process, months could have been shaved off of the project s timeline and hundreds of thousands of dollars could have been saved by the owner. A LEED analysis was also performed on the building. A LEED certified building in itself has value, as many individuals are environmentally conscious and may be more apt to buy such a condominium. Achieving a LEED rating also often means a reduction in energy costs as well as improved air quality and comfort, as was the case with Ventana. A silver rating can be achieved with a small initial investment as well as coordination between all parties that are working on the project. Early and frequent involvement by the CM in this process is crucial and may hinge on the owner s perception of their value in this matter. The final analysis performed was a redesign of the building s façade system from brick veneer to EIFS. In addition to costing less, the EIFS is also a good insulator and contributes to the reduction of building energy costs. When combined, these analyses show one method of improving the building s marketability through a number of different but related methods, and would result in a better overall project for the owner. 53

58 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Special thanks to the following individuals for making this thesis possible: Davis Construction, for supplying a project and answers to a never ending barrage of questions. Peter Ege, Project Manager Hasan Alseyegh, Assistant PM The Pennsylvania State University Engineering Department, for their guidance, knowledge, and insight. Dr. John Messner, Advisor Dr. David Riley Moses Ling My family, for their support and encouragement, mom and dad, Michael and Stefanie, and my grandparents. And to my friends, who had to listen to me complain about the whole thing for eight months. 54

59 References References Analysis #1 Construction Delivery Methods Sanvido, Victor and Konchar, Mark. Comparison of US Project Delivery Systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Volume 124, Issue 6. (1998) Ling, Florence Yean Yng, et al. Predicting Performance of Design-Build and Design- Bid-Build Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Volume 130, Issue 1. (2004) Analysis #2 LEED Analysis Grumman, David L., ed. ASHRAE GreenGuide. Atlanta, Fa. ASHRAE U.S. Green Building Council. < California Integrated Waste Management Board. < Carpet and Rug Institute. < Green Seal. < South Coast Air Quality Management District. < Bay Area Air Quality Management District. < The Forest Stewardship Council. < DC Water and Sewer Authority. < Energy Policy Act of < Energy_Policy_Act_1992.htm> ASHRAE Standard Measuring Air Change effectiveness. ASHRAE Standard Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ASHRAE Standard Energy Standards for Building Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. ASHRAE Standard Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Analysis #3 Building Façade System Thomas, Robert G. Jr. Exterior Insulation and Finish System Design Handbook. Seattle, Washington. CMD Associates Nelson, Peter E. and Kroll, Richard E., editors. Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS): Materials, Properties, and Performance. West Conshohocken, Pa. American Society of Testing and Materials

60 Appendix A Site Plan

61

62 Appendix B D4 Parametric Estimate Data

63 Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Estimate of Probable Cost Page 1 Ventana - Mar District of Columbia Prepared By: Mark Mey Prepared For: Thesis The Pennsylvania State University,, Fax: Fax: Building Sq. Size: Site Sq. Size: Bid Date: Building use: Residential No. of floors: 14 Foundation: Cast Pile No. of buildings: Exterior Walls: Curtainwall Project Height: Interior Walls: 1st Floor Height: Roof Type: Membrane 1st Floor Size: Floor Type: CON Project Type: NEW Division Percent Sq. Cost Amount 00 Bidding Requirements ,615,847 Bidding Requirements ,615, General Requirements ,763 General Requirements , Site Work ,027 Site Work , Concrete ,824,534 Concrete ,824, Masonry ,513 Masonry , Metals ,722 Metals , Wood & Plastics ,310 Wood & Plastics , Thermal & Moisture Protection ,585 Thermal & Moisture Protection , Doors & Windows ,401 Doors & Windows , Finishes ,474,516 Finishes ,474, Specialties ,522 Specialties , Equipment ,181 Equipment , Furnishings ,538 Furnishings , Special Construction ,010 Special Construction , Conveying Systems ,229 Conveying Systems , Mechanical ,181,911 Mechanical ,181, Electrical ,024,040 Electrical ,024,040 Total Building Costs ,798,650

64 Appendix C RS Means Estimate Data

65

66