Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Office Building Largo, MD. Chris Pozza Advisor: Dr. Rob Leicht Construction Management

Transcription

1 Chris Pozza Advisor: Dr. Rob Leicht Construction Management

2 II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Chris Pozza Advisor: Dr. Rob Leicht Construction Management

3 Introduction II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Project Cost: $39,558,519 Addition: $32,504,687 N Addition Size: 106,700 SF N

4 Introduction II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation DPR Awarded Contract: December 27, 2010 Building Permit (Owner Provided): January 3, 2011 August 25, 2011 Notice to Proceed: June 10, 2011 Building Watertight: April 25, 2012 September 27, 2012 October 18, 2012 Substantial Completion: October 2, 2012 December 6, 2012 February 11, 2013 March 1, 2013 First Patient: July 8, 2013

5 Total Volume Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Office Building II. Problem: Current Process Costing Critical Time and Money Pending Changes in Review 24 III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation 3 Concurrent projects 400+ Change quotes 1 Representative Change Order Tracking Table Description Sum of Amount Total Average Approved $6,249, $42, Pending Do Not Proceed $498, $62, Pending Proceeding $176, $7, Pending Proceeding with Authorization $1,616, $32, ROM Do Not Forecast - Non-Proceeding $593, $118, ROM Proceeding $224, $7, ROM Proceeding with Authorization $2,664, $45, ROM Do Not Proceed $671, $30, In Dispute - Proceeding $286, $10, Total $12,983, Monthly Update Factors Impacting Labor Productivity: Timing - Intensity - Type of Work - Impact Type Open CQ's Submitted Over 61 Days Ago Open CQ's Submitted Between Days Ago Open CQ's Submitted Less than 30 Days Ago

6 Total Change Quotes Total Quantity Millions ($) Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Office Building II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Side Effects of Change Orders: Trade Stacking Schedule Compression Multiple-Shift Work Morale Issues Original Contract Value: $32,504, $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Change Order Volume Summary Change Order Value Summary Monthly Update Total Sum Change Order Crew Man-Hours and Crew Size per Day for a 15-Day Period Day Crew Size Total Man- Hours 25 0 Final Completion: March 29, Man-Hours $58,000+ Purely Labor Cost Monthly Update Total Open Change Orders

7 Analysis 1 Final Recommendations 1. Give Authority to the CM to Approve Changes 2. Purchase Preconstruction Services II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation 446 Change Quotes Investigated Recommendation - Permit CM to Approve Changes Original Schedule: 349 with Associated Costs 198 worth less than $10, Month Average Response Time CQ's<$10,000 (198) $5,000<CQ<$10,000 (81) $525, $818, Total Value Actual Schedule: + Early trade involvement for intense MEP coordination + Utilize project team s healthcare experience + Improve design efficiency for all stakeholders + Reduction of rework + Significantly reduce management time + Reduce turnaround time for large changes + Better cash flow for subcontractors CQ's<$5,000 (117) $293, $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000, Implement an Alternate Change Review Process

8 Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Precast Panel Comparison to Traditional Brick Advantages Faster installation for schedule savings Stronger and more durable than brick façade and tougher to penetrate More favorable working conditions and no weather issues during fabrication Higher quality product produced off-site Panels typically have better insulation properties Disadvantages Higher upfront cost to fabricate panels Often requires heavier structural support members Can be less aesthetically pleasing due to less imperfections and more joints Customization of panels can significantly increases cost Can require multiple cranes depending on panel sizes Problem: Weather and Constructability Issues Impact Schedule Original: Actual: VS. Vertical + Lower panel count + Less connections - High level of customization Horizontal + Easier to handle + More repetition - Significant panel count

9 Structural and Mechanical Breadth Studies Structural Steel: Wall R Values (Winter) 3.5" Face Brick 7 Precast Panels Conclusion II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation R o - Outside Air Barrier R 1-3 1/2" Face Brick (R=0.11 per inch) Alternate R 1-7" Precast Panel with Thin Brick R 2-1 7/8" Air Space R 3-2" Rigid Insulation (R=5 per inch) R 4 - Vapor Barrier Negligible Negligible R 5-1/2" Gypsum Sheathing Structure: Structural upgrades not required due to building size Axial loading does not control structural design Foundations: Spread Footing: Strip Footing: R 6-6" Metal Stud / 6" Batt Insulation R R 7-5/8" Gypsum Sheathing R i - Inside Air Film (Vertical Position, Horizontal Heat Flow) Total R Uavg or Total U (1/R) Mechanical: Panels will provide slightly better thermal properties Current system design is acceptable Proper measures are required to prevent thermal bridging: Stainless Steel Shim Plates Plastic Shims Silicone Joint Sealant

10 Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Schedule Analysis II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Horizontal Panels More practical High Unit Price 244 total panels 15 panels per day Eliminates Brick Ties Easier vapor barrier installation System Cost Comparison Precast Panel System $1,257, Masonry Façade $1,131, Proposed Precast Additional Cost $125,814.37

11 Analysis 2 Final Recommendation Schedule Savings Final Recommendation II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Proposed Schedule Savings Days Weeks Months Activity Savings Schedule Savings General Conditions Costs Total Savings (1.5 Months) $295, Additional Crane Cost $44, Total GC Cost Savings $251, Implement precast panels Current systems won t be impacted Final Cost Comparison Summary Proposed System Cost $1,257, Additional Crane Cost $44, Actual System Cost $1,131,376 General Conditions Savings $295, Total Cost Savings $125, Schedule savings are greatest benefit!

12 Analysis 3 Use of Virtual Mock-Ups for SIPS II. Original Schedule: Problem: Building Connection Constructability Issues III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Actual Schedule: Case Study: Tyson s Corner 32 Rooms 110 Changes Total cost: $38,000 Owner benefit only Solution: EMSEAL

13 Analysis 3 Use of Virtual Mock-Ups for SIPS Traditional SIPS II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation One specific operation is analyzed A much higher level of detail is needed Personnel input and commitment is required from all + Reach level of detail necessary to maximize efficiency Additional Man-Hours for Building Tie-In Activity Time (hr.) Crew Size Man-hours Insert 5/16 Bent Plate Place Concrete/Expansion Joint Total Man-Hours 20

14 Analysis 3 Final Recommendation II. Cost/Benefit of Analysis Proposal Potential Value Added: III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Strong visualization and communication tool for all parties 2.5 Hrs. BIM Champ 1 Hr. Superintendent 20 Man-Hrs. Saved $1,700 - Potential savings $2, ($307.25) Proposed Coordination Cost Proposed Labor Savings Subcontractor feedback and proper preparation Eliminate coordination issues Show end users how existing building will be impacted Perform premium-rate work the most efficient way possible Cause as little disturbance for building occupants $2,500 $1,500 $500 ($500) Associated Cost

15 Analysis 4 Modularization Comparison II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Problem: Modular headwall units used were very labor intensive vs. Labor Savings (Man-Hours) Activity Average Unit Durations (hr.) L1 - Area B L1 - Area C L3 - Area B Total Frame Walls In-Wall Electric Rough-Ins In-Wall Med Gas Rough-Ins In-Wall Tele/Data Rough-Ins Total Schedule Savings (Days) Activity Average Unit Durations (hr.) L1 - Area B L1 - Area C L3 - Area B Total Frame Walls In-Wall Electric Rough-Ins In-Wall Med Gas Rough-Ins In-Wall Tele/Data Rough-Ins Total 70.4 *Does not affect critical path for this project

16 Analysis 4 Modularization Comparison Final Recommendation II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Current System Cost Breakdown Cost Comparison of Modular Units With chosen design, modules can only benefit the project 19.3% 24.2% 56.5% Unit Cost Labor Cost Material Cost 47% Savings Value Proposed Cost Recommend for future projects Reduces labor Improving quality Streamlines MEP rough-ins If half the time saved shortened critical path, general conditions savings would greatly offset cost Associated Cost

17 Conclusion & Recommendations Analysis 3 Use of Virtual Mock-Ups for SIPS II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Shortens Schedule Improves Efficiency 1. Give Authority to the CM to Approve Changes 2. Purchase Preconstruction Services 3. Implement an Alternate Change Review Process + Early trade involvement for intense MEP coordination + Significantly reduce management time + Better cash flow for subcontractors + Potential savings of $1,700 + Strong visualization and communication tool + Subcontractor feedback + Show end users how existing building will be impacted + Perform premium-rate work the most efficient way possible Increases Collaboration Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Analysis 4 Modularization Comparison Streamlines Processes Proposed Schedule Savings Days Weeks Months Activity Savings Schedule Savings General Conditions Costs Total Savings (1.5 Months) $295, Additional Crane Cost $44, Total GC Cost Savings $251, Total cost savings: $125, Structural upgrades not required + Panels have better thermal characteristics + Current mechanical system is acceptable Cost Comparison of Modular Units 47% Associated Cost Savings Value Proposed Cost Recommend for future projects + Reduces labor + Improving quality + Streamlines MEP rough-ins

18 Acknowledgements Academic Acknowledgements Special Thanks to: Industry Acknowledgements II. III. Analysis 2 Precast Panel Implementation Architectural Engineering Faculty Dr. Robert Leicht (Advisor) My Family & Friends John Stull, Bob Nimorwicz, Matt Hedrick, Shane Goodman, & DPR s Project Team Patrick Farrell of Kaiser Permanente Steve Willey & Mark Zuidema of Ellerbe Beckett, now practicing as AECOM Cy Zinn of Jacobs Mark Taylor of Nitterhouse Chuck Wynings & John Varga of Tindall Corporation Andy Rhodes & Nate Patrick of Southland Industries Cory Trent of Modular Services Alex White & Dennis Gallant of Hill-Rom PACE Industry Members

19 Kaiser Permanente Largo Medical Office Building Thank you! Any questions?

20 References Stull, John. "Change Order Process." Telephone interview. 10 Jan Hudak, Michael. "Change Orders." Telephone interview. 18 Jan Moselhi, O., Assem, I., and El-Rayes, K. (2005). Change Orders Impact on Labor Productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(3), Hanna, A., Russell, J., Gotzion, T., and Nordheim, E. (1999). Impact of Change Orders on Labor Efficiency for Mechanical Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(3), Hanna, A., Russell, J., Nordheim, E., and Bruggink, M. (1999). Impact of Change Orders on Labor Efficiency for Electrical Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 125(4), Faust, James. "Cash Flow." 21 Mar Lecture. Grondzik, Walter T., Alison G. Kwok, John S. Reynolds, and Benjamin Stein. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings. Table E.1,E.3: Wiley & Sons Canada, Limited, John, Print. "28B Brick Veneer / Steel Stud Walls." Technical Notes. The Brick Industry Association, Web. 12 Mar Fanella, David Anthony. Structural Load Determination under 2006 IBC and ASCE/SEI Country Gill, Tony. "SIPS and Building Tie-Ins." Personal interview. 15 Mar "Thermal Bridging Solutions: Minimizing Structural Steel's Impact on Building Envelope Energy Transfer." Modern Steel Construction. American Institute of Steel Construction, Mar Web. Feb "Architectural Precast Concrete Wall Panels Connection Guide." Precast...The Concrete Solution. National Precast Concrete Association, Web. Feb "Dow Corning 790 Silicone Building Sealant." Dowcorning.com. Dow Corning, 20 Dec Web. 15 Feb "Maryland State Trucking Permit Regulations - Oversize Shipping and Transport." Wideloadshipping.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar "Virginia State Trucking Permit Regulations - Oversize Trucking and Transport." Wideloadshipping.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar "Envelop the Structural Steel!" Web log post. Greener Structures. WordPress, 8 Mar Web. 27 Feb < "Crane Charts." Los Angeles Crane Rental. N.p., Web. 19 Mar Dubler, Craig. "SIPS Planning." 16 Oct Lecture. Club Hills, IL: ICC Publications, Print. Goodman, Shane. "Virtual Mock-Ups." Telephone interview. 4 Feb Hedrick, Matt. "Virtual Mock-Ups." Telephone interview. 22 Jan Wynings, Chuck. "Precast Panels." Telephone interview. 17 Jan Taylor, Mark. "Precast Panels." Telephone interview. 22 Jan Zinn, Cy. "Change Order Management." Telephone interview. 6 Mar Miner, Tim. "Changes/Schedule Impacts." Personal interview. 15 Mar Crutchfield, Dan. "Framing Headwalls." Telephone interview. 16 Mar Rsmeans, Engineering Department. Facilities Construction Cost Data [S.l.]: R S Means, Print. Bernstein, Havey. Prefabrication and Modularization: Increasing Productivity in the Construction Industry. Rep. McGraw-Hill Construction, Web. 25 Jan Pozza, Mark L. "SIPS and Constructability Issues." Personal interview. 10 Mar Trent, Cory. "Modular Headwalls." Telephone interview. 24 Jan Varga, John. "Precast Design and Estimate." Telephone interview. 14 Mar

21 Appendix Change Order Management CQ Included Date Initiated Date ROM Submitted Calendar Days from Initiation until ROM Submitted Date Final Pricing Submitted Owner Change Order 10 Calendar Days from ROM Submitted until Final Pricing Submission Total Price Date Closed Calendar Days from Final Pricing Submission until KP Approval 1.1 7/28/2011 3/12/ /12/ , /28/ /13/2012 5/2/ /2/ , /28/ /2/2011 1/16/ /16/ , /28/ /21/2012 4/25/ /10/ , /28/ /30/2012 5/2/ /2/ , /28/ Average 61 Average 3 Average Total Cost $1, Total Weeks Total Months CQ Included Date Initiated Date ROM Submitted Calendar Days from Initiation until ROM Submitted Date Final Pricing Submitted Owner Change Order 24 Calendar Days from ROM Submitted until Final Pricing Submission Total Price Date Closed Calendar Days from Final Pricing Submission until KP Approval 099Rev 10/9/ /17/ /17/ , /5/ /8/ /6/ /7/ , /5/ /1/ /12/ /12/ , /5/ /11/2012 6/11/ /5/ , /5/ /15/ /2/ /2/ , /5/ /9/ /15/ /15/ , /5/ /25/ /2/ /2/ , /5/ /22/2012 9/20/ /20/ , /5/ /19/ /11/ /20/ , /5/ /12/ /14/ /14/ , /5/ /13/ /20/ /20/ , /5/ Average 56 Average 13 Average Total Cost $103, Total Weeks Total Months CQ Included Date Initiated Date ROM Submitted Calendar Days from Initiation until ROM Submitted Date Final Pricing Submitted Owner Change Order 21 Calendar Days from ROM Submitted until Final Pricing Submission Total Price Date Closed Calendar Days from Final Pricing Submission until KP Approval 105 2/29/2012 4/24/ /16/ , /29/ /22/ /5/ /5/ , /29/ /31/ /17/ /17/ /29/ /31/ /17/ /17/ /29/ /10/ /17/ /17/ , /29/ Average 38 Average 4 Average Total Cost $118, Total Weeks Total Months CQ Included Date Initiated Date ROM Submitted Calendar Days from Initiation until ROM Submitted Date Final Pricing Submitted Owner Change Order 012 Calendar Days from ROM Submitted until Final Pricing Submission Total Price Date Closed Calendar Days from Final Pricing Submission until KP Approval 2.1 5/6/2011 3/12/ /12/ , /6/ /12/2012 6/22/ /22/ , /6/ /1/2012 3/12/ /12/ /6/ /27/2012 3/12/ /12/ , /6/ /30/2012 6/11/ /11/ , /6/ /15/2012 5/21/ /21/ , /6/ Average 51 Average 1 Average Total Cost $257, Total Weeks Total Months

22 Appendix Structural Breadth

23 Appendix Mechanical Breadth Wall U Value (Summer) Combined R o - Outside Air Barrier 0.25 R 1-3 1/2" Face Brick (R=0.11 per inch) R 2-1 7/8" Air Space 1.23 R 3-2" Rigid Insulation (R=5 per inch) 10 R 4 - Vapor Barrier Negligible R 5-1/2" Gypsum Sheathing 0.45 R 6-6" Metal Stud / 6" Batt Insulation R R 7-5/8" Gypsum Sheating R i - Inside Air Film (Vertical Position, Horizontal Heat Flow) 0.68 Wall U Value (Summer) Combined R o - Outside Air Barrier 0.25 R 1-7" Precast Panel with Thin Brick (assume all concrete) 0.53 R 2-1 7/8" Air Space 1.23 R 3-2" Rigid Insulation (R=5 per inch) 10 R 4 - Vapor Barrier Negligible R 5-1/2" Gypsum Sheathing 0.45 R 6-6" Metal Stud / 6" Batt Insulation R R 7-5/8" Gypsum Sheating R i - Inside Air Film (Vertical Position, Horizontal Heat Flow) 0.68 Air Space R-Value (from Table E.4) Direction of Heat Flow Horizontal Mean Temperature 0 Temperature Difference 10 Thickness 1 7/8" E (Table E.4, Page 1614) 0.82 R (1.5"-3.5" with Emittance=0.82) 1.23 Total R u (1/R) % 100% u %*u U avg =U avg * *U insul Total R 20.8 u (1/R) % 100% u %*u U avg =U avg * *U insul

24 Appendix Precast Panels

25 Appendix Virtual Mock-Ups and SIPS

26 Appendix Modularization