LEED It Green: County Design/Build Projects

Transcription

1 LEED It Green: County Design/Build Projects Solano County Kanon Artiche County Architect Alameda County Jim Kachik Deputy Director, TSD July 19-21, 2006, GSA Academy IV

2 LEED Design-Build County Projects Build It Green: Sustainability Through Capital Projects Solano County Government Center Fairfield, CA Presentation to General Services Academy IV July 20, 2006 San Luis Obispo, CA

3 Project Need / Opportunity Last General Government Building Constructed in 1960s. County Growth Had Forced Decentralized Housing of Functions in 19 Different Locations in 2 Cities Existing County Buildings Were Aged and Not Programmatically or Technologically Efficient County had Underutilized Land Which Could Support New Development Major Debt from Previous Capital Development Would be Retired in 2005.

4 Site Plan PUBLIC COURTYARD North

5 Project Description County Administration Center is a 300,000 Square Foot Building, 6 Stories, 103 Feet High Parking Structure is 5-levels 5 with over 1,000 Parking Stalls, 46.5 Feet High

6 Project Description Probation Building is a 43,000 Square Foot Building, 2 Stories, 36 Feet High Cogeneration Plant Expansion Produces Twice as Much Power Pedestrian Plaza and Courtyard

7

8

9

10 Background / History April 27, 1999 Board of Supervisors and Fairfield City Council met in Joint Session to Review Conceptual Master Plan of County Campus June 17, 1999 County and City Entered into MOU to Jointly Develop Master Plan May 9, 2000 Board Adopted Master Plan and Authorized Development of Energy Infrastructure Master Plan August 1, 2000 Board Authorized and Funded Pre-Construction Activities November 6, 2001 Board Approved Master Architect and Project/Construction Management Contracts and Authorized Design/Build Project Delivery Method

11 Background/History (continued) January 8, 2002 EIR Development Began May 28, 2002 Board Authorized Co-Generation Expansion Based on Energy Infrastructure Master Plan July 2, 2002 Board Approved Project Labor Agreement September 10, Co-Generation Contract Awarded October 1, 2002 Board Certified Final EIR November 19, 2002 Government Center Design/Build Notice to Proceed Issued

12 Background/History (continued) December 10, 2002 Groundbreaking Ceremony Held September 4, 2003 Topping out Ceremony and Tribute to Labor Held November 15, 2004 Initial Occupancy December 16, 2004 Dedication Ceremony February 28, 2005 Final Move-in April 9, 2005 Community Celebration July 26, 2005 Notice of Completion November 11, 2005 Received LEED Certification

13 Project Goals and Objectives Operational/Organizational Goals Incorporate Operational/Organizational Changes that Provide Public Benefit Site/Facility Goals Provide Safety and Security Create Functional, Accessible, Flexible, Maintainable and Energy Efficient Development Demonstrate Environmental Responsibility Within Project Budget Incorporate Efficient Technology that is User Friendly

14 Project Goals and Objectives (continued) Community Goals Express Enduring Design Excellence Construct Development that Acts as Community Regional Center Be Sensitive to Surrounding Community Facilitate Coordinated Services Provided by Others Set Standard for Future Development Optimize Funding Opportunities

15 Public Benefits Centralized Service of County Administrative Functions One Stop Shopping High Energy Efficiency Means Decreased Operating Costs Construction Provides Jobs/Financial Infusion into Local Economy Creates Landmark Place and Identification for County and Community

16 Project Costs Description Amount Percent Design/Build Consultants FF & E and Move Fees, Permits/ Other County Staff Co-generation Upgrade Total Cost $82,985, % $7,968, % $7,048, % $471,016.4% $1,442, % $16,500, % $116,416, % Costs (Excluding Land): CAC - $246.99/SF Probation - $183.22/SF Parking - $16,961.86/Stall Estimated Savings of Approximately $17-20 Million vs. Design-Bid Bid-BuildBuild

17 Project Delivery Method Traditional (Design-Bid Bid-Build) Build) Without PM/CM With PM/CM Multiple Prime/Trade Contracting CM at Risk Lease/Purchase Design/Build

18 Design/Build Project Delivery Method (continued) Bridging Fast Track Stipulated Sum Best Value/Quality Enhancements Why Design/Build Evaluate Project Needs Single Point of Responsibility Construction Input During Design Schedule Acceleration Fixed Price Bridging Allowed Opportunity to Fix Elements Important to County Different Owner Mindset Staff Training Development

19 Enabling Legislation Public Contract Code Section Expanded from 7 to 24 Counties Award by Lowest Responsible Bid or Best Value Best Value is a Value Determined by Objective Criteria Related to Price Features, Functions and Life-Cycle Costs

20 Enabling Legislation (continued) 4 Step Process County Defines Project Scope A/E Firm Precluded from Entering Bid County Prepares RFP County Pre-qualifies Design/Build Entities Using Standard Questionnaire County Establishes Procedure for Final Selection Based on Low Bid or Competition Based on Best Value

21 Enabling Legislation (continued) Minimum Factors Specified Each Represents at Least 10% of Total Weight Price Technical Design and Construction Expertise Life Cycle Costs Over 15 Years Skilled Labor Force Availability Acceptable Safety Record

22 Enabling Legislation (continued) Legislation Effective through 12/31/2010 Applies to Building Construction Projects Greater than $2.5 million Excludes Transportation Facilities Bonding and E & O Coverage Required Use of PM/CM Services Allowed Labor Compliance Program Required Unless Design/Build Entity has Entered into any Collective Bargaining Agreements that Bind all of the Contractors

23 Link the Environment, Social Equity, and the Economy

24 Purpose of LEED LEED was Created to: Define Green Building by Establishing a Common Standard of Measurement Promote Integrated, Whole-Building Design Practices Recognize Environmental Leadership in the Building Industry Stimulate Green Competition Raise Consumer Awareness of Green Building Benefits Transform the Building Market

25 LEED Rating System LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System is a Voluntary, Consensus-Based National Standard for Developing High- Performance, Sustainable Buildings. LEED-NC LEED-EB EB LEED-CI LEED-CS LEED-H LEED-ND LEED Application Guides

26 LEED Checklist for New Construction Sustainable Sites 14 points Water Efficiency 5 points Energy and Atmosphere 17 points Materials and Resources 13 points Indoor Environmental Quality 15 points Innovation and Design Process 5 points 69 Total Points with Prerequisites

27 LEED Certification Levels Certified Points Silver Points Gold Points Platinum Points LEED is Evolving and Dynamic LEED Silver is de facto, Emerging Standard

28 Basis of LEED Certification Integrated Approach of Systems and Components Create Opportunities for LEED Points Sustainable Sites Alternative Transportation Structural Parking Energy Star Cool Roof Energy & Atmosphere Central Plant Co-generation Process Restricted Use of Damaging Chemicals

29 Basis of LEED Certification Materials & Resources Recycled Content Locally Manufactured Indoor Environmental Quality Low VOCs Outside Views Innovation in Design Public Education LEED AP

30 Sustainability LEED Certified Capacity for over 20 Electric Vehicle Hookups in Parking Structure Among Lowest Energy Cost per Square Foot for any Government Facility in the State of California Photovoltaic Solar Array on the Top Level of Parking Structure Generates 119 Kilowatts of Power Use of Construction Materials with High Recycled Content Fabrics to Fly Ash Recycled Construction Waste Exceeds Title 24 Energy Regulations by 20% Smart Growth Low E Dual Glazing

31 Design-Build & LEED Design Criteria Began With the End in Mind Obtained LEED as Best Value Enhancement Hired Specialty Consultant LEED AP Design-Build Phase Developed LEED Strategy Using USGBC Checklist Aimed for More Points Than Anticipated to Receive Performed Careful Evaluation During Systems Confirmation Engage in Early Discussion with Design/Builder Long Term Impacts Avoid Points That Client Can t Deliver Ensure There are no Shift in Costs to Long Term Operations Built-In Accountability Periodically Monitored Design/Builder to Ensure Documentation was in Place Discussed Progress During Weekly Design-Build Meetings

32 Photovoltaic Panels

33 Photovoltaic Panels

34 Cogeneration Facility Expansion Increased Capacity from 1.44 Megawatts to 3.0 Megawatts Enough to Power over 3,000 Homes Annual Cost is Approximately $1.61 per sq. ft. Anticipated Annual Savings of $800,000 or $16 Million over 20 Years

35 Electric Cogeneration System Enhancements Installed New, High-Efficiency Natural Gas Engine, Boilers, and Electric Centrifugal Chillers Removed Inefficient Equipment, Including CFC Chillers Expanded Capacity of Absorption Chiller Expand Piping and Pumping Infrastructure Variable Speed System

36 Benefits Reduces Campus Annual Energy Costs by 50% Accommodates Future Campus Expansion Avoids Local Electric Utility Emissions of Approximately 3,275 Tons of Carbon Dioxide Annually Eliminates Ozone-Depleting CFC Chillers Allows Campus to Meet Virtually 100% of its Electricity Needs Through Self-Generation Provides Power, Hot and Chilled Water to Facilities in Downtown Fairfield County Center Provides Electricity to Downtown Campus Heats/Cools Hall of Justice; Law & Justice Building; Old County Library; County Administration Center, and Probation Building

37 Cogeneration Facility Costs Fairfield Campus 1999 Energy Consumption 9,305,734 kwh Fairfield Campus 2005 Energy Consumption 9,829,000 kwh 523,266 kwh or 5.3% Increase with Addition of 343,000 SF Office Space and 5 Level Parking Structure with 1,020 Stalls $1.61/SF vs. $ $3.00/SF Market Rate with Traditional Utility Provider Based on 1.1 Million SF of Building Served by Co-gen

38 Results/Rewards Achieved LEED Certification Awards/Recognition Federal EPA Green Power Leadership Award National Association of Counties Sustainable Communities Award California Integrated Waste Management Board WRAP Award Design-Build Institute of America National Merit Award CMAA Northern California Chapter Project of the Year League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award

39 Lessons Learned Start on Smaller Project and/or Hire Expertise Be Prepared to Make Decisions Early in Process and Live with Them Adopt Trust but Verify Mentality Use Partnering Sessions to Identify Issue Escalation Ladder Elevate Issues Early - Keep Field Team Focused on Progressing Construction Fix What s Most Important Leave Flexibility to Yield Design/build Economies Pay Attention During Systems Confirmation - Last Chance to Influence Process Be Prepared to Perform Plan Check and Inspection Quickly

40 Lessons Learned (continued) Establish Sustainability Vision from Project Outset Use Project Management Software Database Set Bar High but be Flexible in Strategically Deviating from Standards/Guidelines Define QA/QC Roles and Enforce Them Consider Spirit vs. Letter of Code if Possible Delegate Signing Authority to Staff Designate Final Decision Maker in Organization Take Time to Have Fun in Process

41 Completed Project