Lean Practices from Competition through Construction UCSF MISSION HALL PROJECT RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC WRNS STUDIO
Introductions RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC Gary Taylor Senior Project Executive Kelli Quinn Senior Project Manager WRNS STUDIO Sam Nunes, AIA Partner Scott Gillespie, AIA Project Architect WALTERS & WOLF Paul Kendall Senior Project Manager
University of California, San Francisco Mission Bay Campus SITE OF MISSION HALL
UCSF Mission Hall Design-Build Competition Public Contract Best Value (only allowed at UCSF at the time) Not Lean Contract - Incentives Included milestone and PPC tracking Required teams to utilize Lean methodologies to track decisions & visualize progress Tools desired by Owner as method of communication to monitor project status $94M and 266,000 GSF Open September 2014 to support new UCSF Medical Center and start of academic year
Forming Design-Build Team Building on preexisting relationships Knowledge of client through previous project together as partners UCSF Parking Garage Bringing in Design- Build subcontractors and trade partners with experience as a team, and on the campus Previous lean project experience UCSF Mission Bay Medical Center Parking Garage Completed 2012
The RFP: The Voice of the Client Program Site Schedule Budget The Four Primary Constraints of Designing and Building
Responsibilities Matrix Developed and agreed upon by all sub-consultants and sub-trade partners Established a visual depiction of the interconnectedness of the work relative to the RFP requirements and priorities
Competition Workplan Developed and agreed upon by all sub-consultants and trade partners Established simple visual representation of the work effort over 10 week time horizon
Target Cost Model 14% over UCSF established budget Establishment of an alignment strategy of cost to the University s budget and programmatic priorities
The RFP: The Voice of the Client Program Site Schedule Budget The Four Primary Constraints of Designing and Building
Building Images 1
Building Images 2
Building Images 3
Building Images 4
Building Images 5
Document Structure 450 Pages of aspirational, technical and performance criteria. References to numerous campus standards documents. Contained tiered approach to criteria - baseline, better, best. Criteria items split into different performance categories. Scoring categorized differently than criteria.
Scoring Information
Target Value Design Process 10 weeks to develop proposal Team analyzed owner criteria against scoring categories to develop winning formula. Challenged aspirational language and technical criteria to strike balance in budget, and create best value. Explored design, cost and schedule impacts with input of all team members in compressed timeframe. Sought cohesive, integrated solutions to meet criteria and maximize value.
Target Value Design Process EXAMPLES OF CHALLENGES: Master plan / Massing Atrium / Collegial spaces Structure / Immediate Occupancy Materiality / Cladding Design
Target Value Design Process MASTER PLANNING / MASSING: 85 height limit Little variation in height throughout campus Defined envelope of campus master plan Atrium and collegial spaces desired.
Target Value Design Process MASTER PLANNING / MASSING: Investigated compressing floor to floor to add additional story within 85 limit Atriums require extensive smoke control and commissioning time Atriums underutilized on campus. Activate two-story spaces with communal functions to gain efficiency and ease budget and schedule pressures
Target Value Design Process STRUCTURE AND IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY: Building use tied to adjacent new Hospital - extensive requirements for all systems. Site Specific Criteria tied to combining multiple seismic events. Soft soil deep foundations required Strategy of rigid structure would likely be preferred solution from seismic review panel.
Target Value Design Process STRUCTURE AND IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY: Steel frame beneficial to budget and schedule, but not rigid. Concrete frame more expensive and schedule impact due to back and reshore process. Concrete would likely score highest. Allow compressed floors to increase number of stories. Multiple impacts to evaluate with team members.
Target Value Design Process EXTERIOR CLADDING DESIGN: Model of Architectural and Urban Design 1600 points! Challenge to match quality of existing campus buildings / durability with budget. Other value decisions to raise perceived score compressing budget and schedule on cladding design. Engaging trade partner skilled in process to develop design
Target Value Design Process EXTERIOR CLADDING DESIGN: Adopted construction strategies and committed to particular form, materials and fabrication techniques. Quest to develop highest value solution for project, that finds the sweet spot between efficiency and expression. Detailed knowledge of process allowed design team to make quick decisions weighed against cost, schedule and aesthetic concerns.
After Award/ Design Phase Team began working to formalize tools & output, some challenges in moving forward pre-existing formats to suit this project Normal & Lean running as parallel processes time to implement in challenging design schedule Big room started in WRNS office until trailer location completed. Evolving process as team expanded Training & continuous improvement
Cladding Design Development Timeline
Exterior Cladding Development WALTERS & WOLF LEAN JOURNEY Continuous improvement on global scale One-piece-flow, identify and eliminate waste UCSF DESIGN/BUILD GOALS Streamline project design and activities to meet customer needs Standardize GFRC panel design allowed for flexibility in production Pre-assembled windows/panels installed, glazed and caulked in plant
Cladding Development Lean Principles GFRC panels 12 x 30 in Walters & Wolf yard
Cladding Development Lean Principles Pre-assembled window units aligned and stacked in sequence of installation Lifting/installing (6) units in lieu of one
Skin Fabrication-Production-Installation Standardization in design, procurement and fabrication allowed the flexibility to accommodate the customer s accelerated schedule needs Just in time fabrication Visual control
Panel Installation
Panel Installation 372 panels hung in 5 weeks
Visual Scheduling - MASTER SCHEDULE
Lean Tools Used To Tackle Our Schedule Challenges Big Room Collaboration Takt Time Analysis Pull Scheduling Last Planner Visual Management Tools Visual Scheduling Quality Management Prefabrication strategies
Collaboration in the Big Room
Takt Time Analysis
Pull Scheduling Excavation thru grade beams Waterproofing thru SOG Going vertical Skin & Roof Tenant Improvements (typical floor) MEP startup & commissioning
Last Planner
Visual Management POWERFUL FORM OF COMMUNICATION FOR ENTIRE WORKFORCE Site logistics Safety hazards Safety awareness Safety tips
Visual Management Evolution Example of Quality Control in-slab electrical distribution, material staging coordination
Visual Management Evolution Got away from the Traditional Approach 6 WEEK ROLLING SCHEDULE
Visual Scheduling Our version of the 6 week rolling schedule that easily communicated to the project team
Develop an Integrated Quality Program OUR GOAL WAS SIMPLE: Set up an integrated quality program, so everyone is working on the same platform and tracking in real time SOFTWARE LEVERAGED FOR THE PROJECT Microsoft Excel (initially used before leveraging more powerful integrated software solutions) BlueBeam & BlueBeam Studio BIManywhere BOX Cloud Network
Early Stage of Quality Control
Quality Control Evolving Bring BIM model into field
Tracking Quality on the Fly
Full Transparency Quality Tracking
Lean Tools Produce Measurable Successes SUCCESSES Were able to build superstructure per our aggressive construction schedule Effective communication (from executives to all field labor) Were able to erect the exterior skin panels sooner
Lean Tools & Process Produce Measurable Successes Overall inspection pass rate
Lean Tools & Process Produce Measurable Successes Last Planner Tracking 84% average throughout construction
Conclusion Successes & challenges of meeting schedules Continuous improvements Value of Lean processes Measurable Successes
Questions? RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC WRNS STUDIO
Competition Process PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS RFP GOES OUT TO BID 1 2 3 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS 8 INTERVIEWED, 3 SELECTED CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT 43 DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS 5 6 7 8 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CRITERIA VERIFICATION FINAL PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS UCSF SCORES & SELECTS TEAM
Timeline 28 MONTHS