jeffrey white construction management emphasis
Post on 14-Jan-2016
18 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Conclusion
Jeffrey White - Construction Management Emphasis
Jeffrey White Jeffrey White Construction Management EmphasisConstruction Management Emphasis
Introduction
Foundation Analysis
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Conclusion
Northern Virginia Medical Northern Virginia Medical Education Campus, Education Campus,
Springfield, VASpringfield, VA
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
AgendaAgenda
Investigation Area OutlineInvestigation Area Outline
GoalsGoals
BackgroundBackground
AnalysesAnalyses
Conclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & Recommendations
Project OverviewProject Overview
Design side analysis – Foundation InvestigationDesign side analysis – Foundation Investigation
CM related research – Trailer TechnologyCM related research – Trailer Technology
Owner Issue – Alternative Financing OptionsOwner Issue – Alternative Financing Options
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Project OverviewProject Overview
LocationLocation – Industrial Park in Springfield, VA (10 minutes from Washington D.C. Beltway)
ArchitectureArchitecture – 3 storied Brick façade medical education building with attached Precast 750 space parking garage.Other envelope components consists of curtain wall, metal panels, & cast stone.
SpacesSpaces – Public pharmacy, Barnes & Nobles, dental and medical laboratories, faculty & administrative offices, patient clinics, imaging and EMT rooms. BuildingBuilding SizeSize - 121,000 SF
CostCost - $26 million
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Project TeamProject Team
OwnerOwner Northern Virginia Community CollegeNorthern Virginia Community College 3rd largest Community College in the nation with over 60,000 students.
Construction ManagerConstruction Manager - Gilbane Building CompanyGilbane Building Company
ArchitectsArchitects - Hillier & Lukmire Grant PartnershipHillier & Lukmire Grant Partnership
Joint architecture effort based on each firm’s prior experience (Hillier – medical buildings, Lukmire Grant – coordination with the state standards & review agency of BCOM).
Mechanical EngineerMechanical Engineer - S3E Klingemann (MEP) Structural EngineerStructural Engineer - Cagley & Associates
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Foundation AnalysisFoundation Analysis
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Foundation Investigation Background & GoalsFoundation Investigation Background & Goals
AnalysisAnalysis
Evaluate the use of spread footers by designing each Evaluate the use of spread footers by designing each based from column loads it is to carry and the based from column loads it is to carry and the associated soil bearing capacities to formulate an associated soil bearing capacities to formulate an estimate to evaluate.estimate to evaluate.
Existing Foundation Existing Foundation – 572 driven steel H-piles at an – 572 driven steel H-piles at an ave. length of 45’. Combined with a series of pile ave. length of 45’. Combined with a series of pile caps and grade beams. The SOG thickens to 16” at caps and grade beams. The SOG thickens to 16” at the perimeter to tie into the grade beams with dial the perimeter to tie into the grade beams with dial rods. Cost $1.2 millionrods. Cost $1.2 millionRedesign GoalRedesign GoalTo eliminate Pile subcontract ($641,076) to result in a To eliminate Pile subcontract ($641,076) to result in a reduced cost.reduced cost.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Deep to Shallow FoundationDeep to Shallow Foundation
Spread Footer DesignSpread Footer Design
Spread footer’s were designed and checked against Spread footer’s were designed and checked against one-way (beam) shear & two-way (punching) shear. one-way (beam) shear & two-way (punching) shear. Full design would need design check for flexure as Full design would need design check for flexure as well as check for over-turning.well as check for over-turning.
Requires 15’ excavation at 2:1 slope to reach soil Requires 15’ excavation at 2:1 slope to reach soil bearing capacities of 4000 psf.bearing capacities of 4000 psf.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Rough EstimateRough Estimate
*Spread footers for Interior Columns only - Estimate $1,917,090
Spread footer Design- 7.5'x7.5'x18"
UnitCost/unit -
(Including Labor) QuantityExcavation C.Y. $37.00 240 $8,880.00Engineered Fill & Compaction C.Y. $100.00 237.1 $23,710.00Formwork S.F. $4.91 43.2 $212.11
Concrete C.Y. $100.00 2.9 $290.00Rebar ton $879.00 0.075 $65.93
Total $33,158.04Indicates costs referenced from www.getaquote.com
Estimate for single spread footer - C-4
*Engineered Fill Estimates competively priced, Excavation & Concrete obtained via superintendent specific to job, Rebar estimate obtained from RSMeans 2002.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Alternative-Footer Design at 2000 psf soil bearing Alternative-Footer Design at 2000 psf soil bearing capacitycapacity
Assumptions:Assumptions: Must avoid all fill to evade possible differential Must avoid all fill to evade possible differential settling. Footers resized for 9’ excavation. settling. Footers resized for 9’ excavation. *Design resulted in 8.8’x8.8’x24”*Design resulted in 8.8’x8.8’x24”
Foundation estimate nearly Foundation estimate nearly $600,000$600,000 greater than greater than original.original.
*Proper analysis would require additional boring logs & *Proper analysis would require additional boring logs & site investigation.site investigation.
Conclusion:Conclusion: Shallow foundations found unfeasible based on Shallow foundations found unfeasible based on extensive excavation and fill required due to poor soil extensive excavation and fill required due to poor soil bearing capacities.bearing capacities.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Short Interval Production ScheduleShort Interval Production Schedule (SIPS)(SIPS)Analysis of Original FoundationAnalysis of Original FoundationSIPS Background: SIPS Background: Ideal for analyzing repetitive construction Ideal for analyzing repetitive construction
work (pile caps). A precedent can be set for a cycle of work work (pile caps). A precedent can be set for a cycle of work and continuously improved upon.and continuously improved upon.
Project Background:Project Background: Contract awarded in two phases based Contract awarded in two phases based on the extensive design process.on the extensive design process.
GMP#1 – site utilities, mobilization, foundation work, & long GMP#1 – site utilities, mobilization, foundation work, & long lead items (steel, Precast).lead items (steel, Precast).
Dual contract stages resulted in a 4 week schedule slide.Dual contract stages resulted in a 4 week schedule slide.
Goal:Goal: To provide detailed look at foundation work To provide detailed look at foundation work appropriately plan for continuous work flow.appropriately plan for continuous work flow.
Planned Foundation work- 20 weeks
Actual Scheduled work- 16 weeks
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Work Flow used in SIPS studyWork Flow used in SIPS study
1. Pile Driving
2. Excavation, w/ Rebar Prefabrication Concurrent
3. Piles Cut & Bearing Pads welded
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
4. Form Pile Cap/ Place Rebar Cage/Set Anchor Bolts
5. Pour Concrete
Work Flow used in SIPS studyWork Flow used in SIPS study
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
6. Cure/Strip Forms/Bituminous damp proofing
7. Backfill & Compact
Work Flow used in SIPS studyWork Flow used in SIPS study
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Construction Change of Pile CapConstruction Change of Pile CapElimination of formworkElimination of formwork
Geotechnical Report – “site soil is of Geotechnical Report – “site soil is of extremely cohesive kind”extremely cohesive kind”
Neat Cut opportunity – Quality Control RequiredNeat Cut opportunity – Quality Control Required
Neat Cut eliminates or reducesNeat Cut eliminates or reduces FormworkFormwork ExcavationExcavation Backfill & CompactionBackfill & Compaction
Replace bituminous waterproofing activity with bentonite fabric.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
SIPS ResultsSIPS Results
Time (min.) Quantity
Total minutes per pile cap
Drive Piles
Lift 2 170 340
Drive Piles 18 170 3060
Excavate
Back hoe Excavation 5 52 260
Hand excavation 10 52 520
Cut Pile Cap to elevation 6 170 1020
Weld Baseplate to Piles 10 170 1700
Form Pile Cap (SF) 4.32 2239 9672.48
Place Rebar Cages
place chairs 3 52 156
lift & Place 5 52 260
place anchor bolts 10 52 520
Concrete
Pour Concrete 5 52 260
vibrate 3 52 156
Strip Formwork 10 52 520
Fill & Compaction
Fill (8in. Lifts) C.Y. 3 272 816
Compact C.Y. 3 272 81620076.48
334.61
SIPS - PC-4
Totals for Critical Path Activities
Total Man-Hours
Time QuantityTotal minutes per
pile cap
Drive Piles
Lift 2 170 340
Drive Piles 18 170 3060
Excavate
Back hoe Excavation (C.Y.) 10.7 254 2717.8
Hand excavation (SF) 1.02 2239 2283.78
Cut Pile cap 6 170 1020
Weld baseplate 10 170 1700
Place Rebar Cages
place chairs 3 52 156
lift & Place 5 52 260
Set anchor bolts 10 52 520
Concrete
Pour Concrete 5 52 260
vibrate 3 52 156
12473.58
207.89Total Man Hours
Totals for Critical Path Activities
SIPS - PC-4
Original MethodOriginal Method Revised Construction without Revised Construction without formworkformwork
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Schedule Reduction for foundation constructionSchedule Reduction for foundation constructionSIPS ResultsSIPS Results
Initial Activities moved forward to accommodate continuous workflow
Drive PilesExcavateCut Pile Cap to elevationWeld Baseplate to Piles
Place Rebar CagesPrefab Rebar Cageslift & Placeplace anchor bolts
ConcretePour Concrete Waterproofing
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13Week 9 Week 10
Foundation Work in Project ScheduleFoundation Work in Project Schedule
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Formwork, Excavation, Fill & Compaction Formwork, Excavation, Fill & Compaction SavingsSavings
SIPS ResultsSIPS Results
Quantity Unit Cost TotalExcavation (C.Y.) 1116.1 37.00$ 41,295.70$ *Cost referenced from job cost - super. Adams
Quantity Material Labor Equip Total Total CostFill (C.Y.) 1116.1 -$ 1 1.36 2.36 2,634.00$ Compaction (C.Y.) 1116.1 -$ 0.99 0.06 1.05 1,171.91$
Total 3,805.90$
Quantity Material Labor Equip Total Total CostPile Cap (S.F.) 16280 4.91$ 2.40$ 0.07$ 4.91$ 79,934.80$ Grade Beams (S.F.) 4248 1.02$ 1.77$ 0.05$ 2.84$ 12,064.32$
Total 91,999.12$
Savings of Eliminating Formwork
Total Savings 133,294.82$
Fill & Compaction Cost Savings
Formwork Savings (including stripping)
*Formwork cost taken from www.get-a-quote.com, Virginia
Additional Excavation Cost Savings
*Fill & Compaction costs taken from www.get-a-quote.com, Virginia
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
ConclusionConclusion
Excavation & Fill costs to remove inadequate Excavation & Fill costs to remove inadequate soil make a shallow foundation uneconomical.soil make a shallow foundation uneconomical.
Pursue feasibility of neat cut opportunity. Pursue feasibility of neat cut opportunity.
Utilize SIPS a communication tool to provide Utilize SIPS a communication tool to provide owner & CM detailed information to avoid or owner & CM detailed information to avoid or reduce work stoppage.reduce work stoppage.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Construction TechnologyConstruction Technology
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Construction Technology Construction Technology ResearchResearch
Collaborative Project Management SystemsCollaborative Project Management Systems
Gilbane’s Current Project SystemGilbane’s Current Project System
Prolog 6.0 – (RFI’s, Punchlist, Submittals, Meeting Minutes)
Server located in trailer
Database on trailer network
All information needed in hard copy
Current IndustryCurrent Industry – of Contractors, suppliers, service providers and owners 53% using online collaboration
Associated General Contractors of America
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Existing Information Flow
Data Entry – Prolog
Hard Copy Form
Fax
Sub-Contractor/Owner
Data Entry to own software
Own form faxed
Hard copy modified, faxed
Architect
Data Entry –Prolog
Hard Copy Form
Data Entry –Prolog
Hard Copy Form
Fax/FedEx
Fax/FedEx
Hard Copy Printed
OR
Internal Congestion (per license basis)Internal Congestion (per license basis)2 licenses for 7 on site employees with Prolog related 2 licenses for 7 on site employees with Prolog related duties.duties.
Project Collaboration Communication Flow
Internet (Database Ownership negotiable)
Subcontractors
ArchitectOwner
Data Entry & Retrieval to/from Software
Data Entry & Retrieval to/from Software
Data Entry & Retrieval to/from Software
Data Entry & Retrieval to/from Software
InefficienciesInefficiencies
Unproductive information flowUnproductive information flow
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Benefits (Intangible)Benefits (Intangible) Savings (Tangible Savings (Tangible Budgeted Items)Budgeted Items)
Decrease Human resource Decrease Human resource timetime
Postage Service (FedEx) - Postage Service (FedEx) - $14,300$14,300
Increase SecurityIncrease Security Printing & Copying Printing & Copying (Blueboy) - $40,000 (Blueboy) - $40,000
Improved Response TimesImproved Response Times Office Supplies - $6,000Office Supplies - $6,000
Web-Based TrainingWeb-Based Training Secretarial Services - Secretarial Services - $46,800$46,800
Travel TimeTravel Time
Timely On Hand Timely On Hand InformationInformation
Better interface with teamBetter interface with team
Benefits IdentifiedBenefits Identified
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
How does Gilbane get all players to How does Gilbane get all players to collaborate?collaborate?
XMLXML – Extensible Markup Language, allows – Extensible Markup Language, allows information flow between different information flow between different applications.applications.
Owner ReimbursableOwner Reimbursable – Costs of software – Costs of software can be “bought into” by the owner and can be “bought into” by the owner and paid for the duration of the project.paid for the duration of the project.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
ConclusionConclusion
Gilbane should pursue online collaboration Gilbane should pursue online collaboration for future projects.for future projects.
Benefits have been proven.Benefits have been proven.
Employees already trained.Employees already trained.
Better and more timely Information flow.Better and more timely Information flow.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Owner FinancingOwner Financing
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Owner Financing – Alternative Owner Financing – Alternative Financing Options for Public OwnersFinancing Options for Public Owners
Goal:Goal: Reduce difficulties of owner’s budget Reduce difficulties of owner’s budget overruns, find a financing alternate that overruns, find a financing alternate that enhances construction.enhances construction.
Existing ConditionsExisting Conditions: NVCC funds current project NVCC funds current project through state appropriations allotted yearly.through state appropriations allotted yearly.
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Why re-financing is a good fit for NVCCWhy re-financing is a good fit for NVCCIncreased voter resistance to approval of state Increased voter resistance to approval of state funds to public capital projectsfunds to public capital projects
Short term cash flow problemsShort term cash flow problems
Portion of contingency prematurely received Portion of contingency prematurely received by ownerby owner
Negative PublicityNegative Publicity
State review boards & procurement lawsState review boards & procurement laws
New legislationNew legislation
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Owner Financing – New VA LegislationOwner Financing – New VA Legislation
Virginia Public-Private Educational Facilities and Virginia Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002Infrastructure Act of 2002
Legislation applicable to the followingLegislation applicable to the following
School buildings
Functionally related and subordinate facility and land to a school building
Any depreciable property provided for use in a school facility that is operated as a part of the public school system
Goal: Recognize and capitalize on the competencies held by each party in the construction process
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
NVCC’s Prospective OptionsNVCC’s Prospective Options
Three Basic Types of Public/Private Real Estate Partnerships
Type of Project and Participation
Entities Design Finance Develop Construct Operate Ownership
1.Private Partner in conjunction with public entity(s)
Private with little or no
Public Input
Private with Marginal Public Capital or
Noncapital Investment Private Private Private Private
2. Traditional Public/Private
Partnership Private with Public Input
Private and Public Entity(s) Private
Private with Public Oversight
Private or Public
Private and/or Public
3.Public Partner in conjunction with a private developer
Private Contract or
in-house Public Public Entity(s)
Private Developer on a Fee
Basis
Private with Public Oversight
Private or Public Public
Stainback, John. Public/Private Finance and Development
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Financing Alternative’s to Financing Alternative’s to considerconsiderFinancial aspects of owner Financial aspects of owner
for considerationfor consideration
College is not a for profit organization
Short term cash flow problems
Unable to issue bonds
Tax exempt clauses available for college
Raising funds through private donors more difficult
OptionsOptions
Construction Loan
Develop Lease-Back
Developer Owned – Operating Lease
School Owned – Tax Exempt Lease Purchase
Developer Financed for operation control
Bond Issuance
Raising Capital
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Alternative analysisAlternative analysis
Construction LoanConstruction Loan – Now permitted through private entity, Doesn’t capitalize on innovative finance options
Develop Lease-BackDevelop Lease-Back
Developer Owned (Operating Lease)Developer Owned (Operating Lease)
Builds no equity into project Owner depreciates building over term for tax benefits
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Alternative analysisAlternative analysis
Developer Owned with Operational ControlDeveloper Owned with Operational Control
Limited operational revenues make option unfeasible
College owns at the end of leasing period (Tax exempt College owns at the end of leasing period (Tax exempt Lease Purchase)Lease Purchase)
Builds Equity with each payment (components of principal & interest) Payments are tax exempt Most common Project Purchased at termination for typically $1.00
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Risk’s Related to the CollegeRisk’s Related to the College
Student Enrollment – unpredictabilityStudent Enrollment – unpredictability
Technology Advancements – College Technology Advancements – College obsolescence obsolescence
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
RecommendationsRecommendations
Pursue Developer Owned lease-back (Operating Pursue Developer Owned lease-back (Operating Lease)Lease)
Follow RFI/RFQ/RFP submission
BenefitsBenefitsAvoids state procurement lawsAvoids state review boardsAvoids future long-term risks of buildingAvoids the schools short term cash flow
*NVCC not in business of taking risks, making profits, or acquiring assets
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
Greg Eden, Charles Eden & CompanyEd Camden, NVCCJohn Hansen, Froehling & RobertsonMarilyn Scott, GilbaneDan Hamilla, GilbaneHarold Adams, GilbaneAndy Faber, GilbaneDr. Messner, PSUDr. Hanagan, PSUWalt Schneider, PSUKen Pasch, PSUEntire PSU AE facultyFellow AE Peers
Introduction
Foundation Investigation
“Technology in the Trailer”
Owner Financing
Questions
Jeffrey White - Construction Management
Questions?Questions?
top related