Dolphin Mall Expansion Miami, Florida

1. Dolphin Mall ExpansionMiami, Florida “If we tune our cars on a consistent basis, why wouldn’t we want to tune-up our buildings and commissioning allows that very opportunity to fine tune the machine,” Travis Anderson Smith Architectural Engineering Construction Management Option 2007

2. Dolphin Mall Expansion Project History Value Engineering Structural Cage Creation Fire Protection Design Constructability Review Schedule Reduction Why Industry Needs to Ride The Commissioning Wave Questions and Acknowledgments The Modification Process “That is a great idea, but good luck changing industry.”

3. Where is Dolphin Mall?

4. What is Expanded?

5. Corridor Construction Original 5-6 Month Schedule Project Permitting Skanska Mobilization Selective Demolition Temporary Egress Corridor Wall and Roof Demolition Footing Installations Storm Water and WASD Piping Relocation HVAC Relocation and Installation Project Cost of $6,400,000 Boat Storage Area Certified Pad Expansion Requirements?

6. What is the Scope of Work? 15 • Demolition $760,000 • $15.84SqFt • Temp Egress Corridors $750,000 • $241.94SqFt • Structural Steel $116,000 • $3.63SqFt • Roofing $128,000 • $4.00SqFt • Sprinklers $87,000 • $2.72SqFt • HVAC $425,000 • $13.29SqFt • Electrical $179,000 • $5.60SqFt • Perm Egress Corridors $955,000 • $382.00SqFt 16 2 4 9 10 20 3 12 14 11 19 13 1 6 8 17 7 5 18

7. What Should Be Value Engineered? • Permitting • Mobilization • Selective Demolition • Temporary Egress Corridors • Wall and Roof Demolition • Footing Installations • HVAC Relocation and Installation

8. How to Egress Through Entry #1?

9. Structural Cage Design?

10. Can The Cage Be Built? Beams are designed to account for: 45psf Construction Live Load 40psf Personnel Live Load 10psf Non-Composite Steel Decking Dead Load 20psf Wood Skin Dead Load

11. Can I Save Taubman Some Money? $750,000 for the temporary egress corridors at a lengthy schedule and a cost of $3,572 per lineal foot. The new cost for the 45 lineal feet at that price would be $160,715 plus the cost of the Structural Cage at $43,715. The corridor is now twice as wide as before for the 45 feet of cage, and therefore a number of approximately $200,000 plus $43,715. $506,000 Savings

12. Does Sprinkler Design Change? • Wet Pipe • Ordinary 2 Hazard Level • Unobstructed • No Pump Required • Four Branches • Three Heads per Branch Properly designed and installed sprinkler systems are part of the fundamental fire protection envelope that is key to today’s modern building design and construction.

13. Sprinkler Design Breakdown? 176 GPM @ 49 PSI 1000 + GPM Available PSI Stepped Down

14. Does Taubman Save Again?

15. Is Building Made Easy?

16. How are the Panels Dropped?

17. Footing Installations

18. Permanent Corridor Construction

19. Dates So Quickly Forgotten? • Permits-Permits • November 11, 2005 through September 14, 2006 • Site-Site Work • May 22, 2006 through October 30, 2006 • Bass Pro Shop-Boat Storage • June 5, 2006 through November 5, 2006 • Demo-Demolition • July 10, 2006 through September 7, 2006 • MC-Mall Reconfiguration • July 24, 2006 through December 1, 2006 • ID-Information Desk Relocation • November 11, 2005 through September 14, 2006

20. Constructability Impacts on Schedule • The permitting schedule reduction is 22 days starting with the original 222 day duration and decreasing it to a 200 day duration. • The site-work schedule reduction is 23 days starting with the original 139 day duration and decreasing it to a 116 day duration. • The Bass Pro Boat Storage schedule reduction is 14 days starting with the original 113 day duration and decreasing it to a 99 day duration. • The demolition schedule reduction is 15 days starting with the original 50 day duration and decreasing it to a 35 day duration. • The mall reconfiguration schedule reduction is 46 days starting with the original 137 day duration and decreasing it to a 91 day duration. • Info desk relocation schedule reduction is 52 days starting with the original 72 day duration and decreasing it to a 20 day duration.

21. Reasons For Commissioning? • Tenant Discomfort • System Design • Demolition of Mechanical System Inaccuracies • HVAC Relocation and Testing • Johnson Control Spot Checks • Mall to Bass Pro Integration • 425,000 Reasons for the Corridor Construction

22. Reasons I Like CxA’s • Commissioning costs between .15 and 1 percent of total construction cost yet pays back 3 to 11 dollars for every one dollar spent in fees. • Improved coordination of CD’s • Accurate specs • Reduced RFI’s • Reduced costs • Reduced callbacks • Knowledge increase • Smooth turnover of building • Reduced energy costs • Design air quality • Enhanced documentation • Risk mitigation • Function from day one • Third party reviews

23. Who Commissions and Does it Work? Clark Construction Group, Metropolitan Transit Authority-New York City Transit, Clark Construction Group-California L.P., The Pennsylvania State University, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., LCS Constructors, Inc., O&G Industries, Inc., Dorvin D. Leis Co., Inc., Purdue University, M.A. Mortenson Company, Gilbane Building Company, Ryan Companies, Parsons Corporation, Barton Malow Company, Olympic Associates Company, Fentress Bradburn Architects, Yost Grube Hall Architecture, City of Phoenix Water Services Department, Momentum Inc., Carroll County Government, Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Centex Construction Company, Sustainable Engineering Group. CCI Mechanical, Inc., Freese & Nichols, Inc., Great Valley Consultants, Opus North Corporation, Con-Way Freight Inc., Pegasus Group, ECC International, LLC, Welsh Commissioning Group, Inc., GRD Energy, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, CH2M HILL, WCS/Ca, KJWW Engineering Consultants, Green Time LLC and GRG Inc., McKinstry Company, Carter & Burgess, Inc., Rosendin Electric, Inc., ACS Installations, Environment & Facility Management, Chinook Systems Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation,

24. Commissioner Statistics Survey Breakdown 12% Commissioners 24% Owners 8% Architects 12% Engineers 44% CM/Contractors Commissioning Experience 26% Five or Fewer Projects 28% Ten or Less Projects 38% Fifty or Less Projects 8% Greater Then Fifty Projects Project Cost Data 4% Under $100,000 9% $100,000-$1,000,000 23% $1,000,000-$10,000,000 44% $10,000,000-$100,000,000 19% Over $100,000,000 Public vs Private Experience 40% Worked Solely on Public Projects 48% Worked on Both Public and Private 12% Worked Solely on Private Projects

25. Facility Experience Schools Offices Hospitals Condominiums Performing Arts Centers Clinical Research Centers Power Plants Specific Government Facilities Commercial Spaces Laboratories Healthcare Facilities Museums Industrial Projects Pharmaceutical Facilities Retail Space Universities Data Centers Libraries Central Plants Various Renovations Maintenance Facilities Municipal Buildings Postal Centers Utility Projects Athletic Facilities Aviation Facilities Food Plants Waste Water Treatment Facilities Baggage Handling Systems Senior Centers Trade/Financial Centers Sewer Construction Demonstration Wetlands Lift Stations Clean Room Facilities Military Centers Police Stations Oil/Gas Facilities Foreign Resorts Emergency Tunnel Ventilation Plants Subway Tunnel Infrastructure Nuclear Facilities Chemical Plants Rail System Command Centers Airports Biotechnical Facilities Hotels Manufacturing Plants Transportation Hubs Bus Depots Community Centers Warehouses

26. Who Should Hire The CxA? • Owners/Architects/Engineers/Commissioners Typical Responses • “CxA must work in the best interest of the owner, loyalty to the owner and no one else.” • “Typically done through the designer unless distrust becomes evident between contractor and designer.” • “It is the owner’s building, he deserves all the value.” • Contractor Typical Responses • “Owner should have representative knowledge about the process but the contractor should provide greater coordination inclusive of scheduling.” • “Owners are to busy, A/E like to think there is a conflict of interest but contractors do the building.” • “Contractors should hire the CxA to minimize cost.” • “As long as there are updated drawings, the contractor should handle the CxA.”

27. When Should The CxA Arrive? Owners/Engineers Typical Response “Prior to design development.” Contractor Typical Responses “Preconstructionis the time to play with design before it is complete.” “During the final Stages of rough-in, prior to the close of interiors” Architect Typical Response “If the mechanical engineers have anticipated commissioning in their system design, it may not be necessary to bring your CxA into the project until systems are nearing completion.” Commissioner Typical Response “It depends on philosophy and budget, because the book tells you prior to schematics, but a review before final documents are drawn up typically will get the job done.

28. How to Use Your CxA? • “CxA’s need to be on-site once construction starts.” • “CxA is in charge of developing and managing plans for commissioning, they need to be part of the team, the moretime they give you during design the less they will be required to give during the later stages of the project. • “Pre-functional inspections, witness testing and validation of scenario based performance testing.” • “LEED guidelines should be used for deciding the use of a commissioner.” • “ASHRAE guidelines should be used to determine your commissioner’s role.” • “Paper collector or in the trenches depends on what works for the owner.” • “Let them be preventative and not reactive, give them authority to review submittals.” • “Quality assurance and plan development are essential.” • “CxA runs bi-weekly meetings and multiple constructability reviews.”

29. 62% want CxA to write MEP specs. 38% find no need for a CxA to write specs. Who Writes Specs? • Positives • “Yes, especially performance based specifications so any element that is important to the CxA should be included in the specs.” • “Yes, design-build projects where construction can commence prior to final design.” • “A CxA can adapt to specs written by others but that isn’t optimum.” • Negatives • “The CxA should be checking specs not writing them, the liability is on the designer’s professional registration.” • “CxA’s input can be onerous and self-serving concerning spec writing.” • “CxA’s have no risk in the game.”

30. 68% see trending in POR of commissioned buildings 32% see no trending in POR of commissioned buildings Post Occupancy Reporting • Positives • “POR absolutely conveys trending in commissioned facilities by stating the performance of commissioned systems and whether or not they are maintained properly.” • “Absolutely, the trending uncovers serious design & installation issues that can impact occupant comfort, health and energy costs when commissioning is not brought onboard.” • “POR tells a story about not only how well the commissioning process went but in some cases reveals flaws in equipment.” • “POR is the only way to know whether or not commissioning is useful, in my experience its clear that lack of commissioning on a project results in system difficulty post occupancy.” • Negatives • “POR typically represents design and construction issues not commissioning.” • “Commissioning comes up short of preparing occupants for facility operation.”

31. Cx Building Performance • “Commissioning must be implemented over the life cycle of the facility, the earlier the CxA got involved the better the building performed.” • “Sadly we have found that if not commissioned, owners will take an incomplete or flawed as-installed building system because of the great cost of corrective action.” • “If we tune our cars on a consistent basis, why wouldn’t we want to tune-up our buildings and commissioning allows that very opportunity to fine tune the machine.” • “Building performance is directly correlated to critical system commissioning, a higher level of attention will be paid by everyone if the CxA is around and that means a better building down the road.” • “Commissioning is sometimes time driven lowering performance.” • “Major errors will not magically be corrected by hiring a CxA, the designer still needs to be a master of his trade.” • “CxA was brought on too late and the owner was disappointed with the building’s performance.”

32. Is There Call Back Trending? • “Backward dampers caught during commissioning could have been a costly call back for a contractor down the road.” • “Fewer call backs on commissioned buildings.” • “Because we mandate commissioning on all projects our warranty/post project costs are significantly lower then competitors.” • “Just because a facility is commissioned does not imply that it was commissioned correctly.” • “Lack of cleaning and HVAC adjustments can happen on both commissioned and non-commissioned especially if not maintained.” • “In some cases the cost of call backs does not equate to the cost of commissioning.”

33. Who Decides Check Percent? • “Owner/Designer/CxA need to establish guidelines.” • “Anyone but the owner will determine a number that is self serving and the only self serving party on a project should be the owner.” • “ASHRAE guidelines are what designers like to use.” • “As a commissioner some systems can be sampled but others should be 100% and that us the job of the CxA to now the difference.” • “Contractors understand the budget concerns while your CxA is typically not concerned.” As-Built Quality • “As-builts are part of the commissioning report and therefore are definitely better.” • “All too often the CxA does not get their hands on the as-built drawings.” • “CxA comments can be ignored by contractors during as-built creation.” • “Accurate documentation is essential, vendors and installers must do their part to assist the commissioner or the as-builts will not truly be representative.

34. Warranty Analysis? • “Warranty management and system performance are two very different things.” • “Too many variables to say lack of commissioning is the cost escalator for warranties.” • “Commissioners help the owner make claims on warranties.” • “Lower call backs mean lower premiums on a warranty.” • “Our warranty costs are lower then competitors and that is a direct correlation to commissioning.” • “U.S. Department of Energy’s December 15, 2004 release clearly identifies this as a yes.” Warranty Start Date? • “Building and contract type will dictate the warranty.” • “Commissioners should dictate the warranty period because a contractor will always put it’s priorities first.” • “Very difficultfor the GC to delay a subcontractor or supplier warranty until after a CxA decides its time.” • “An owner should never eat the failures of an inadequate builder.” • “Political pressure will typically trump the lingering Cx issues.” • “California state law already dictates this.” • “Start dates do not matter is duration that does.” • “The owner can make dates unreasonable for a GC.”

35. Outsourcing O&M to CxA? • “Owner’s preference but why not, it would put pressure on the CxA to assure the building is operational at full potential.” • “Those with intimate knowledge of the systems should remain with the O&M staff for some predetermined time period.” • “Keep CxA and O&M separate.” • “It all comes down to money and who will pay for the service, liability and warranty issues could prevent the outsourcing to the CxA.

36. O&M on Cx Team? • “Our commissioning specs require it.” • “It is a very good approach, systems need to be learned intimately and O&M must be there from the start, this is a good method of training.” • “Not necessarily practical, O&M can be unrealistic when involving time and money.” • “Success is going to be gauged on how active the personnel is in the process.” • “Rarely do they seem to show up when invited.” • “Skill level is different between CxA and O&M.

37. Economic Feasibility? • Positives • “A little money can go a long way.” • “Scaling is important, limited commissioning can save 80% of the cost and deliver many of the needed benefits.” • “Regardless of size, some level of Cx is beneficial.” • “Fiscal responsibility spans beyond total construction cost, building cycle management has soft costs.” • “Large, complex facilities is an overwhelming yes.” • “Long term costs are lower.” • “Every Cx plan is customized to the project it fits.” • Negatives • “Only on complex facilities.” • “Size and complexity dictate fiscal responsibility.” • “On smaller projects the architect and engineer can double as a CxA.” • “Technical complexity is a bigger driver then size or project type of the project.” • “Depends on owners requirements of the commissioner.”

38. Lessons Learned? “Owners resistant to changes,” “Punitive instead of objective,” “Lack construction common sense,” “Owners and CM place claims on each other,” “Dishonesty-incompetence-ignorance-stubbornness,” “CxA is lazy and avoids when needed,” “Can’t be profitable when hammered by designers,” “Need qualified engineers and contractors to buy in,” “Owner lacks support,” “Cost is rough but schedule is everything,” “Late submittals,” “Team uses CxA as scapegoat in process,” “Value is difficult to sell,” “Very difficult process,” “CxA constantly confronts the designer,” “Cx can equal construction time,” “Costs increasing due to training,” “Scope not well defined,” “Tons of paperwork,” “False representation as CxA to get contracts,” “Financially limited by the owner,” “Underbidding of job leads to cut corners,” “Hands tied by subcontractors” “Can drag out dates,” “CxA get power happy,” “Demand more then contracted for,” “Poor Planning,” “Late participation,” “Independent and inexperienced,” “CxA is inflexible,” “CxA not familiar with project requirements,” “Not available for testing,” “Delayed responses to reports,” “High cost,” “CxA justifies their existence rather then do what's right for the project,” “Limited agents available,” “CxA is just to busy,” “Turnover is high with CxA’s,” “Show up-perform tests-go home,” “Lack of dedication,” “Lack of manpower,” “Drag the process out,” “Owners wont pay for additional CM time needed,” “CxA needs to be aware of schedule,” “No clear test plans & no integrated system testing,” “No validations & no scenario-based testing,” “No O&M manuals as promised,” “CxA used to get free work out of CM,”

39. Positive Experiences? “Occupant comfort,” “Peak system performance,” “Better buildings,” “Tax breaks on energy consumption,” “Close-out is easier,” “Smooth transitions take place,” “Provides a baseline for efficiency,” “Great cost efficiency long term,” “Good payback in all respects,” “Projects finished earlier,” “Lower warranty costing,” “Peace of mind,” “Confidence by the team in the project,” “Rewarding for everyone,” “Higher quality of work,” “Like buying Microsoft or Google when first offered,” “Design-builders can’t live without it,” “Repeat business based on performance,” “Headaches are reduced,” “Reduced punch-list items,” “Financially limited by the owner,” “Overall accountability,” “Honestly working to provide an end product” “Many good things to say,” “Proactively vs reactivity,” “Makes clear design and operation intent,” “Knowledge sharing on systems,” “Clear test plans & verification and validation,” “All parties satisfied in the end,” “Cx organizes a project,” “Win-win if it is a good CxA,” “Owner learns what is working and what is not,” “Another set of eyes is helpful,” “Provides us a working facility every time,” “A constructed building as designed,” “O&M personnel are trained,” “Buildings are more prepared for use,” “Owners are happy and impressed,” “Facility performs as expected,” “Minimal MEP problems long term,” “Worth the effort for sure,” “Systems are stable,” “Contractors have direction,” “Test reports are utilized,” “Major cost/schedule/operability issues caught,” “Took one building from gold to platinum,” “Energy savings,”

40. Modifying Dolphin Mall • Multiple Value Engineering Uses • Structural Cage Creation • Fire Protection Design • Constructability Improvements • Schedule Reductions • Use of Commissioning “Great ideas, will change industry.”

41. Acknowledgments • Thesis Project Analysis & Development • Angelo Tsai of Skanska U.S.A. Building Inc., • Commissioning Research • Frederick E. Smith of NYCTA, • Structural Cage Design • Paul Parfitt of The Pennsylvania State University, • Professor M. Kevin Parfitt of The Pennsylvania State University, • Fire Protection Design • Dr. Joel Haight of The Pennsylvania State University • Smith/Anderson Family • For making Penn State a possibility for the last 5 years