1 / 36

Jeffrey White Construction Management Emphasis

Jeffrey White Construction Management Emphasis. Northern Virginia Medical Education Campus, Springfield, VA. Introduction Foundation Analysis “Technology in the Trailer” Owner Financing Conclusion. Agenda. Project Overview Design side analysis – Foundation Investigation

kale
Download Presentation

Jeffrey White Construction Management Emphasis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jeffrey White Construction Management Emphasis Northern Virginia Medical Education Campus, Springfield, VA Introduction Foundation Analysis “Technology in the Trailer” Owner Financing Conclusion

  2. Agenda Project Overview Design side analysis – Foundation Investigation CM related research – Trailer Technology Owner Issue – Alternative Financing Options • Investigation Area Outline • Goals • Background • Analyses • Conclusions & Recommendations

  3. Project Overview Location – Industrial Park in Springfield, VA (10 minutes from Washington D.C. Beltway) Architecture – 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.Spaces – Public pharmacy, Barnes & Nobles, dental and medical laboratories, faculty & administrative offices, patient clinics, imaging and EMT rooms.BuildingSize - 121,000 SFCost - $26 million

  4. Project Team • OwnerNorthern Virginia Community College • 3rd largest Community College in the nation with over 60,000 students. • Construction Manager - Gilbane Building Company • Architects-Hillier & 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 Engineer- S3E Klingemann (MEP) • Structural Engineer- Cagley & Associates

  5. Foundation Analysis

  6. Foundation Investigation Background & Goals Existing Foundation – 572 driven steel H-piles at an ave. length of 45’. Combined with a series of pile caps and grade beams. The SOG thickens to 16” at the perimeter to tie into the grade beams with dial rods. Cost $1.2 million Redesign Goal To eliminate Pile subcontract ($641,076) to result in a reduced cost. Analysis Evaluate the use of spread footers by designing each based from column loads it is to carry and the associated soil bearing capacities to formulate an estimate to evaluate.

  7. Deep to Shallow Foundation • Spread Footer Design • Spread footer’s were designed and checked against one-way (beam) shear & two-way (punching) shear. Full design would need design check for flexure as well as check for over-turning. • Requires 15’ excavation at 2:1 slope to reach soil bearing capacities of 4000 psf.

  8. Rough Estimate *Spread footers for Interior Columns only - Estimate $1,917,090

  9. Alternative-Footer Design at 2000 psf soil bearing capacity Assumptions: Must avoid all fill to evade possible differential settling. Footers resized for 9’ excavation. *Design resulted in 8.8’x8.8’x24” Foundation estimate nearly $600,000 greater than original. *Proper analysis would require additional boring logs & site investigation. Conclusion: Shallow foundations found unfeasible based on extensive excavation and fill required due to poor soil bearing capacities.

  10. Short Interval Production Schedule(SIPS) Analysis of Original Foundation SIPS Background: Ideal for analyzing repetitive construction work (pile caps). A precedent can be set for a cycle of work and continuously improved upon. Project Background:Contract awarded in two phases based on the extensive design process. GMP#1 – site utilities, mobilization, foundation work, & long lead items (steel, Precast). Dual contract stages resulted in a 4 week schedule slide. Goal:To provide detailed look at foundation work appropriately plan for continuous work flow. Planned Foundation work- 20 weeks Actual Scheduled work- 16 weeks

  11. Work Flow used in SIPS study 1. Pile Driving 2. Excavation, w/ Rebar Prefabrication Concurrent 3. Piles Cut & Bearing Pads welded

  12. Work Flow used in SIPS study 4. Form Pile Cap/ Place Rebar Cage/Set Anchor Bolts 5. Pour Concrete

  13. Work Flow used in SIPS study 6. Cure/Strip Forms/Bituminous damp proofing 7. Backfill & Compact

  14. Construction Change of Pile Cap Elimination of formwork Geotechnical Report – “site soil is of extremely cohesive kind” Neat Cut opportunity – Quality Control Required Neat Cut eliminates or reduces Formwork Excavation Backfill & Compaction Replace bituminous waterproofing activity with bentonite fabric.

  15. Original Method Revised Construction without formwork SIPS Results

  16. SIPS Results Schedule Reduction for foundation construction Foundation Work in Project Schedule Initial Activities moved forward to accommodate continuous workflow

  17. SIPS Results Formwork, Excavation, Fill & Compaction Savings

  18. Conclusion • Excavation & Fill costs to remove inadequate soil make a shallow foundation uneconomical. • Pursue feasibility of neat cut opportunity. • Utilize SIPS a communication tool to provide owner & CM detailed information to avoid or reduce work stoppage.

  19. Construction Technology

  20. Construction Technology Research Collaborative Project Management Systems Current Industry – of Contractors, suppliers, service providers and owners 53% using online collaboration Associated General Contractors of America • Gilbane’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

  21. Inefficiencies • Internal Congestion (per license basis)2 licenses for 7 on site employees with Prolog related duties. • Unproductive information flow

  22. Benefits Identified

  23. How does Gilbane get all players to collaborate? XML – Extensible Markup Language, allows information flow between different applications. Owner Reimbursable – Costs of software can be “bought into” by the owner and paid for the duration of the project.

  24. Conclusion • Gilbane should pursue online collaboration for future projects. • Benefits have been proven. • Employees already trained. • Better and more timely Information flow.

  25. Owner Financing

  26. Owner Financing – Alternative Financing Options for Public Owners Goal:Reduce difficulties of owner’s budget overruns, find a financing alternate that enhances construction. Existing Conditions:NVCC funds current project through state appropriations allotted yearly.

  27. Why re-financing is a good fit for NVCC • Increased voter resistance to approval of state funds to public capital projects • Short term cash flow problems • Portion of contingency prematurely received by owner • Negative Publicity • State review boards & procurement laws • New legislation

  28. Owner Financing – New VA Legislation Virginia Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 Goal: Recognize and capitalize on the competencies held by each party in the construction process • Legislation 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

  29. NVCC’s Prospective Options

  30. Financing Alternative’s to consider • Financial aspects of owner for 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 • Options • Construction Loan • Develop Lease-Back • Developer Owned – Operating Lease • School Owned – Tax Exempt Lease Purchase • Developer Financed for operation control • Bond Issuance • Raising Capital

  31. Alternative analysis Construction Loan – Now permitted through private entity, Doesn’t capitalize on innovative finance options Develop Lease-Back Developer Owned (Operating Lease) Builds no equity into project Owner depreciates building over term for tax benefits

  32. Alternative analysis College owns at the end of leasing period (Tax exempt 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 Developer Owned with Operational Control Limited operational revenues make option unfeasible

  33. Risk’s Related to the College Student Enrollment – unpredictability Technology Advancements – College obsolescence

  34. Recommendations Pursue Developer Owned lease-back (Operating Lease) Follow RFI/RFQ/RFP submission Benefits Avoids state procurement laws Avoids state review boards Avoids future long-term risks of building Avoids the schools short term cash flow *NVCC not in business of taking risks, making profits, or acquiring assets

  35. Acknowledgments 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

  36. Questions?

More Related