Peoria Design Build Case Study

Document Sample
Peoria Design Build Case Study Powered By Docstoc
					Peoria Design Build Case Study
                     Prisila Ferreira - City of Peoria

                Bob Eubanks - Eubanks Consulting

                  (Project Management Consultant)

             Eric Hedlund - Sundt Construction, Inc.




                                    November 1, 2002
Peoria Design Build Case Study

      City of Peoria
Alternate Project Delivery
   Evaluation Process
Today’s Situation

• City Complex Has Serious Space Constraints
• Temporary Space Costly
   – Not Optimal for Effective Operations

• Time Is Critical
• Legislation Provides Design Build Alternative
  to “Hard Bid”
   – Law Outlines Specific Selection Process
   – Opportunity to Address Time Constraints
Traditional Hard Bid or Design-Bid-Build

 • Owner Hires an Architect to Design Project
   and Develop Bid Documents
 • Architect Acts As Owner’s Representative
   During Construction
 • Contractor Is Hired Under a Separate Contract -
   No Involvement in Design
    – Contract Awarded to Low Bidder

 • Time Is Not Critical
Expectations of Hard Bid Process

• Owner Expects Complete Documents -100%
• Architects/engineers Expect Understanding
  of Design Intent
  – Owner Knows What They Are Getting and
    Contractor Included Everything
• Contractor Expects Documents Reflect
  Owner Requirements
  – Can Build As Shown, Meets Code, Anything
    Not Shown - Increases Price
CM At Risk

•   Architect Hired on Qualifications/Experience

    – During Pre-design, RFQ Issued for CM at Risk Firms
• Contractor Hired Based on Qualifications/Experience
    – Is a Member of the Design Team
    – Works to Meet Owner Budget, Schedule, Best Value
    – Hired for a Set Fee or Percentage
• Contract - Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
    – Owner Gets Not to Exceed Cost, Any “Savings”
      Go to the Owner
CM At Risk--Continued
• Best Suited for Projects Where:

  – Time Is Critical

  – Budget Control Is Important-Design to Construction

  – Staff Time Is Limited or Inexperienced to Oversee
    Design/Construction

  – Owner Wants to Maintain Control Over Design

  – Owner Has Say in Selection of Subcontractors
Expectations of CM At Risk

• Team Understands Documents Never
  100% Complete or Accurate
• Everyone Participates and Asks Questions
  to Understand Expectations
• Everyone Works Together to Ensure Items
  Not on Plans, in Budget
• All Parties Work Together to Resolve
  Missed Expectations
Design Build
• Owner Contracts With “Design Builder”
  – Responsible for Design and Engineering
     • They Can Perform In-house or Contract Out

• Team (Owner/Architect-Engineer-Contractor)
  Define Requirements/Design
• Contractor Builds to Design/Engineering
• Same As “Master Builder” Concept
  Used Last 100 Years
Design Build--Continued
• Best Suited for Projects Where:
  – Time Very Important--Fastest Delivery System

  – Budget Control Important--GMP, Builder
    Responsibility for Bids to Come In or Under Budget

  – Staff Time Limited/Inexperienced

  – Owner Cares Most About the Function of the Building

  – Owner Does Not Want to Referee Disputes
    Between Designers and Contractor
Benefits of Team Managed Construction

 • Cost Control Improved Over Hard Bid
 • Flexible Scheduling
 • Reduction of Change Orders--No Low Bid Game
 • Ability to Reduce Cost Greatest Early in Design -
   Whole Team on Board
 • Ability to Fast Track
 • Collaborative Process
Proposed Design Build Schedule

• Select Architect/Builder    • July 2001

• Preliminary Design          • November 2001
   – guaranteed cost estab.

• Detail Drawings-45%         • March 2002

• Construction Begins         • April 2002
   – design concurrent

• Construction Completed      • September 2003 *
Original Project Schedule

• Site/Space/Budget Study       June 2001

• Architect Selection         October 2001

• Design Completed          November 2002

• Award Construction           March 2003

• Construction Completed September 2004
Recommendation
• Proceed With Design Build Concept
     – Identify/Address City Processes That Could
        Slow Project Down

     – Adjust Multi-Year CIP to Accommodate
        Expedited Schedule

• Assemble Project Steering Committee

• Develop Requirements and RFQ

• Hire Project Management Consultant
7/22/2010
Project Scope
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                  DD        Final GMP
       Selection                               Schematic     Estimate
                           Cost Model           Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program      Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation     Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                           Value
                                   Council           Engineering
                                   Approve
                                  Additional                        Early GMP
                                   Program                             Steel
                                                                   Procurement
Design Builder Selection Process
• Clearly defined Scope of Work is Essential to
  Delivery of High Quality Services
• DB or CM at Risk must be a PARTNERING
  process with Owner, Designer & Builder
• Owner Should have Well Defined & Understood
  Goals/Program & Budget
• Selection of the RIGHT DB or CM at Risk Team
  lays the Foundation for Successful Project
Design Builder Selection Process
• RFQ Should be Specific to Project
  – Document Key Issues
  – Interview Stakeholders
  – Define Key Issues/Program

• Clearly Define Submittal Requirements & Scoring
• Establish & “Train” Evaluation Panel
  (A/E & Contractor)
• Full & Open Communications Throughout
  the Process is a Must
Design Builder Selection Process
 Peoria Design Build
 Public Safety Administration Building
                                Written SOQ Evaluation
                                  Results & Ranking


                                Evaluator 1



                                                   Evaluator 2



                                                                      Evaluator 3



                                                                                         Evaluator 4



                                                                                                            Evaluator 5



                                                                                                                               Evaluator 6



                                                                                                                                                  Evaluator 7
              Max Score




                                                                                                                                                                               Summary
                                                                                                                                                                                Ranking
                                                                                                                                                                     Average
                                                                                                                                                                      Score
      Team


Sundt-Smith               100                 97                 93                 81                 68                 97                 71                 68      82.1               1
TEAM B                    100                 81                 90                 77                 70                 98                 69                 50      76.4               2
TEAM C                    100                 79                 89                 69                 65                 89                 78                 58      75.3               3
TEAM D                    100                 90                 85                 61                 62                 64                 80                 58      71.4               4
TEAM E                    100                 80                 74                 59                 59                 94                 42                 55      66.1               5
TEAM F                    100                 85                 93                 62                 55                 44                 65                 55      65.6               6
TEAM G                    100                 84                 72                 68                 52                 72                 80                 29      65.3               7
TEAM H                    100                 73                 66                 79                 68                 57                 63                 37      63.3               8
TEAM I                    100                 70                 84                 63                 49                 59                 75                 41      63.0               9
TEAM J                    100                 79                 68                 56                 50                 88                 49                 49      62.7              10
TEAM K                    100                 79                 54                 64                 57                 48                 48                 63      59.0              11
TEAM L                    100                 74                 80                 72                 49                 39                 44                 45      57.6              12
TEAM M                    100                 67                 74                 59                 41                 50                 67                 44      57.4              13
TEAM N                    100                 59                 55                 52                 56                 22                 76                 61      54.4              14
TEAM O                    100                 39                 43                 28                 38                 18                 47                 33      35.1              15



                                     Establish Short List
Design Builder Selection Process

• Interview is Important to Establish Rapport

• Pre-Interview Activities

   – Check References

   – Prepare Score Sheets Based on Key Issues

   – “Train” Evaluation Panel

• Interview & Rank Top 3 Firms
Peoria Design Build
Public Safety Administration Building

                  Final Cumulative Score




                                     Sundt/


                                              Team


                                                      Team
                             Score


                                     Smith
                              Max




                                                B


                                                       C
            Category

      Written SOQ              100    82.1     76.4    75.3
      Reference Check           25    19.8     10.5     7.0
      Interview                105    88.9     86.0    45.4
                     TOTAL     230   190.8    172.9   127.7




     Negotiate with #1 Ranked Team
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                  DD         Final GMP
       Selection                                Schematic    Estimate
                           Cost Model            Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program       Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation      Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                            Value
                                    Council           Engineering
                                    Approve
                                   Additional                        Early GMP
                                    Program                             Steel
                                                                    Procurement
Scope of Work Development
• Kick off Meeting
  – Key Stakeholders
  – Required Services Defined
  – Focus Meetings Scheduled
• Scope of Work Draft
  – Consultant Drafts Prepared
  – Initial Draft Reviewed
• Final Scope of Work Prepared
• Master Schedule Teaming Meeting
Scope of Work Development

• Design & Preconstruction Fees

  – Fees Developed Based on Scope of Work

  – Review of Fees

• Contract Terms Finalized

• Approval by City Council
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                  DD        Final GMP
       Selection                               Schematic     Estimate
                           Cost Model           Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program      Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation     Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                           Value
                                   Council           Engineering
                                   Approve
                                  Additional                        Early GMP
                                   Program                             Steel
                                                                   Procurement
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Programming Phase

• Programming Strategy
  – Base Program Validation
  – Additional Program Feasibility

• Project Cost Model
  – Budget Allocation Process
  – Detailed Cost Model
     • Base Program
     • Additional Program

• Council Approved Additional Program
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                  DD        Final GMP
       Selection                               Schematic     Estimate
                           Cost Model           Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program      Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation     Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                           Value
                                   Council           Engineering
                                   Approve
                                  Additional                        Early GMP
                                   Program                             Steel
                                                                   Procurement
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Schematic Design
• Develop Schematic Design Concepts
  – User “Gaming” Sessions
  – Floor Plans & Elevations
  – Multiple Exterior Elevation Concepts
    Presented to Council

• Integrate Base & Additional
  Program
• Steering Committee Update
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Schematic Design


• Schematic Estimate
  – “Everything But The Kitchen Sink Approach”

• Road Map to Meeting the Budget
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                  DD        Final GMP
       Selection                               Schematic     Estimate
                           Cost Model           Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program     Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation    Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                           Value
                                   Council           Engineering
                                   Approve
                                  Additional                        Early GMP
                                   Program                             Steel
                                                                   Procurement
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Design Development


 • Value Engineering Phase
    – Brainstorm List

    – Revisit Scope Priorities

 • VE Acceptance Process

 • Council Review Interior Finishes
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Design Development Estimate

• Goals

  – Validate All VE Incorporated

  – Determine Overall Budget Status

• Results


                Project Under Budget!
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                   DD         Final GMP
       Selection                                Schematic     Estimate
                           Cost Model            Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program       Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation      Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                            Value
                                    Council           Engineering
                                    Approve
                                   Additional                        Early GMP
                                    Program                             Steel
                                                                    Procurement
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Construction Documents & GMP

• Phased Bid Packages
  – Furniture & Flooring

  – Fire Protection

• Early GMP
  – Structural Steel

• Final GMP
  – Building Package
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Project Timeline



        Sundt                                                   DD        Final GMP
       Selection                                Schematic     Estimate
                           Cost Model            Estimate


Proposal &      SOW         Program       Schematic     Design    Construction
 Interview   Development   Evaluation      Design     Development Documents


                    Council
                    Approval                            Value
                                    Council           Engineering
                                    Approve
                                   Additional                        Early GMP
                                    Program                             Steel
                                                                    Procurement
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Benefits of Design Build

 • Schedule - Saved 1 Year
 • Better Aesthetics & Overall Quality
 • Better Value
   – 300 vs. 80 Secure Parking Spaces
   – Firing Range Added
   – Flex Space for Future Growth
   – Channel 11 Studio - Full Build-out
   – Increased Size to Accommodate 25 Year Program
Peoria Design Build Case Study
Benefits of Design Build

The Bottom Line is…

                   Building Area   Secure Parking
                        (SF)          Spaces         Cost
Original Program          60,000                80   16,000,000
Final Program             95,000               300   18,500,000


% Change               58%             275%          16%




                     Better Value!
Peoria Design Build Case Study
                     Prisila Ferreira - City of Peoria

                Bob Eubanks - Eubanks Consulting

                  (Project Management Consultant)

             Eric Hedlund - Sundt Construction, Inc.