Dolphin Mall ExpansionMiami, Florida

Travis Anderson Smith

Architectural Engineering

Construction Management Option 2007

“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,”

The Modification Process

1. Dolphin Mall Expansion Project History

2. Value Engineering

3. Structural Cage Creation

4. Fire Protection Design

4. Constructability Review

5. Schedule Reduction

6. Why Industry Needs to Ride The Commissioning Wave

7. Questions and Acknowledgments

“That is a great idea, but good luck changing industry.”

Where is Dolphin Mall?

Bass Pro Certified Pad

WASD Line

Start Point of Demolition

Permanent Egress Doors

Bass Pro Entrance

Information Booth

Permanent Corridor

Skanska Office

Location

Parking Area

Dolphin Mall Northwest Corner

North

What is Expanded?

Boat Storage AreaBass Pro Shop Site

Demo Area South

Demo Area North

Skanska Office

Location

Dolphin Express Way

117 NW St.

Florida Turnpike

North

Expansion Requirements?

• 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

109

2

3

5

61

7

13

4

12

8

1114

1516

19

18

17

20

What is the Scope of Work?Demolition $760,000

•$15.84SqFtTemp Egress Corridors $750,000

•$241.94SqFtStructural Steel $116,000

•$3.63SqFtRoofing $128,000

•$4.00SqFtSprinklers $87,000

•$2.72SqFtHVAC $425,000

•$13.29SqFtElectrical $179,000

•$5.60SqFtPerm Egress Corridors $955,000

$382.00SqFt

What Should Be Value Engineered?

1. Permitting 2. Mobilization 3. Selective Demolition 4. Temporary Egress Corridors5. Wall and Roof Demolition 6. Footing Installations7. HVAC Relocation and Installation

How to Egress Through Entry #1?

Structural Cage Design?

Can The Cage Be Built?

Beams are designed to account for:45psf Construction Live Load40psf Personnel Live Load10psf Non-Composite Steel Decking Dead Load20psf Wood Skin Dead Load

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

Does Sprinkler Design Change?

1. Wet Pipe2. Ordinary 2 Hazard Level3. Unobstructed4. No Pump Required5. Four Branches6. 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.

Sprinkler Design Breakdown?

PSU - Energy and Geo-Environmental Engineering 25

Fire Protection - IHS-420Theory of Automatic Sprinkler Performance

Area Density Curves

PSU - Energy and Geo-Environmental Engineering 24

Fire Protection - IHS-420 Automatic Sprinkler Systems

176 GPM @ 49 PSI

1000 + GPM Available

PSI Stepped Down

Does Taubman Save Again?

Is Building Made Easy?

How are the Panels Dropped?

North

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

First panel saw cut and dropped out

Second panel dropped out

Third panel saw dropped out

Fourth panel saw dropped out after “5” is supported

Fifth and sixth panels dropped in away from Entry #1

Seventh and eight panels saw cut and dropped out

Ninth panel saw dropped out after “8” is supported

Tenth and eleventh panels dropped in

EGRESS

Footing Installations

North

1

2

1

2

Demo Area South completed first and

excavation and masonry footings and wall

construction to follow prior to Demo Area North

Demo Area North completed first and

excavation and masonry footings and wall

construction to follow

Permanent Corridor Construction

1

1

22

3

3

Demo Area South masonry wall finished and corridor constructed first

while Demo Area North is being prepared

Structural Cage removed and Entry #1 is finalized

Demo Area North masonry wall finished and corridor constructed prior

to Structural Cage removal

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

Constructability Impacts on Schedule1. The permitting schedule reduction is 22 days starting with the

original 222 day duration and decreasing it to a 200 day duration. 2. The site-work schedule reduction is 23 days starting with the

original 139 day duration and decreasing it to a 116 day duration. 3. 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.

4. The demolition schedule reduction is 15 days starting with the original 50 day duration and decreasing it to a 35 day duration.

5. The mall reconfiguration schedule reduction is 46 days starting with the original 137 day duration and decreasing it to a 91 day duration.

6. Info desk relocation schedule reduction is 52 days starting with the original 72 day duration and decreasing it to a 20 day duration.

Reasons For Commissioning?

1. Tenant Discomfort2. System Design3. Demolition of Mechanical System Inaccuracies4. HVAC Relocation and Testing5. Johnson Control Spot Checks6. Mall to Bass Pro Integration7. 425,000 Reasons for the Corridor Construction

Reasons I Like CxA’s1. 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. 2. Improved coordination of CD’s3. Accurate specs4. Reduced RFI’s5. Reduced costs6. Reduced callbacks7. Knowledge increase8. Smooth turnover of building9. Reduced energy costs10. Design air quality11. Enhanced documentation12. Risk mitigation13. Function from day one14. Third party reviews

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,

Commissioner Statistics

Survey Breakdown12% Commissioners24% Owners8% Architects12% Engineers44% CM/Contractors

Commissioning Experience26% Five or Fewer Projects28% Ten or Less Projects38% Fifty or Less Projects8% Greater Then Fifty Projects

Public vs Private Experience40% Worked Solely on Public Projects48% Worked on Both Public and Private12% Worked Solely on Private Projects

Project Cost Data4% Under $100,0009% $100,000-$1,000,00023% $1,000,000-$10,000,00044% $10,000,000-$100,000,00019% Over $100,000,000

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

Police StationsOil/Gas FacilitiesForeign ResortsEmergency Tunnel Ventilation PlantsSubway Tunnel InfrastructureNuclear FacilitiesChemical PlantsRail System Command CentersAirportsBiotechnical FacilitiesHotelsManufacturing PlantsTransportation HubsBus DepotsCommunity CentersWarehouses

Data CentersLibrariesCentral PlantsVarious RenovationsMaintenance FacilitiesMunicipal BuildingsPostal CentersUtility ProjectsAthletic FacilitiesAviation FacilitiesFood PlantsWaste Water Treatment FacilitiesBaggage Handling SystemsSenior CentersTrade/Financial CentersSewer ConstructionDemonstration WetlandsLift StationsClean Room FacilitiesMilitary Centers

Who Should Hire The CxA?Owners/Architects/Engineers/Commissioners Typical Responses1. “CxA must work in the best interest of the owner, loyalty to the owner

and no one else.”2. “Typically done through the designer unless distrust becomes evident

between contractor and designer.”3. “It is the owner’s building, he deserves all the value.”

Contractor Typical Responses1. “Owner should have representative knowledge about the process

but the contractor should provide greater coordination inclusive of scheduling.”

2. “Owners are to busy, A/E like to think there is a conflict of interest but contractors do the building.”

3. “Contractors should hire the CxA to minimize cost.”4. “As long as there are updated drawings, the contractor should

handle the CxA.”

When Should The CxA Arrive?Owners/Engineers Typical Response“Prior to design development.”

Contractor Typical Responses“Preconstruction is 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.

How to Use Your CxA?1. “CxA’s need to be on-site once construction starts.”2. “CxA is in charge of developing and managing plans for commissioning, they

need to be part of the team, the more time they give you during design the less they will be required to give during the later stages of the project.

3. “Pre-functional inspections, witness testing and validation of scenario based performance testing.”

4. “LEED guidelines should be used for deciding the use of a commissioner.”5. “ASHRAE guidelines should be used to determine your commissioner’s role.”6. “Paper collector or in the trenches depends on what works for the owner.”7. “Let them be preventative and not reactive, give them authority to review

submittals.”8. “Quality assurance and plan development are essential.”9. “CxA runs bi-weekly meetings and multiple constructability reviews.”

Who Writes Specs?• 62% want CxA to write MEP

specs.• 38% find no need for a CxA to

write specs.

Positives

1. “Yes, especially performance based specifications so any element that is important to the CxA should be included in the specs.”

2. “Yes, design-build projects where construction can commence prior to final design.”

3. “A CxA can adapt to specs written by others but that isn’t optimum.”

Negatives

1. “The CxA should be checking specs not writing them, the liability is on the designer’s professional registration.”

2. “CxA’s input can be onerous and self-serving concerning spec writing.”3. “CxA’s have no risk in the game.”

Post Occupancy Reporting• 68% see trending in POR of

commissioned buildings• 32% see no trending in POR of

commissioned buildings

Positives1. “POR absolutely conveys trending in commissioned facilities by stating the performance of

commissioned systems and whether or not they are maintained properly.”

2. “Absolutely, the trending uncovers serious design & installation issues that can impact occupant comfort, health and energy costs when commissioning is not brought onboard.”

3. “POR tells a story about not only how well the commissioning process went but in some cases reveals flaws in equipment.”

4. “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.”

Negatives1. “POR typically represents design and construction issues not commissioning.”

2. “Commissioning comes up short of preparing occupants for facility operation.”

Cx Building Performance1. “Commissioning must be implemented over the life cycle of the facility,

the earlier the CxA got involved the better the building performed.”2. “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.”

3. “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.”

4. “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.”

5. “Commissioning is sometimes time driven lowering performance.”6. “Major errors will not magically be corrected by hiring a CxA, the

designer still needs to be a master of his trade.”7. “CxA was brought on too late and the owner was disappointed with the

building’s performance.”

Is There Call Back Trending?

1. “Backward dampers caught during commissioning could have been a costly call back for a contractor down the road.”

2. “Fewer call backs on commissioned buildings.”3. “Because we mandate commissioning on all projects our

warranty/post project costs are significantly lower then competitors.”

4. “Just because a facility is commissioned does not imply that it was commissioned correctly.”

5. “Lack of cleaning and HVAC adjustments can happen on both commissioned and non-commissioned especially if not maintained.”

6. “In some cases the cost of call backs does not equate to the cost of commissioning.”

Who Decides Check Percent?1. “Owner/Designer/CxA need to establish guidelines.”2. “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.”3. “ASHRAE guidelines are what designers like to use.”4. “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.”5. “Contractors understand the budget concerns while your CxA is

typically not concerned.”

As-Built Quality1. “As-builts are part of the commissioning report and therefore are

definitely better.”2. “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.

Warranty Analysis?1. “Warranty management and system performance are two very different things.”2. “Too many variables to say lack of commissioning is the cost escalator for

warranties.”3. “Commissioners help the owner make claims on warranties.”4. “Lower call backs mean lower premiums on a warranty.”5. “Our warranty costs are lower then competitors and that is a direct correlation to

commissioning.”6. “U.S. Department of Energy’s December 15, 2004 release clearly identifies this as a

yes.”

1. “Building and contract type will dictate the warranty.”2. “Commissioners should dictate the warranty period because a contractor will

always put it’s priorities first.”3. “Very difficult for the GC to delay a subcontractor or supplier warranty until

after a CxA decides its time.”4. “An owner should never eat the failures of an inadequate builder.”5. “Political pressure will typically trump the lingering Cx issues.”6. “California state law already dictates this.”7. “Start dates do not matter is duration that does.”8. “The owner can make dates unreasonable for a GC.”

Warranty Start Date?

Outsourcing O&M to CxA?

1. “Owner’s preference but why not, it would put pressure on the CxA to assure the building is operational at full potential.”

2. “Those with intimate knowledge of the systems should remain with the O&M staff for some predetermined time period.”

3. “Keep CxA and O&M separate.”4. “It all comes down to money and who will pay for the service,

liability and warranty issues could prevent the outsourcing to the CxA.

O&M on Cx Team?

1. “Our commissioning specs require it.”2. “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.”

3. “Not necessarily practical, O&M can be unrealistic when involving time and money.”

4. “Success is going to be gauged on how active the personnel is in the process.”

5. “Rarely do they seem to show up when invited.”6. “Skill level is different between CxA and O&M.

Economic Feasibility?

Positives1. “A little money can go a long way.”2. “Scaling is important, limited commissioning can save 80% of the cost and deliver many of

the needed benefits.”3. “Regardless of size, some level of Cx is beneficial.”4. “Fiscal responsibility spans beyond total construction cost, building cycle management has

soft costs.”5. “Large, complex facilities is an overwhelming yes.”6. “Long term costs are lower.”7. “Every Cx plan is customized to the project it fits.”

Negatives1. “Only on complex facilities.”2. “Size and complexity dictate fiscal responsibility.”3. “On smaller projects the architect and engineer can double as a CxA.”4. “Technical complexity is a bigger driver then size or project type of the project.”5. “Depends on owners requirements of the commissioner.”

Lessons Learned?“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,”

“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”

Positive Experiences?“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,”

“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”

Modifying Dolphin Mall

1. Multiple Value Engineering Uses

2. Structural Cage Creation

3. Fire Protection Design

4. Constructability Improvements

5. Schedule Reductions

6. Use of Commissioning

“Great ideas, will change industry.”

AcknowledgmentsThesis 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