Facility Assessment - Facilities & Services

1

New Mexico State University - Garcia HallFacility Assessment Client:New Mexico State University

Prepared by:Page400 W. Cesar Chavez, Suite 500, Austin, TX 78701Tel 512.472.6721

Consultant Team:Architecture PageMEP PageCivil Bohannan - HustonFire Protection Page

Submittal DateDecember 24, 2018

Project Number 18059

2

Sign-OffsThis page contains signatures required for approval of this document.

APPROVED

Date

Date

Date

3

This page is intentionally unused.

4

Table of Contents

Chapter/Section Page1. Executive Summary................................................................................52. Life Safety and Fire Protection..............................................................7

Observations ..........................................................................................................................................7Life Safety ..............................................................................................................................................7Fire Protection Systems .......................................................................................................................10Fire Detection and Alarm Systems.......................................................................................................14

3. Civil ........................................................................................................17Utilities..................................................................................................................................................17Site Grading .........................................................................................................................................17Drainage...............................................................................................................................................18

4. Architectural..........................................................................................20General.................................................................................................................................................20Observations ........................................................................................................................................21Roof ......................................................................................................................................................37Abatement ............................................................................................................................................39Student Life & Student Success...........................................................................................................40

5. Mechanical Scope Narrative ................................................................46Observation: .........................................................................................................................................46IAQ and Thermal Comfort ....................................................................................................................46Mechanical Equipment Room ..............................................................................................................48Conclusion............................................................................................................................................48

6. Electrical Scope Narrative ...................................................................56Observations ........................................................................................................................................56Recommendations ...............................................................................................................................57

7. Room Design.........................................................................................628. Renovation Phasing .............................................................................649. Estimate of Probable Cost ...................................................................6610. Cost Model Summary .........................................................................6811. Whole Building Demolition Cost .......................................................77

5

1. Executive Summary

Project Overview

On September 19, 2018 the Page design team visited New Mexico State University to conduct an Existing Facility Assessment of Garcia Hall. Civil, Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Alarm and Fire Protection disciplines were represented at the walk and escorted by the Assistant Director, Project Development & Engineering. The goal of the team was to review the existing conditions and create a facility assessment in the form of a written report with photo documentation showing areas of concern of the aging facility. Specifically, the summary of needs:

1. Complete a study for Garcia Hall improvements to facility exterior, courtyards, landscaping and room finishes.

2. Evaluate opportunity for flexible room types, ability to shifting between double and singles bedroom units based on enrollment.

3. Consider replacement needs for infrastructure to the building and utilities within the building. Study to include the MEP, Structural and hazardous material management.

4. Provide a cost estimate for a complete renovation to be used for future funding options and project budgeting.

5. Provide a cost estimate to abate and demolish Garcia Hall to be used for future funding options and project budgeting.

6. Provide recommendations on the building conditions, renovation and demolition options to assist NMSU in planning for current and future student needs for housing.

In general, recommendations on the building conditions, renovation and demolition options to assist NMSU in planning for current and future student needs for housing should be identified. Building code, life safety and ADA violations have been noted as well as mechanical and electrical equipment that is beyond useful service life. The administration at NMSU has expressed interest in growing enrollment of the University and that plan will need to address on-campus housing for students. Garcia Hall offers the ability to house many freshman and sophomores in double units, and upper classroom in single rooms. Overall, Garcia Hall represents a significant number of beds available to be offered for student living on campus. The following report is based on the site visit and our understanding of the Record/As-Built Documents provided by the University.

Garcia Hall is a Student Housing Dormitory building constructed in 1966 with approximately 183,000 S.F. The three-story dormitory is created by 5 wings off a spine of support function, service and circulation needs. From these wings 4 patio areas are created (A, B, C & D) giving generous light to most sleeping units, but limited light to some of the support and common areas such as laundry. A 20,000 square foot. Two-story entry hall contains student amenities on the first floor and class room spaces on the second level. Access to the dorms is form open walkways that line the court yards. The building structure is a type IIB metal frame composed structural columns and a combination of W shaped beams and open web joist with a composite floor and a metal deck roof. The exterior walls are composed of precast concrete panels on the outside of the building with storefront and stucco walls facing the court yards. There is an existing low sloped tar roof that has been top coated to extend its life. The building was most recently remodeled in 1999 to update some dormitory restrooms to comply with ADA and various some mechanical and electrical system maintenance. Subsequent refresh including repainting and flooring repairs on individual sleeping units has occurred over summer breaks, with Patio A finished in 2018. There has been no significant full-scale building renovation of the building to holistically address ADA and Life Safety issues. Architecturally, the building does not meet some of the student life needs for wellness and student success other peer institutions are providing. However, the building does have a unique character and solid structural frame that could be improved with thoughtful design solutions. If a full-scale phased building renovation is engaged in the future reprograming some square footage to address these student life needs should be considered. Including additional student meeting spaces, maker spaces, social cooking and study areas. A social Café opening to the campus

6

and one of the Patios with small retail may be implemented to create additional hub of activity. Conveniences like amazon lockers, swap racks, ride share parking and bike storage could be programmed as well. Outdoor spaces within the courtyards provide a real opportunity not yet realized for community gathering and activities.

The assessment has documented significant Fire Alarm and Fire Sprinkler life safety issues to be addressed in a whole building renovation project. Maintenance and upkeep on these items may be required as temporary measures for the interim or as part of regular inspection and testing. Additionally, substantial MEP system replacements have been identified that support a whole building project as well. Many building systems are well beyond the useful service life (1966) and could fail which would cause a bed shortage for housing students on-campus. Repair of these MEP systems is best accomplished by complete replacement. Garcia Hall is designed in a way that a phased renovation to address these needs could be accomplished since it is a residence open year around. A diagram of this phased approach is shown in subsequent sections for reference.

In summary, Garcia Hall has a useful structural frame of steel and concrete that can extend its service life another 30-40 years with a thoughtful renovation. The façade has qualities of the era it was designed that add character to the campus. Total project costs for a whole building renovation is approximately $35,000,000. In comparison, current new construction for on-campus housing averages around $75,000 per bed. If Garcia Hall was to undertake a whole building project renovation the per bed cost average of $38,736 is one-half the capital construction costs against similar new construction. Garcia Hall is in a prime location to the master plan goals building a residential district and pedestrian walk. The 884 beds in existing service can be renovated while saving expenditures of a full replacement. If whole demolition was desired the make ready cost of approximately $6,000,000 would be expended.

7

2. Life Safety and Fire Protection

Observations The Garcia Hall dormitory is three-story residential dormitory serving New Mexico State University at Las Cruces. The building was surveyed for existing deficiencies in life safety, fire protection, and fire detection and alarm systems through a site visit on 19 Sept 2018. The existing equipment and components of each system were additionally evaluated for remaining lifespan. The following report includes the system and component evaluations for Garcia Hall with respect to current building code.

Codes and Standards: IBC (2015) IFC (2015) NFPA 13 (2013) NFPA 14 (2013) NFPA 25 (2014) NFPA 72 (2013)

Exclusions: Storage rooms were unable to be accessed during site visit. Adequate sprinkler coverage or fire

alarm coverage not evaluated Level one RA apartments were unable to be accessed during site visit. Adequate sprinkler

coverage or fire alarm coverage not evaluated Current existing drawings for fire protection system not provided Current existing drawings for fire alarm system not provided Current existing drawings for life safety design not provided Current evacuation plan / sequence of operations not provided Information on gravity tank for fire protection water supply not provided

Life SafetyGarcia Hall consists of Type IIB construction per IBC. The building includes a sprinkler system but, does not meet the requirements of a fully sprinklered building due to the deficiencies in coverage. Therefore, the existing building is considered ‘non-sprinklered.’

The building is currently a mixed use, non-separated occupancy consisting of R-2 and A-3 occupancies. R-2 is the main occupancy of the building. The laundry rooms located on levels 2 and 3 are considered incidental use rooms. The existing area per level is as follows, per existing construction drawings: Level 1: 74,924 ft2 total (~63,000 ft2 for R-2, ~11,924 ft2 for A-3) Level 2: 71,972 ft2 total (~61,475 ft2 for R-2, ~10,497 ft2 for A-3) Level 3: 71,972 ft2 total (~61,475 ft2 for R-2, ~10,497 ft2 for A-3)

Construction and Fire Resistance

A separation of occupancies is not currently met with existing walls. A 1-hour rated fire barrier is required between the R-2 and A-3 occupancies to achieve separation accordance with IBC Table 508.4. As a non-separated occupancy, the area per level of the existing building exceeds all allowable areas for R-2 and A-3 occupancies, even if a fully sprinklered building and frontage allowance of 70% are applied. The frontage increase was calculated using a perimeter on public way to total perimeter ratio of 95% and a public way width of 30 ft, yielding a frontage increase of 70% using equation (5-5) in accordance with IBC 506.3.3. However, even when applying this calculation, the perimeter of these exterior walls is not in compliance with IBC definition of public way. It should be noted that the intent of the frontage increase is that the perimeter accounted for is accessible to the responding fire department. The exterior walls of Garcia Hall that surround the courtyards are not accessible to fire departments, as fire fighters must

8

enter through a single locked door within the exterior gate in order to gain entrance and move equipment to the location. This would need to be discussed with the AHJ.The most restrictive allowable area for the non-separated building, in accordance with IBC 508.3.2, is 9,500 ft2 for a building without full sprinkler coverage. With sprinkler and frontage allowances, this maximum becomes 35,150 ft2. Both are significantly exceeded by the existing area of ~71,972 ft2 to ~74,924 ft2 per level. The requirements for both R-2 and A-3 occupancy areas are to be applied to the corresponding areas within the building. The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. The existing building area exceeds the allowable area considerably. A fully sprinklered building and frontage increase of 70% using equation (5-5) was again applied. The existing building still exceeds the allowed value. Additionally, the full exterior of the building was used in this perimeter calculation, including the exterior walls surrounding the courtyards.

R-2, Fully Sprinklered:Allowable building height = 75 ft Actual building height = 30 ftAllowable stories above grade = 5 Actual stories above grade = 3Allowable area per level = 48,000 ft2 With frontage increase = 60,000 ft2

Actual area per level = ~63,000 ft2 maximum for R-2

Table 1

A-3, Fully Sprinklered:Allowable building height = 75 ft Actual building height = 30 ftAllowable stories above grade = 3 Actual stories above grade = 3Allowable area per level = 28,500 ft2 With frontage increase = 35,150 ft2

Actual area per level = ~11,924 ft2 maximum for A-3

Table 2

The walls around the dorm units do not extend past ceiling; the compartment above the dorm units for each wing is completely open. There is no rated separation between the units, and all air is shared. IBC 420.2 requires fire partitions between sleeping or dwelling units and the surrounding areas. Fire partitions must extend from floor foundation to slab or deck. In Garcia Hall, they are required to be 1-hour rated, whereas ½ hour is required for fully sprinklered buildings. The open cavity creates a large risk to students, as no general notification is provided to alert them of a fire in the wing. The only notification comes from in-unit smoke alarms, despite the units not being properly separated from each other.

Shared open cavity above dorm rooms

9

Rooms housing electrical, IT, and telecom equipment are unsprinklered and contain with unrated wood board walls. Penetrations into these rooms are unprotected.

Unprotected conduit penetrations to and from an unsprinklered level 2 IT room.

In addition, the enclosed stairwells serving as exits to both the R-2 and A-3 are not rated and include non-rated glass walls and doors on the plan east side. There is no separation from the building for any interior exit stairs. Separations consisting of fire partitions, fire barriers, fire walls, or shaft enclosures will require fire dampers. Separations consisting of smoke barriers, smoke partition, or horizontal assemblies will require smoke dampers. Any smoke damper or combination fire/smoke damper will require a connection back to the main Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP).

Egress

Because the interior stairwell is not separated, measured travel distance cannot terminate at the entrance to the stairwell; travel distance must extend all the way to the actual exit to the public way. By IBC Table 1017.2, the existing non-sprinklered building would have a travel distance of 200 ft, while installing a full coverage sprinkler system would allow 250 ft. The travel distance of 200 ft is exceeded for all occupants using the interior stairway, and for occupants on level 3 using the exterior stairways to the plan west doors. If the stairway were to be properly enclosed in compliance with IBC requirements, minimum travel distance would be met.

Accessibility

The exterior stair handrails are below the required minimum of 34 inches above tread per IBC 1014.2, at a current 32 ½” above tread. The exterior stairs are missing their 42” high guard rail per IBI 1015.3 currently missing.

Egress door hardware mounted above reach ranges. Multiple issues with the doors at the East and West ends of the east/west corridor of the housing section of the building. In addition to the items listed in the Accessibility section under the Life Safety heading the crash bars are set too high for proper activation of handicap students.

10

The plan south exits from the exterior corridor a located several inches above floor, creating an inaccessible exit and hazardous egress environment. If this egress would need to serve a large number of occupants exiting through poorly lit conditions, there is a high probability of occupant endangerment.

Plan south exit doors

Fire Protection SystemsThe existing fire suppression system is a partial coverage automatic wet-pipe sprinkler system fed by an on-site gravity tank. The system does not have a fire pump and is supplied by an on-site water tank. The location, elevation, and volume of the tank is not available. Changes to the suppression system will require the entire system to be recalculated to ensure the tank can still provide required pressure and flow to the most demanding locations.

11

Hose Valves

The layout of the building creates difficulties in fire department access to the courtyards. A review of the existing site plans and fire department access plans needs to be performed to determine all deficiencies. The addition of hose valves within the building and/or courtyards may be needed to alleviate difficulty in accessing these areas.

Fire Extinguishers

Fire extinguishers currently exceed maximum allowable travel distance of 75 ft. Several are unmarked. It appears extinguishers have been removed in some locations without supplementing the resulting gaps in coverage. Extinguishers are also mounted at a height above the allowable 5 ft from floor to top of extinguisher, leaving them inaccessible to some occupants. FEC cabinets must be marked in a conspicuous and uniform manner.

Extinguisher installed above accessible height (left), unmarked extinguisher (middle), location where required extinguisher has been removed (right)

Suppression System

Inspection, testing, or maintenance records in accordance with NFPA 25 5.1 are unavailable. Shop drawings or installation documents are not available to review full system layout or confirm age of piping or sprinklers throughout the building. Sprinklers that were installed in the original 1966 constriction of the building have passed their 50-year lifespan and must be replaced or fully tested for function per NFPA 25 5.3.1.1.1. The existing sprinkler coverage provides inadequate or obstructed coverage in many rooms, and is missing coverage in a large number of areas. The following areas have no sprinkler coverage: Level 1 assembly area main entrance and vestibules Level 1 assembly area study rooms, mail rooms, and offices

12

Level 1 study rooms and laundry rooms located between assembly area and residential areaThe following areas have partial or obstructed sprinkler coverage: All non-ADA dorm rooms and in-unit restrooms on all levels (inadequate coverage) Levels 2 and 3 mechanical and electrical/telecom use rooms (obstructed and/or inadequate

coverage)The storage rooms and RA apartment units were inaccessible for observation.The portion of the system serving the mechanical rooms on levels 1, 2, and 3 is fed through a separate ~1 ¼ ” riser that appears to penetrate and serve only the stacked mechanical rooms. The sprinklers fed by this riser are upright solder pellet type and are visibly loaded with dust and webbing. The 1 ¼” riser is undersized for the understood area it serves.

Mechanical room riser (left) and loaded sprinkler (right)

The sprinklers located on the level 2.5 assembly area are over-spaced in several areas, exceeding the maximum spacing allowed by NFPA 13 8.5, and installed improperly (shown below).

Sprinkler installed with escutcheon not sealed tight to ceiling

13

The majority of piping penetrations are not properly sealed and leave rooms unprotected, many of which are not sprinklered. This noncompliance with IBC 714 leaves the building vulnerable to the spread of smoke and flame beyond the area of origin.

Penetrations into the level 1 ceiling and level 2 floor

Due to lack of coverage in a large number of wide-spanning areas, as well as lack of inspection, testing and maintenance records, the sprinkler system should be redesigned and reconstructed as one compliant system, providing full coverage as required. Because the adequacy of the tank to serve the system cannot be confirmed without documentation of the tank’s location, elevation, and water supply, the system needs to be calculated and reviewed to determine if a fire pump is required to meet the pressure needs of the system.

Demolition

The extent of demolition of the fire protection system depends largely on the condition of the pipes, determined through a full internal inspection of the piping. Several sprinklers, along with the undersized mechanical room riser, will need to be demolished. Sprinklers that are past their warranty must be tested or demolished.

Cost to Bring System to Compliance:

Using an area-based estimate, standard fire protection cost estimate of $1.50 per square foot for new construction and $2-$6 for retrofitting existing buildings. A retrofit value of $3.50 per square foot will be used to account for the amount of areas needing new coverage and replacement, as well as the lack of information available and possibility that hose valves may need to be installed. The reconstructed system is estimated to cost $1,582,122. Further details can be found in the Estimate of Probable Cost spreadsheet provided by Page.

14

Fire Detection and Alarm Systems

Detection

Smoke detection coverage is provided at the level 1 assembly use lobby area, where there is no sprinkler coverage. While the smoke detectors satisfy the detection of a fire, there is no means to automatically suppress or contain the fire to the room or origin, risking life safety. Heat detectors are provided in level 1 lobby restrooms, all level public restrooms, and all level mechanical rooms and janitor closets. Detectors are poorly maintained and need to be cleaned and tested to continue service.

Heat detector in level 2 mechanical room

Manual initiation by means of pull stations are provided throughout the building as required for non-sprinklered buildings; they are not required and considered an added safety in fully sprinklered R-2 occupancies. Smoke alarms are provided in dorm units as required, however the smoke alarm units are designed to activate locally upon local detection only. Thus a fire in the shared cavity compartment would not immediately notify any other residents outside the room of origin, endangering the occupants. The existing smoke alarm system are intended only in properly constructed units, where fire partitions continue to deck or slab. It is unknown if smoke alarms connect to battery backup or emergency electrical system as required by IBC 907.2.11.6 and NFPA 72. The smoke alarm devices need to be tested to ensure current high-candela, low frequency requirements of NFPA 72 18.4.5 and 18.5.5.7 are met. Without the high-candela, low frequency notification from smoke alarms, the waking of sleeping occupants in the event of a fire is delayed.

Alarm

The audible and visual notification devices throughout the building do not provide full required coverage in most areas. The exterior strobe devices are weather protected with plastic casings that have yellowed, obscuring the strobe and depleting its effective coverage area significantly should it need to activate.

15

An exterior notification device with weather-protected casing obscuring the strobe intensityThere is mix of horn and non-listed speaker devices used for evacuation signaling. Information on audible signal procedures (temporal “fire alarm” tone vs voice messaging) is not provided. Speaker devices are not currently effective in intelligible audible signaling due to lack of devices, overspacing, and the use of non-listed speakers.

A fire alarm device with horn (left) and a speaker not listed for fire alarm use (right)Speakers are located on the level 1 lobby ceiling; however this area also includes wall mounted horn/strobe coverage. It is unclear if the ceiling speaker system is used for fire alarm / emergency voice messages. Voice evacuation is not required for the occupancy; however the existing Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) includes a live voice microphone and provides live and pre-recorded voice messaging ability. The FACP inspection tag and fire alarm system test records indicate that annual testing and inspection is not being performed in accordance with NFPA 72 14.3.1. Calculations, riser diagrams, and shop drawings are not available / maintained as required by NFPA 72 and IBC.The current fire alarm and detection system is insufficient in visual and intelligible audible notification. The function of this system is crucial in occupancies with sleeping occupants that need to be awakened before egressing in the event of a fire.

16

Connections

New connections from the existing fire alarm control panel will need to be made to all new smoke and fire/smoke dampers required throughout the building, including in-between the student suites. This is estimated to be approximately 400 new dampers, each requiring connection back to the panel.

Demolition

The extent of demolition of the fire alarm system will be minor and include non-listed devices (such as the level 3 speakers), and devices that have been damaged (such as obscured strobe covers). Devices past their warranty or maximum lifetime will be demolished.

Cost to Bring System to Compliance:

Using an area-based estimate, standard fire alarm cost estimate of $1-$2 per square foot for new construction and $2.50-$5 for retrofitting existing buildings. A retrofit value of $2.50 per square foot will be used, along with addition costs for new connections added. The reconstructed system is estimated to cost $597,195. Further details can be found in the Estimate of Probable Cost spreadsheet provided by Page.

17

3. Civil

UtilitiesWater and sewer lines are existing at the site serving the current building and other structures in the vicinity. The condition and state of repair of these facilities is relatively unknown and the age of the facilities can be dated back the original construction of Garcia Hall. Upgrading of some lines due to age and condition may be necessary for reliably serving the building.

Domestic Water Service: Garcia Hall is currently served by a 6-inch potable water service line located near the southcentral area of the building. Both the 6-inch steel service line and 10-inch steel mainline were built as a part of the original construction of Garcia Hall and supporting facilities in 1966. There is also a 4-inch steel fire supply service line that enters the mechanical room located at the southeastern corner of the building. It is assumed that at the existing water supply lines supporting the building are performing adequately and are successfully meeting occupant demand. However, the subsurface structural integrity of the steel supply piping was not investigated as a part of this study and it is reasonable to expect the pipeline to show signs of internal and/or external degradation.

Sewer Service: During the 1966 construction of Garcia Hall a 10-inch vitrified clay sanitary line was constructed to service the facility which is connected to the university’s sewer collection network. The 10-inch line enters the facility at the southwest entrance and is connected to a header that manifolds to the various wings of the facility and common areas. It is assumed that the current capacity of the current sewer system is acceptable for the current occupancy, however, modernization of the sewer collection materials is recommended to further extend the design life of the system supporting the building.

Site GradingA field investigation was performed of the existing site conditions within the building and around the site perimeter. Investigation of the site perimeter showed that ADA access from the north parking lot to the facility is limited to one access point which is located at the southcentral area of the parking lot. All entrances of the building appear to be in compliance with ADA requirements with ramps that appear in slope compliance, however, areas of sidewalk on the north side of the building were inspected to be lifting and flagged to be potential tripping hazards.

Example of Raised Sidewalk with Paint Flagging

Numerous ADA compliance issues were discovered within the perimeter of the facility. Paving within each of the courtyard wing was found to be uneven and contained numerous tripping hazards. Also,

18

some locations of pedestrian walkways were found to have elevation transition areas that are not ADA compliant and vertical curb drop offs that are greater than 6-inches in height.

Non-Compliant ADA Transition

DrainageDrainage around the perimeter of the site appears to be concentrated to two detention ponds located at the south end of the building site. The two ponds are connected by a 11x18-inch concrete arch pipe; it does not appear these ponds have an overflow ability into the extended storm drain in the local vicinity. No modifications to the detention ponds are anticipated as the ponds appear to be adequately maintained and appear to be effectively serving their intended use. Investigation of the perimeter of the building showed no areas of ponding at the base building and appeared to be effectively draining away from the building foundation. Within the building, roof drains direct flow to a 36-inch square drop inlet located at the south end of each courtyard. The roof drains currently discharge flow directly onto the surface of the sidewalk path as shown in Figure 3. It is recommended that modifications such as trench drains be installed at these locations to minimize disruption to pedestrian traffic during rain events.

19

Roof Drain Outlet

Each of the four drop inlets are connected to a mainline that discharges flow towards the southwest entrance of the building. The storm water leaves the building through the mainline in a 10-inch vitrified clay pipe which connects to a manhole west of Garcia Hall. Upon field investigation it was discovered that three out of the four drop inlets were holding water. It was not clear at the time of the site visit if the drop inlets were fully functional or have sediment issues, however, further investigation will need to be conducted to verify the complete integrity and capacity of the storm drainage piping and conveyance system from the building to its termination point further west.

20

4. Architectural

General The Garcia Hall dormitory is three-story residential dormitory serving New Mexico State University at Las Cruces. The building was surveyed for existing deficiencies in architectural envelope, ADA and student life amenities through a site visit on 19 Sept 2018. The existing components were evaluated for remaining lifespan or corrective measures. The following summary includes the components and evaluations for Garcia Hall with respect to useful life.

Architecturally, the building does not meet some of the student life needs for wellness and student success other peer institutions are providing. However, the building does have a unique character and solid structural frame that could be improved with thoughtful design solutions. If a whole building renovation is engaged, future reprograming to address student life and social spaces needs should be considered. Garcia hall represents one of the largest on campus residence units with 884 bed in service, typically year around.

21

ObservationsSealant at typical unit Door frames and Openings to exterior wall systems needs replacement.

Sealant at exterior wall systems needs replacement along with misc. patching of exterior concrete facade.

22

Sealant at exterior wall systems needs replacement along.

Existing polished metal railing, providing character of the façade.

23

ADA violation of pathway.

Code violation of direct downspout discharge onto walkway or path.

24

Code violation of separation of sleeping units

Water damage from condensation of thermal piping on unit ceiling.

25

ADA issue of displaced sidewalk causing tripping hazard.

Code violation of open pipe railing

26

Code violation for handrail height and open pipe railing, insufficient emergency lighting on path of egress.

Typical patio area

27

Air barrier discontinuous at perimeter

Typical single pane window opening at sleeping unit, not meeting current Energy Code.

28

Typical surface cracking on existing plaster soffit, walkway. Consider alternative product such as metal.

Typical unconditioned, open to environment IT closet.

29

Typical study room - current

Code violation – non-rated door and glass frame at separation to Fire Stair.

30

ADA violation, single height drinking fountain, consider dual height with bottle filler.

Existing wayfinding confusing, existing code required signage non-compliant.

31

Existing lounge/common area.

Telecommunications room with code violation for electrical service.

32

Code violation – Non-rated Door and Frame at required main electrical service. Hardware inadequate.

Non-energy code compliant light fixtures, typical sleeping unit.

33

Typical, epoxy recoated bathroom (Part of ongoing refresh). Note – Door frame rust.

Typical, rust at exterior stair.

34

Code Violation – Height of guardrail.

ADA violation, projection object greater than 4”

35

Typical Laundry Room

Code violation, electrical panel within existing wet area (janitor).

36

Operational issues, access clearance requirements to valves, water within work area.

Existing utility entrance room. Non-conditioned.

37

Roof Existing top coating of roof failing needs full tear off and replacement. See area clouded in red

for example. Fall protection required missing in areas subject to roof maintenance, such as exhaust units.

This is a code violation and OSHA requirements for worker safety. Insulation does not meet current energy code Perimeter edge and fascia needs repair

39

Abatement

No Abatement report was provided in discussions with University staff it was mentioned that there is asbestos in the following:

Texture for the walls and ceilings Mastic for the floor tile Floor tile in units and common areas Mastic for the Rubber base Plaster for the exterior soffits outside the rooms Insulation for some of the mechanical piping that was not updated in the 1999 renovation work.

Abatement would be required for any work performed in the building. This includes but not limited to work in the interstitial space to remedy the fire separation issue noted in the Life Safety portion of this report and updating the MEP services within the rooms and common areas.

40

Student Life & Student SuccessArchitecturally, the building does have a unique character and solid structural frame that could be improved with thoughtful design solutions. If a full-scale phased building renovation is engaged in the future reprograming some square footage to address these student life needs should be considered. Including additional student meeting spaces, maker spaces, social cooking and study areas. A social Café opening to the campus and one of the Patios with small retail may be implemented to create additional hub of activity. Conveniences like amazon lockers, swap racks, ride share parking and bike storage could be programmed as well. Outdoor spaces within the courtyards provide a real opportunity not yet realized for community gathering and activities. Student success is directly related to options and opportunities for them to engage.

Example - Social Café and retail spaces

41

Example Connected to Outdoor Space

42

Example Maker Space

Example Meeting Spaces

43

Example Wellness space

Example Social Cooking

44

Example Study Spaces

45

Example Laundry/Kitchen/Lounge (LKL) Space

Example Amazon Locker

46

5. Mechanical Scope Narrative

Observation: We conducted a site observation of the existing HVAC systems serving the Garcia dormitory,

which was built in 1968. Since being built, the building has not undergone any major renovation; moreover, the HVAC equipment has not been replaced nor refurbished since end-of-life cycle came to an end.

The observed systems included; the 4-pipe fan coil (F.C.) units above the ceiling that serve each room in the dorm, air handling units serving the common rooms and the offices, terminal boxes, and the CHW & HW distribution system.

Observation of the fan coil unit serving the dormitory rooms revealed condensation (Photo-1) on the Chilled Water (CHW) piping serving the F.C. unit due to uninsulated pipelines, no return air suction due to a high filter pressure drop, and inadequate installation of devices.

At the mechanical room, it was observed that the AHU is past their ASHRAE life expectancy, and all the CHW & HW pumps and associated piping were severely corroded (photo-2), and the rooms were not ventilated. Moreover, the pipes are uninsulated and heavily corroded.

The HVAC systems currently is not interfacing with campus Energy Management and Control System (EMCS)

Applicable codes and standards

Below are the applicable building codes: 2015 International Building Code (IBC) Uniform Mechanical Code (2012) ASHARE STD 62.1 (2016) ASHARE STD 90.1 (2016) ASHRAE: HVAC Applications (2015) ASHRAE Equipment Life Expectancy chart

IAQ and Thermal Comfort

Student Living Areas

Currently the dorm rooms don’t meet the minimum outside air requirements per ASHARE STD 62.1 (Table 6.2.2.1 – fig.2) & UMC chap. 4: ventilation (table 403.3.1.1, clause 1, fig.3)Ventilation rate shall be determined in accordance with ASHRAE STD. 62.1; section 6.2.2.1. Therefore; the required ventilation rate is:

Ventilation (V) =Rp*Pz+Ra*AzFrom Table 6-1 Rp = 5 cfm/person; No. of Student: 2; Ra = 0.06 cfm/ft2; Az= 244 ft2V= 5*2 + 0.06*244; V= 25 cfm

Operable Window for natural ventilation

Window size= bedroom floor area * 4%= 157 *5%= 6.5 sq.ft

Operable window size shall be 6.5 sq.ft; however, the existing window size is 3 sq.ft; which is half of the required size.

Aging System

47

The air distribution duct system to the common room has accumulated dirt (photo-1) within the equipment and ductwork, the pumps are severely corroded. ASHRAE 62.1; section 8 (Operation and maintenance), addresses the issue of inspecting and cleaning ventilation systems by listing specific inspection intervals in Section 8.4.1 that:

“Systems component shall be maintained in accordance with the O&M Manual or as required for regular maintenance and operation”

However, harsh dirt that could affect a person’s health by raising the microbial growth and erosion is covered by clause 8.4.2., the standard requires that:”

“Microbial Contamination. Visible microbial contamination shall be investigated and rectified” In addition, over time, “dirt” can lead to the demise of an HVAC system. At a minimum, unwanted contaminants can inflict damage to equipment that leads to premature wear and tear, increased maintenance costs, increased cleaning costs and lower operating efficiency.

Equipment Life Expectancy

Based on ASHRAE Equipment Life Expectancy chart (AELE) (fig.3), the life expectancy of the HVAC equipment under the assessment are as follow: Fan coils in the student dorm room, fall in the category of water coils, the AELE is 20 yrs.

However, this is if the equipment maintained periodically. AHUs that feed the common room, fall within the category of water-cooled package, the AELE is

15 yrs. One of the two AHU have been replaced five years ago; however, the other one was installed back to 1968, therefore, it is exceeding the AELE by almost 2.5X.

The pump located in the mechanical room pit, fall within the category of base-mounted pumps, the AELE is 20 yrs. All the heating water and cooling water and steam water pumps are exceeding the AELE.

Therefore, based on the ASHRAE Equipment Life Expectancy chart, most of the HVAC equipment exceed the end of useful life; the fan coils are almost at the end-of-life cycle. Consequently, it is recommended to replace the existing systems, due to the end of useful life that will increase the failure rate, the maintenance cost and the energy bill.

Domestic Hot Water Systems and fixtures

Code ReviewLife expectancy of Plumbing fixtures are not covered under enforceable code or standards. It depends on what brand have been installed and the recommended life for that fixture. Some fixtures will rust faster than others, and there are others that last a lot long than the average. Nevertheless, based on difference research and testing life expectancies for some of the most popular plumbing fixtures are as follow: Toilet Tank Components – 5 years Faucets (shower & lavatory) – 15-20 years

Therefore, our plumbing fixtures life are exceeding the end-of-life cycle.In addition to that, the critical concept of the “Reduction of Lead Drinking Water Act”, which become effective since 2011 (federal). Therefore, all plumbing faucets, shall comply with this act and be “Lead Free”. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned arguments, all plumbing fixtures shall be replaced with the associated copper piping. Regarding the steam water tank and the heat exchangers. The tank is insulated and covered by aluminum jacketing (see photo 4), therefore we cannot determine the status of the tank, and however, it is installed back in 1968 and a lot of rust on the top piping connection. The heat exchangers (see photo 5&6) can be covered under ASHRRAE life expectancy, thus the median years is 24 yrs. (see fig. 1). Therefore, the shell and tubes heat exchangers exceed the end of useful life.Consequently, the steam water tank and the heat exchangers shall be replaced with the same size and capacity.

48

Sustainable design and energy conversation (LEED & ASHRAE 90.1)

LEED has evolved since 1998 to more accurately represent and incorporate emerging green building technologies. Whereas the NMSU student dorm has been built back in 1968 that means built before the evolvement of the LEED. This issue will be reflected in the long-term recommendations, since the NMSU design guidelines require to meet a minimum LEED Silver Certification. In addition, ASHRAE 90.1 has evolved over the last decade and a half, in which any new design shall meet documentation and compliance shall be according to the Energy Cost Budget Method as prescribed in ASHRAE 90.1 utilizing a whole building energy simulation.

Mechanical Equipment Room Ventilation: Mechanical equipment rooms should be ventilated in accordance with the

International Mechanical Code (IMC) and the equipment manufacturer’s installation requirements.

The temperature down in the mechanical pit was not within recommended limits. Its recommendation is to install a fan to ventilate the space The clearance between the mechanical equipment is very tight. Any future development will

require mechanical room plan to indicate service clearances for all equipment, including coil pull space for Air Handling Units (AHU).

Leaks from the systems

It was observed that the CHW piping was condensing on the surface. This has the potential to cause damage to the building.

Conclusion

Several outcomes can be drawn from the site observation, code review and analysis: Currently, the dormitory rooms do not meet the minimum outside air requirements per ASHRAE

STD 62.1 & IMC chap. 4: ventilation (section 403); to provide adequate IAQ. Since the dormitory was built in 1968, the building lacks modern HVAC design. Almost all the

mechanical components of the existing system have passed the end-of-life cycle according to the AELE NMSU might end up replacing partially the mechanical equipment and then after 3- 5 years should replace the whole system per AELE. This would result in future cost burden.

There are pipes with condensation due to uninsulated cold-water piping. This has potential to damage the building.

Immediate Recommended Action

Following the physical inspection of the room dorm, and after reviewing the applicable codes and standards, the following measures would improve the buildings’ IAQ and thermal comfort: Carry out inspection of each fan coil unit above the ceiling. Verify whether insulation is installed

properly and check for piping leaks. Any observed deficiencies should be repaired. Replace all Fan Coil (F.C.) units return air filters, to improve efficiency and reduce pressure

drop. Operable windows for natural ventilation; the student shall have personal control over their dorm

room windows. Change all the filters in the air handling units and clean up all the supply and return air grills in

the common area. Verify the central AHUs have capacity for higher efficiency MERV-13 filtered air to improve the

indoor air quality.

49

Thermostats in resident units shall be installed with a restricted temperature range between 70 and 75 degrees.

In the mechanical room down in the pit, it is recommendation to install a fan to ventilate the space.

Recommendations

HVAC shall be designed and installed according to the above-mentioned applicable codes and standards to ensure a safe and healthy indoor air environment. This including; but not limited to, installing make-up air duct for each single room to provide fresh air as per ASHRAE 62.1.

Replace all the mechanical equipment in the mechanical room down in the pit and the fan coils in the dormitory room. Due to end-of-life cycle and corrosion, according to ASHRAE life expectancy chart.

In any future design, it is required to look again to building chilled water delta temperature preferred equal to 16 °F.

The HVAC systems shall interface with campus Energy Management and Control System- EMCS.

Per NMSU design guidelines all new construction and renovations shall be designed to achieve LEED Silver certification. This is will be a joint effort between all disciplines.

Thermostats in resident units shall be installed with a restricted temperature range between 70 and 75 degrees. NMSU design guidelines (instrumentation and control for HVAC 23 09 00, item A), recommends employing Digital Control to the zone level, which allows remote monitoring.

The student rooms shall be equipped with smart thermostats and lighting sensors. Air Filtration maintained at 65% minimum ASHRAE-52. Mechanical room shall meet the applicable relevant codes and standards The mechanical room shall be design according to the applicable codes and standards to ensure

safe, required ventilation and exhaust. Registers: Registers at bathrooms and laundry rooms exposed to high humidity shall be

resistant to corrosion. Aluminum registers are recommended Fans: If possible, locate fans on accessible roofs. If there is a pitched roof, locate fans in an

accessible attic or other accessible space. Ductwork: Exhaust ductwork from bathrooms and laundry rooms exposed to high humidity shall

be resistant to corrosion. Aluminum ductwork is recommended. It is highly recommended to develop a “Design Development Document” based on the

assessment report to describe all important aspect of the renovation of the Garcia hall, that will remains as a formal documentation, and it will be more specific for the student dorm, it will define and describe the design framework (in all disciplines) that will meet the codes and it will possess the state-of-art technology.

Design Guidelines Review:

The NMSU design guidelines require to comply with latest accepted version of ASHRAE Standards. The analysis that has been carried out for in the assessment report based on ASHARE 62.1 (ventilation and indoor air quality). The minimum OA intake is comply with ASHARAE 62.1

In section 23 06 00, item D.5, electrical reheat is not acceptable. We agree, that electric reheat and DX fan coil are not acceptable

The recommendation to keep the 4-pipe fan coil system comply with the NMSU design guidelines.

The existing systems are not provided with utility metering of chilled water, steam, domestic water in accordance to the metering guidelines.

The thermostat location is located behind the study desk; however, the thermostats in resident units shall be installed with a restricted temperature range between 70 and 75 degrees.

No detailed requirements for fan coil system. All CW & HW pumps are equipment with VFDs, which comply with the design guidelines

50

Fig.1

Fig.2

51

Fig.3

Photo-1

52

Photo-2

53

Photo-3

54

Photo-4

55

Photo-5

Photo-6

56

6. Electrical Scope Narrative

The Page team conducted a site survey of the existing electrical infrastructure at Garcia Residence Hall at New Mexico State University (NMSU) on September 19, 2018. This report contains analysis on Garcia Hall’s electrical system integrity, major equipment lifespan, and noted deficiencies. In conjunction with the onsite survey, the survey team referenced available electrical design documents from 1966 and 1999 renovation. The electrical infrastructure of Garcia Hall has remained mostly untouched since its inception in 1966 with exception of a renovation conducted in 1999.

Garcia Hall receives both normal (25kV) and emergency (5kV) power from the existing NMSU utility network. All the normal network utility feeders operate under half their rated capacity and are less than 30 years old. The emergency 5kV is also in good reliable condition according to the University Engineering. Garcia Hall receives normal power from two 500KVA service transformers located at the exterior of the building. One transformer feeds an indoor substation located on the first floor electrical/mechanical room. The other transformer feeds a 1600A switchboard located in the basement machine room. The recorded peak demand of Garcia Hall is 400kW.

Observations

In general, the electrical infrastructure appears to be in good working condition. There have not been any reported issues from the owners and tenants. Based on the total capacity available to Garcia Hall and reported peak demands, the electrical system is operating well below tolerable limits, which is contributing to the systems extended life. However, it is there appears to be a lack of a preventative maintenance program for the electrical infrastructure which, will ultimately lead to a failure especially within the older equipment. The following was observed: It is unclear if interior lighting or courtyard stairs meet the NFPA 101 path of egress standards

during a power failure. A 1-footcandle average and .1-footcandle minimum within path of egress. It is unclear if existing exterior lighting meets safety standards for security cameras and facial

recognition. Additional illumination may be needed. In numerous equipment rooms and general areas, junction boxes, wireways, and powered

equipment (i.e. disconnect switches, VFDs, starters) are not labeled. There is NMSU standard for labeling of power, lighting, fire alarm, data, HVAC, etc. At a minimum, equipment served and electrical panel/circuit should be identified.

Dorm room receptacles and lighting are in good working condition from the rooms observed. A few mechanical and electrical rooms were used for general storage. This is not against code,

but code required working clearances and egress paths shall be maintained in order to remain in compliance. The rooms observed had items within these areas creating code violations.

Plug all openings in junction boxes, disconnects, and other electrical equipment with appropriate plugs and NEMA rating where applicable. Loose wiring should be terminated within the junction boxes.

In a lot of the equipment rooms, wall penetrations were not sealed. Some of the panel schedules from the 1999 renovation do not match the panels. Equipment rooms are mislabeled or not labeled at all. Concerned that older equipment from 1966 could be operating at available fault levels exceeding

the equipment’s rating. First floor Electrical/Mechanical room not in accordance with current NEC 110.33 (A), 3 and

110.34 (B), (C), (F). Ambient temperature for basement equipment room appear to be higher than suggested.

57

Recommendations(< 5-10 years)

Implement a preventative maintenance program to monitor system condition and help mitigate any future equipment failures.

Inventory existing data (i.e. spare parts, records, inspections drawings, fault/coordination studies, etc.)

Identify installation age, collect O&M info, cleaning and lubricating Confirm anchorage, alignment, and grounding Conduct a system load analysis in order identify current peak demands. Confirm loads to emergency system Verify existing single line diagram for the non-emergency load (i.e. systematically shut down

power while checking the downstream loads, etc.) *When practical* (IR Scan panelboards) for hotspots and tighten any loose bolts (remove and replace equipment

from service based upon results) Update all panel schedules to match current loads. Monitor electrical equipment environment. Upgrade in place aging and obsolete equipment (i.e. panelboards, circuit breakers, luminaires) Remove storage items in electrical/ mechanical rooms currently stored in the code required

working clearances or egress pathways. Typical life span for electrical equipment is 20-25 years. Current equipment installed is either

approaching or beyond useful life. It is not feasible to bring to current the Garcia Hall electrical infrastructure into compliance with

DIV 26 of the NMSU Engineering and Construction Design Guidelines due cost and life of the equipment.

(>20 years)

All equipment should be replaced and installed in accordance with latest adopted codes by NMSU, and DIV 26 of NMSU Engineering and Construction Guidelines. Design team should use care to ensure equipment and systems selected are compatible with building structure.

Establish preventative maintenance and inspection program Keep a record of baseline and historical data. Full replacement estimated value for all electrical systems is $1,746,864.36 (ROM). See excel

sheet for material and installation breakdown.

58

Typical elevator lobby lighting

1. Item: Emergency lighting power pack (Fixture Types A1/B1 from 1999 Renovation)

2. Issue: Bodine B50 battery pack beyond expected life

3. Life: The operating life for the Bodine B50 battery pack is 7-10yrs with an associated 5yr warranty. Suggest immediate replacement when practical

4. Cost: 100$ ea. (+/- 10%)5. Shutdown: Associated lighting circuit6. Picture: N/A – Refer to 1999 Light Fixture

schedule and plan drawings. B1 fixtures are in the 1-3fl Elevator lobbies.

Typical exit sign

1. Item: Emergency exit lights (Fixture Type X from 1999 Renovation)

2. Issue: Internal battery pack beyond expected life

3. Life: Similar emergency exit lighting have 15yr battery life expectancy. Suggest immediate replacement when practical

4. Cost: 60$ ea. (+/- 10%)5. Shutdown: Associated lighting circuit6. Picture: Refer to 1999 Light Fixture schedule.

59

Typical Soffit lighting

1. Item: Corridor/Patio Soffit lighting2. Issue: Equipment is operating beyond useful

life. Luminaires appear to have been in service for over 52 years. Luminaires were re-lamped in 1999.

3. Life: Useful life for luminaires is around 20 years. Suggest immediate replacement when practical.

4. Cost: $25 - $505. Shutdown: lighting circuit6. Picture: N/A – Refer to 1999 Light Fixture

schedule.

Basement switchboard (1999)

1. Item: 1600A, 208Y/120V Switchboard Basement (1999)

2. Issue: Switchboard and integrated equipment is approaching end of useful life. This equipment has been in service for over 19 years.

3. Life: Switchboard and components have a 6-10yr remaining useful life expectancy. 25-30 yrs. (Switchboard), 15-20yrs (Circuit Breakers), 25-30 yrs. (Conductors)

4. Cost: $16,000 (Switchboard and Breakers)5. Shutdown: Panels (1-3C, 1-3CC, 1-3HW, 1-

2LW, 1-2LE, 1-3HE, 1-2PP); Power to BLDG service pumps and motors. Power to air handler equipment. Power to dorm room receptacles, lights, and fan coil units. Power to select door openers. Fire alarm control panel and power supply. Power to lobby and lounge lighting. Game room power and lighting. Study room lighting, receptacles, and fan coil units. Laundry room lighting and receptacles.

60

First floor substation 1966

1. Item: 5KV-208Y/120V 1st Floor existing substation #2 (1966)

2. Issue: Substation and its integrated equipment is operating beyond useful life. This equipment has been in service for over 52 years.

3. Life: Suggest immediate replacement when practical

4. Cost: $50,000 (Transformer, Switchboard, and Breakers)

5. Shutdown: Panels (1-3A, 1-3B, 1-3BB, NE, 1-3D, 1-3DD, 1-3E). Power to dorm room receptacles, lights, and fan coil units. Chill/hot water pumps and controls. Coms equipment. Elevator lobby lighting and receptacles. Elevator cab lighting. Elevator pit receptacles. Elevator controls. Mall Lighting. Reception security cameras. Irrigation control.

Typical Panel and breakers from original construction

1. Item: Original 1966 Panelboards, Circuit Breakers, and Conductors

2. Issue: Equipment is operation beyond useful life. This equipment has been in service for over 52 years.

3. Life: Suggest immediate replacement when practical

4. Cost: $19,800 (Breakers and Panels)5. Shutdown: Panels (1-3C, 1-3CC, 1-3HW,

1LW, 1LE, 1-3HE, 1-2PP)

61

Typical panelboard and breakers from 1999 renovation

1. Item: Panelboards and Circuit Breakers (1999)

2. Issue: Equipment is approaching end of useful life. This equipment has been in service for over 19 years. It is unclear whether the conductors feeding the loads were replaced with the equipment.

3. Life: 6-10yrs useful life remaining 4. Cost: $2,4005. Shutdown: Panels (1-3C, 1-3CC, 1-3HW,

1LW, 1LE, 1-3HE, 1-2PP)

Emergency transformer in basement

1. Item: 37.5 KVA, 2400 -240/120V Emergency Distribution Transformer, Basement (1999)

2. Issue: Equipment is approaching end of useful life. This equipment has been in service for over 19 years.

3. Life: 6-10yrs useful life remaining4. Cost: $2,0005. Shutdown: Panels (EM, EX). This would

disable the Garcia building sign, exit signs, monument sign lighting, dormitory patio soffit lighting. Com/Fiber rack. Metering equipment.

62

7. Room Design

The current building is laid out as a suite configuration with 2 double rooms sharing a shower and toilet and each room having a lavatory within the unit. This provides 442 rooms for Garcia East and Garcia West or 884 beds total. The layout of the wings and the unit size does not allow for significant increase in density. Triple beds are not customary and would not be possible based on closet arrangement. Singles are identified for RA use and could be accomplished easily. The unit demising wall reconfiguration and holistic redesign of plumbing layout was not considered. Some universities/AHJs must consider the egress issues of secondary means through the adjoining space. Security of that adjoining space is considered secondary to life safety.

63

Below shows a possibility to create a single room that shared a restroom with a triple. There are no advantages to this layout as all there no NET increase in occupancy to the building and each restroom still has 4 occupants using it.

64

8. Renovation Phasing

The building could be renovated in phases provide the first phase includes updating all the main mechanical equipment in the basement and all main electrical equipment including gear and transformers. The phasing diagrams below are laid out from a life safety perspective. Updating a stacked wing at a time does spread construction over several floors but allows better control of the existing sprinkler system along with management of egress routes. It is understood, in this example Garcia Hall is intended to be occupied year around.

Phase 1 would include all the infrastructure updates and 108 bedroomsPhase 2 would include 170 bedroomsPhase 3 would include 170 bedrooms

Level 1 phasing

65

Level 2 phasing

Level 3 phasing

66

9. Estimate of Probable Cost

12/24/2018 PROBABLE COST SUMMARY 1 of 1

ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST New Mexico State University 12/24/2018 V2Garcia Hall Renovations 206,848 BSF

$ 38,736.12 PER BEDCost per SF Total

ELEMENTAL SUMMARY GROSS FLOOR AREA /sf Element

02 - Existing Conditions $ 2.12 $ 437,932.8003 - Concrete $ 1.76 $ 365,051.0004 - Masonry $ 0.70 $ 145,200.0005 - Metals $ 5.75 $ 1,188,462.0006 - Wood & Plastic Composites $ 0.83 $ 172,339.0007 - Thermal & Waterproofing $ 9.57 $ 1,978,890.7008 - Openings $ 17.33 $ 3,583,902.0009 - Finishes $ 7.98 $ 1,651,287.1012 - Furnishings and Equipment $ 2.00 $ 413,140.0021 - Fire Suppression $ 7.65 $ 1,582,121.6522 - Plumbing $ 5.36 $ 1,108,800.0023 - HVAC $ 18.44 $ 3,814,095.9026 - Electrical $ 11.79 $ 2,438,094.7327 - Communications $ 4.74 $ 980,892.0028 - Electronic Safety and Security $ 3.75 $ 775,920.0032 - Exterior Improvements $ 2.59 $ 535,306.0033 - Site Utilities $ - $ -

SUB TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST $ 21,171,434.88

Overhead and Profit

General conditions (labor), general requirements(hoisting, trailers, temp provisions), insurance &bonds, profit/fee 15.00% $ 15.35 $ 3,175,715.23

Design ContingencyAbove costs should be achievable as a design tobudget 10.00% $ 10.24 $ 2,117,143.49

Escalation Contingency Projected 4.00% $ 4.09 $ 846,857.40CM Contingency CM Construction Contingency - change orders 3.00% $ 3.07 $ 635,143.05TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 135.11 $ 27,946,294.04

Owner Contingency Assumed 8.00% $ 2,235,703.52AE Basic Services Fees 6.00% $ 1,676,777.64AE Add Services Fees 0.50% $ 139,731.47AE Reimbursable Expenses 1.10% $ 35,000.00Site Survey & Utility Investigations New suvey for perimeter and courtyards 0.27% 75,000

Geotechnical Analysis & Reportno new foundation work, only utility trenchrecommendations 0.03% 7,000

Hazardous Material Consultant & Survey 0.31% $ 88,000.00Commissioning $ 2 1.11% $ 310,272.00Testing and Balancing With Construction Dollars $ -Construction Materials Testing 0.15% $ 41,919.44

Fire Alarm and Detection TestingMultiple mobilizations, Phases and Testingrequired. 0.35% $ 97,812.03

Envelope ConsultingMultiple mobilizations, Phases and Testingrequired. 0.35% $ 97,812.03

Fixtures, Furniture and Equipment With Construction Dollars $ -Graphics, Signage & Artwork $ 2 1.00% $ 279,462.94Kitchen Equipment With Construction Dollars $ -Security Equipment With Construction Dollars $ -Technology and AV Equipment With Construction Dollars $ -Desktop Computers, Printers $ - $ -Owners Insurance 1.50% $ 419,194.41NMSU Project Management Fees 4.00% $ 1,117,851.76Other Administrative Fees 0.50% $ 139,731.47

SUB TOTAL DIRECT SOFT COST 25.17% $ 6,761,268.72

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 34,707,562.76

68

10. Cost Model Summary

New Mexico State University Garcia Hall Renovations

12/24/2018 Cost Model Summary 1 of 8

Qty Cost ExtRoom Type Units Bathroom IDF Elec Mech Laundry Common Site Rate SF/LF02 - Existing ConditionsDemo Unit Doors 448 Qty 448 $ 35.00 $ 15,680.00Demo Misc Doors 5 12 6 Qty 23 $ 35.00 $ 805.00Demo Storefront at Units 448 Qty 448 $ 300.00 $ 134,400.00Demo ACM Floor Tile (448 units x 5.34sf) 2392 SF 2392 $ 27.50 $ 65,788.80Demo ACM Wall (448 units x 6sf) MISC 2688 SF 2688 $ 27.50 $ 73,920.00Demo Ceilings at Breezway - For Outside Air 49113 SF 49113 $ 3.00 $ 147,339.00

$ 437,932.8003 - Concrete Misc Patch Level 1 Breezeways 16431 SF 16431 $ 1.50 $ 24,646.50Pedestrian Coating on Level 1 Breezeways 16431 SF 16431 $ 5.50 $ 90,370.50Misc Patch Level 2 Breezeways 16431 SF 16431 $ 1.50 $ 24,646.50Pedestrian Coating on Level 2 Breezeways 16431 SF 16431 $ 5.50 $ 90,370.50Misc Patch Level 3 Breezeways 16431 SF 16431 $ 1.50 $ 24,646.50Pedestrian Coating on Level 3 Breezeways 16431 SF 16431 $ 5.50 $ 90,370.50Exterior sidewalk/Ramp Demo/Prep 800 SF 800 $ 5.00 $ 4,000.00Exterior Sidewalk /Ramp ADA 800 SF 800 $ 20.00 $ 16,000.00

$ 365,051.0004 - MasonryMisc CMU Repair at Boiler Room X 400 $ 18.00 $ 7,200.00Misc Pointing/ Repair at Pre-Cast Panels X 12000 $ 7.00 $ 84,000.00Scaffolding 12000 12000 $ 4.50 $ 54,000.00

$ 145,200.0005 - MetalsRepair and Improve front entry Decorative Brass Guardrail LF 94 94 $ 253.00 $ 23,782.00Replace Pipe Tube Exterior Guardrail - Level 2 SF 16431 16431 $ 15.00 $ 246,465.00Replace Pipe Tube Exterior Guardrail - Level 3 SF 16431 16431 $ 15.00 $ 246,465.00Replace Pipe Tube Guardrail - Exterior Stairs LF 3187 3187 $ 125.00 $ 398,375.00Replace Pipe Tube Guardrail - Interior Stairs LF 2187 2187 $ 125.00 $ 273,375.00

$ 1,188,462.0006 - Wood & Plastic CompositesWood Blocking 1 LS $ 25,000.00Framing Misc - Breezway 49113 49113 $ 3.00 $ 147,339.00

$ 172,339.0007 - Thermal & WaterproofingExisting - make good Roofing 75572 SF 75,572 $ 0.50 $ 37,786.00Roof penetrations 75572 SF 75,572 $ 0.35 $ 26,450.20New single ply roof, insulation and vapor retarder 75572 SF 75,572 $ 14.50 $ 1,095,794.00Gravel Guard Edge with Sheet Metal Fascia 3187 SF 3,187 $ 20.00 $ 63,740.00Flashing and Accessories & Curbs 75572 SF 75,572 $ 1.50 $ 113,358.00Mechanical pads X 800 $ 32.00 $ 25,600.00overclad/elastomeric at existing walkway ceilings - L1 16431 SF 16431 $ 8.00 $ 131,448.00overclad/elastomeric at existing walkway ceilings - L2 16431 SF 16431 $ 8.00 $ 131,448.00overclad/elastomeric at existing walkway ceilings - L3 16431 SF 16431 $ 8.00 $ 131,448.00Scaffolding 49293 SF 49293 $ 4.50 $ 221,818.50

$ 1,978,890.70



08 - OpeningsReplace Unit Door/Hardware 448 448 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,120,000.00Replace Storefront Vision Units & Frames (7’-6”x12’-0” = 90 SF each, 40,320SF Total) 40320 40,320 $ 55.00 $ 2,217,600.00

Replace Joint Sealant at Units (448 x 38LF typ= 17,024) 17024 17,024 $ 3.00 $ 51,072.00Window sills 448 448 $ 100.00 $ 44,800.00New Glazed Entrances - Laundry/Lounge 1080 1,080 $ 55.00 $ 59,400.00Replace HM doors, MECH/ELEC/IDF/HDW 5 12 4 21 $ 1,250.00 $ 26,250.00New Cross Corridor Doors 4 4 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00New Auto Openers 4 4 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00New Louvers at Basement Mech Room 2 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00New HM Doors at Basement Mech Room 2 2 $ 1,250.00 $ 2,500.00New Glazed Entrances Doors - Lobby 8 8 $ 2,500.00 $ 20,000.00

Replace with new Fire Rated Glass at Stair (2) 6x7 doors = 84 SF 84 84 $ 170.00 $ 14,280.00$ 3,583,902.00

09 - FinishesB1 Ceiling Types (Sqft)Patch Plaster Openings 900 900 $ 60.00 $ 54,000.00N - Plaster 5400 5400 $ 7.50 $ 40,500.00ACT Lay-in 6257 6257 $ 1.75 $ 10,949.75Gyp Board 5400 5400 $ 8.00 $ 43,200.00Attic Stock 1 LS $ 5,400.00

$ 154,049.75B2 Flooring (Sqft)Vinyl Composite Tile (448 units x 5.34sf) 2392 2392 $ 10.00 $ 23,920.00Exposed Concrete 500 500 500 1500 $ 1.25 $ 1,875.00Epoxy 0 $ 7.50 $ -Carpet - Lobby 6257 6257 $ 4.30 $ 26,905.10Carpet - Units 44800 44800 $ 4.00 $ 179,200.00Base - Lobby 6257 6257 $ 2.00 $ 12,514.00Base - Units 44800 44800 $ 1.00 $ 44,800.00Ceramic Tile - Laundry 1250 1250 $ 15.50 $ 19,375.00Walk Off Matt - Lobby 2 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00Floor Prep 135,819 $ 0.55 $ 74,700.45Mositure Mitigation 135,819 $ 0.50 $ 67,909.50Epoxy Overcoat - Unit RR 11200 11,200 $ 4.00 $ 44,800.00Attic Stock 1 LS $ 17,920.00

$ 519,919.05B3 Window Treatment (LF)

New Mini Blinds 40320 40320 $ 7.30 $ 294,336.00



B4 Refresh Paint on Walls (Sqft)Walls - Units 112000 112000 $ 1.25 $ 140,000.00Wall - Bathrooms 28000 28000 $ 1.25 $ 35,000.00Walls - Common 18457 18457 $ 1.25 $ 23,071.25Wall Covering /Upgrades Lobby 1 LS $ 80,000.00Ceiling - Units 44800 44800 $ 1.50 $ 67,200.00Ceiling - Bathrooms 16800 16800 $ 1.50 $ 25,200.00

$ 370,471.25B5 Base (LF)New Rubber Base 10752 695 11447 $ 2.15 $ 24,611.05New/Patch Epoxy Cove 2688 2688 $ 5.00 $ 13,440.00

$ 38,051.05B6 Casework (LF)Vanities - solid surface + New Fixture 224 224 $ 750.00 $ 168,000.00Base Cabinets - w Solid Surface tops 132 132 $ 405.00 $ 53,460.00Upper Cabinets - PLAM 132 132 $ 250.00 $ 33,000.00New Entry Desk 1 LS $ 20,000.00

$ 274,460.0012 - Furnishings and EquipmentLaundry Equipment (NEW) 1 LS $ 60,000.00Laundry Work Table 6 6 $ 600.00 $ 3,600.00Ice Maker/ Water Dispenser 6 6 $ 4,650.00 $ 27,900.00Fridge 6 6 $ 2,875.00 $ 17,250.00Microwave 6 6 $ 600.00 $ 3,600.00New FEC Cabinets 36 36 $ 277.50 $ 9,990.00Laundry/Lounge Furnishings 1 LS $ 80,000.00Lockers 6 6 $ 500.00 $ 3,000.00Common Area Furnishings 1 LS $ 80,000.00(Horizontal) 4'x8' Backpainted Glass /White Board w/ Tray 6 2 8 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00Code Signage 1 LS $ 80,000.00Sink Accessories 1 LS $ 6,000.00Toilet Accessories 1 LS $ 6,000.00Cornerguards 595 $ 126.50 $ 6,000.00Equipment55" TV Monitor - Lobby 2 2 $ 1,800.00 $ 6,000.0065" TV Monitor - Lounge 6 6 $ 2,500.00 $ 6,000.0055" TV Monitor 6 2 8 $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00

$ 413,140.00



21 - Fire SuppressionFS Corrections Misc 218868 $ 2.55 $ 558,113.40FS Head Addition 446 5 12 36 499 $ 60.42 $ 30,147.92FS Head Replacement 12 12 $ 60.42 $ 725.00Sprinkler Riser Replacement - Wing A 60 60 $ 5,500.00 $ 330,000.00Sprinkler Riser Replacement - Wing B 60 60 $ 5,500.00 $ 330,000.00Covered Breezeway Sprinkler Coverage 80 80 $ 60.42 $ 4,833.33Inspection and Misc Replecment on existing mains 218868 $ 1.50 $ 328,302.00

$ 1,582,121.6522 - PlumbingReplace Unit Lavatory (valve, controls, pipes) 448 $ 1,295.00 $ 580,160.00Replace Water Closet 224 $ 1,610.00 $ 360,640.00Replace Shower Contols 224 $ 750.00 $ 168,000.00

$ 1,108,800.00



23 - HVAC Exhaust Bathroom vent fan, 50cfm, economy model. Wiring will be cover under electrical

X 65.5 $ 224.00 $ 14,672.004-pipe Fan Coils, IncludesDigital Control, piping hock up and valves, piping insulation, ductwork connection iscovered in the following item

3500 $ 448.00 $ 1,568,000.00O/A Improvements The estimatebased on 25 cfm as per ASHRRAE 62.1. The estimate including: MUA main ductheader (50"/24"), main branch for each dorm (18"/16" time 3 branches) and(12"/12" times 2 branches); 4" steel galvanized straight length, 4" connector, Elbow45, 4" diameter, insulation and supply grill (quantity 448 grills).

X 149621 $ 10.90 $ 1,630,868.90New MAU for O/A Improvement MUA Capacity12300 cfm (350 MBH)

X X 97500 $ 1.00 $ 97,500.00Fire-Smoke Damper 4" diameter

X 103 $ 162.00 $ 16,686.00Fire-Smoke Damper 24" X 16" (average size)

X 490 $ 198.00 $ 97,020.00New MAU for Common Area Level 1 Basedon capacity of 5000 cfm, MRV13 filters, HC & CC, 3 motorized dampers (supply,return and relief

24800 $ 1.00 $ 24,800.00New MAU for Common Area Level 1Ductwork connection, piping, and condensate drain

21900 $ 1.00 $ 21,900.00Allowance for Ductwork 6000 $ 1.00 $ 6,000.00Allowance for Insulation Based onaverage repair of insulation 105 $ 448.00 $ 47,040.00CHW Pumps 6300 $ 2.00 $ 12,600.00HW Pumps 6300 $ 2.00 $ 12,600.00New Steam Boiler/HX and Pumps 29000 $ 1.00 $ 29,000.00Misc Insulation Repair Allowance 95 $ 200.00 $ 19,000.00Inspection and Misc Replacement on existing mains 20000 $ 1.00 $ 20,000.00Basement (mechanical pit) Louver/Exhaust FanEstimate including in-line axial fan, intake louver, ductwork, and outdoor louver

7900 $ 1.00 $ 7,900.00Equipment 0 $ 1.00 $ -Demolition $ 1.00 $ -4-Pipe Fan Coils Includesdisconnecting the piping and valves, insulation, thermostat, supply and return airgrill 353 $ 448.00 $ 158,144.00MAU for Common Area Level 1 Based oncapacity of 5000 cfm, including disconnecting of piping, ductwork (supply, returnand relief) and condensate drain 3490 $ 1.00 $ 3,490.00Steam Boiler 1975 $ 1.00 $ 1,975.00Heat Exchangers 0 $ 2.00 $ -Demolition of all piping in the mechanical room 21900 $ 1.00 $ 21,900.00CHW Pumps 1500 $ 1.00 $ 1,500.00HW Pumps 1500 $ 1.00 $ 1,500.00

$ 3,814,095.90



26 - ElectricalC2 Power

Duplex Receptacle (SF)-IMC Conduit, 1/2" diam

-Wire 600V THWN-THHN, Copper solid #12-Wiring device, receptacle, duplex, 120V grounded 15 Amp

-Wall Plate-4" steel outlet box 216,600 $ 1.93 $ 418,038.00

Duplex Receptacle (SF) Demolition-To include disposal 216,600 $ 0.88 $ 190,608.00

Wall Switch (SF)-IMC Conduit, 1/2" diam

-Wire 600V THWN-THHN, Copper solid #12-Toggle switch, single pole, 15 amp

-Wall Plate-4" steel outlet box 216,600 $ 1.33 $ 288,078.00

Wall Switch (SF) Demolition-To include disposal 216,600 $ 0.61 $ 132,126.00

Miscellaneous Power (SF)-IMC Conduit, 1/2" diam

-Wire 600V THWN-THHN, Copper solid #12 216,600 $ 0.16 $ 34,656.00C3 Lighting

LED Fixtures (SF)-IMC Conduit, 1/2" diam

-Wire 600V THWN-THHN, Copper solid #12-LED Fixture

-Fixture whip, greenfield w/#12 THHN wire-4" steel outlet box 216,600 $ 2.71 $ 586,986.00

LED Fixtures (SF) Demolition-To include disposal 216,600 $ 1.16 $ 251,256.00

Lighting Control System (SF)-Tray Cable, copper #16-4 conductor

-Wire 600V THWN-THHN, Copper solid #12-EMT conduit

-Cabinet, hinged, steel, NEMA 1-Relays, 120V

-24 hour dial with reserve power-Lighting control module

-Occupancy sensors (if needed)-Automantic wall switches (if needed)

-Remote power pack 216,600 $ 0.90 $ 194,940.00Lighting Control Systems (SF) Demolition

-To include disposal 216,600 $ 0.24 $ 51,984.00



C4 Power Mech EquipmentBasement Main Switch Board (Mat./Installation)

-Switchboard, 1600A-Bus bars

-Circuit breakers 1 1 $ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00Basement Main Switch Board (Demolitioin)

-To include disposal $ 1,885.80 $ 1,885.80MV Feeder to MSB (Mat./Installation)(L.F.)

-Shielded cable, no splice/termn, XLP shielding, 5 k, #2-Wire, 600V, type THW, copper, stranded, #8

-Rigid Galvanized Steel Conduit 1 100 $ 43.49 $ 4,349.00MV Feeder to MSB (Demolition)

-To include disposal 100 $ 15.23 $ 1,523.001st Floor Substation (Mat./Installation)

-Transformer-Switchboard w/ Breakers 1 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

1st Floor Substation (Demolition)-To include disposal $ 12,669.19 $ 12,669.19

MV Feeder to Substation (Mat./Installation)(L.F.)-Shielded cable, no splice/termn, XLP shielding, 5 k, #2

-Wire, 600V, type THW, copper, stranded, #8-Rigid Galvanized Steel Conduit 1 100 $ 43.49 $ 4,349.00

MV Feeder to Substation (Demolition)-To include disposal 100 $ 15.23 $ 1,523.00

100A Panelboards (Mat./Installation)-Conduit, Galvanized steel 1-1/4"" dia

-Panelboards, 4 wire, 120/208V, 100A main-Wire, 600V, THW, Copper stranded, #3 38 1 39 $ 3,781.24 $ 147,468.36

100A Panelboards (Demolition)-To include disposal 39 $ 1,201.42 $ 46,855.38

Basement 37.35 KVA Transformer (Mat./Installation) 1 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00Basement 37.35 KVA Transformer (Demolition) $ 800.00 $ 800.00

$ 2,438,094.73



27 - CommunicationsTel/Data 0 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00Horizontal cable & jacks 600 600 $ 250.00 $ 150,000.00IT closet fitout ($3/sf) 206,848 206,848 $ 3.00 $ 620,544.00Backbone and Fiber repairs 206,848 206848 $ 1.00 $ 206,848.00

$ 980,892.0028 - Electronic Safety and SecurityFA Full Replacement ($3/sf) 206,848 30 206878 $ 3.00 $ 620,634.00FA New Damper Connections 400 400 $ 200.00 $ 80,000.00Lighting Protection - Reconfigure Existing 75572 $ 0.50 $ 37,786.00Cameras 6 6 6 12 30 $ 1,250.00 $ 37,500.00

$ 775,920.0032 - Exterior ImprovementsCurb Ramp 2 2 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00Misc Improvements - Metal Screen and Gate 1 1 LS $ 47,000.00Site Furniture LS 16 16 $ 2,000.00 $ 32,000.00Erosion Control 38153 38153 $ 1.00 $ 38,153.00Fine Grading 38153 38153 $ 1.00 $ 38,153.00Site Drainage at Courtyards (3x) 1 LS $ 75,000.00Hardscape and Softsape at Courtyards 1 LS $ 300,000.00

$ 535,306.0033 - Site UtilitiesAssume no work required 0 $ - $ -

$ -SUBTOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 21,171,434.88

77

11. Whole Building Demolition Cost

New Mexico State University Garcia Hall RenovationsMake Ready Demolition

Optional Scope sf $/sf Construction Escalation Soft Costs Future Project CostsAbatement & Demolition of Existing Hospital Buildings 206,848 20 $ 4,136,960 20% 25% $ 5,998,592

Austin400 W. Cesar Chavez StreetSuite 500Austin, Texas 78701TEL 512 472 6721FAX 512 477 3211

Dallas1800 Main StreetSuite 123Dallas, Texas 75201TEL 214 522 3900FAX 214 522 4380

Denver1530 15th StreetDenver, Colorado 80202TEL 303 595 0491FAX 303 595 0282

Houston1100 LouisianaSuite OneHouston, Texas 77002TEL 713 871 8484FAX 713 871 8440

San Francisco414 Jackson StreetSuite 404San Francisco, California 94111TEL 415 249 0130FAX 415 249 0132

Washington DC1615 M Street, NWSuite 700Washington, DC 20036TEL 202 909 4900FAX 202 785 7336

Learn more atpagethink.com

Facility Assessment - Facilities & Services

Documents

Transcript of Facility Assessment - Facilities & Services