Jose Nuñez San Mateo CCD - Community College Facility ... · PDF fileSan Mateo CCD Bill...
Transcript of Jose Nuñez San Mateo CCD - Community College Facility ... · PDF fileSan Mateo CCD Bill...
CCFC Regional Workshops
Breaking the Mold of Traditional Construction Delivery: Successfully Using Lease-Leaseback and Design-Build
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
San Mateo CCD San Mateo, California
COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITY COALITION 1130 K Street, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone (916) 446-3042 Fax: (916) 441-3893 www.caccfc.org
Handout materials are available online after the workshop. To download the materials, visit www.caccfc.org/events and click on the link labeled “Workshop Handouts.”
An Overview of Design-Build
Jose Nuñez San Mateo CCD
Bill Niemann
McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Stephen Cali Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Sylvia Kwan
Kwan Henmi Architects
Patrick McClintock LPA, Inc.
5/7/2014
1
Design Build
"Facilities Excellence" 1
CCFCSan Mateo
May 07, 2014
Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Stephen L. Cali José D. Nuñez
Patrick McClintockSylvia Kwan
LPA
Bill Niemann
"Facilities Excellence" 2
Moderator : Jose – Intro / Panel Bio’s• Legal Authority: Stephen Cali , Wulfberg Reese & Colvig• Owner’s Perspective ‐ Project Overview: Jose Nuñez, SMCCCD • DBE Builder Perspective ‐ Advantage / Disadvantage / DBE
Nuances: Bill Niemann, McCarthy Building Companies Inc.• DBE Architect Perspective (CSM BLDG 10): Patrick McClintock,
LPA, Inc. • DBE Architect Perspective (CSM BLDG 5): Sylvia Kwan, Kwan
Henmi Architects • Audience Q&A –
Agenda
5/7/2014
2
Design Build Delivery Method
Some Considerations
Stephen L. Cali, Esq.Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Oakland, California510‐835‐9100
"Facilities Excellence" 3Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Community Colleges Cal. Educ. Code §§ 81700‐81708
• Concept has been around a long time • New delivery system for Community Colleges
• Added 2002 (AB 1000)• Various amendments since• Initially – Projects exceeding $10.0 Million
• 2007 Amendment – threshold reduced to $2.5 M
"Facilities Excellence" 4Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
5/7/2014
3
Overview: Design-Build
• District defines the project scope • District pre‐qualifies potential D‐B entities, including key M‐E‐P subcontractors
• District RFP communicates project objectives and performance requirements
• D‐B entity completes design and obtains DSA approval
• D‐B entity responsible for delivering completed project that meets or exceeds the District’s performance criteria
"Facilities Excellence" 5Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
To “Bridge” or Not to BridgeBridging Architect
• Bridging documents may result in more interested pre‐qualified D‐B bidders
• Reduces D‐B entity’s costs to prepare proposal
• Provides clearer scope and project criteria
• Less guesswork leads to more reasonable price negotiations
• Reduces potential claims exposure
"Facilities Excellence" 6Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
5/7/2014
4
Maintaining Bridging Architect’s Services After Award
• Risk to District if rely on D‐B entity after award without Bridging Architect
• D‐B entity prepares the Construction Documents
• D‐B entity controls quality based on performance criteria
• D‐B entity’s interest competes with District’s:
• Complete project at lowest capital construction cost at expense of long‐term O&M costs
"Facilities Excellence" 7Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Controlling Risk
• Continue Bridging Architect Services after D‐B Selected and contract awarded
• Education Code § 81703(c)(2)(A) bars Bridging Architect from competing as D‐B entity, but
• No bar to retaining Bridging Architect to consult during D‐B process
• Bridging Architect serves as the design “watchdog”
"Facilities Excellence" 8Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
5/7/2014
5
Controlling Risk
• Provides more assurance D‐B entity follows District’s design concept and intent
• D‐B entity still assumes responsibility for:• Implementing design • Making corrections to insure design compliance
"Facilities Excellence" 9Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Controlling Risk
• Get D‐B Contractor to Have “Skin in the Game”
• D‐B Contractor commitment to provide service obligation post‐construction
• Separate Performance Bond Obligations• Construction Performance Bond• Maintenance and Operation Performance Bond
"Facilities Excellence" 10Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
5/7/2014
6
Risks of Bridging Architect
• More District design detail brings more risk for design liability
• Performance vs. prescriptive specifications
• Prescriptive specifications ‐ District assumes responsibility for design, i.e., implied warranty of fitness (SpearinDoctrine)
• Performance specifications – D‐B entity assumes design responsibility
"Facilities Excellence" 11Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Risks of Bridging Architect
• Public Contract Code § 1104• “No local public entity … shall require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications on public works projects, except on clearly designated design build projects…”
• Contractor review “shall be confined to the contractor's capacity as a contractor, and not as a licensed design professional.”
"Facilities Excellence" 12Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
5/7/2014
7
Summary
Advantages of Bridging Architect
• Assists in transitioning to D‐B entity• Increases potential pre‐qualified D‐B entities because costs to compete are reduced
• District has a design professional “watchdog” • More developed project criteria provides for more informed D‐B entity selection of specialty design team partners
• Earlier D‐B entity fixed price or cost‐plus fee with GMP contract
• Possible overall greater savings because less guesswork and tighter bidding and pricing
• Aid District and D‐B entity in value engineering• Potentially reduce claim exposure
"Facilities Excellence" 13Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
Summary
Disadvantages of Bridging Architect
• Limits D‐B entity creativity• Leads to more disputes because D‐B entity has less design responsibility
• Hampers potential “fast track” project • Field work may otherwise begin before 30%‐plus design point
• Increases District’s design liability risk
"Facilities Excellence" 14Wulfsberg Reese & Colvig
5/7/2014
8
Owner’s Perspective
JOSÉ D. NUÑEZ
VICE CHANCELLOR
FACILITIES PLANNING, MAINTENANCE & OPERATONS
"Facilities Excellence" 15“Facilities Excellence”
SMCCCD DB PROJECTS
"Facilities Excellence" 16“Facilities Excellence”
Project Name Total Project Cost Construction Cost
Cañada College Gateways $ 13,381,384 $ 9,366,969
College of San Mateo Building 36 ‐Science Bldg & Planetarium $ 27,816,239 $ 19,471,367
CSM Hike (Bldg 15/17/9/34) and Hillsdale Parking Lots $ 14,651,902 $ 10,256,331
CSM Design Build CIP 2 $ 215,843,911 $ 151,090,738
Skyline College Building 6&7A ( Student Center & Science Annex) $ 30,741,972 $ 21,519,380
SKY Design Build CIP2 $ 82,490,324 $ 57,743,226
District Wide Athletics (9 synthetic Fields, Press boxes, Team Rooms, Restrooms, ADA accessibility, parking, lighting) $ 25,669,141 $ 17,968,399
Total $ 379,852,900 $ 265,897,030
5/7/2014
9
College of San Mateo CIP2 Design Build
"Facilities Excellence" 17“Facilities Excellence”
Project Name Total Project Cost Construction Cost
CSM CIP 2 Design Build $ 215,843,911 $ 51,090,738
Bldg 5 Health & Wellness $ 58,469,159 $ 40,928,411
Bldg 10 student Center $ 86,663,483 $ 60,664,438
Campus 12 KV Electrical Upgrade $ 3,602,047 $ 2,521,433
Chiller Plant $ 5,526,118 $ 3,868,282
Sitework & Parking and other $ 61,583,104 $ 43,108,173
BRIDGING / CRITERIA PROCESS
• Educational Master Plan• Facilities Master Plan• Budget should be understood by ALL• Bridging / Criteria Architect
• Owner• User Group
• Decision Making (Deliberate & Collegial)• Owner• End User• Contractor
• How Detailed??• SD’s vs. DD’s vs. Program
"Facilities Excellence" 18“Facilities Excellence”
5/7/2014
10
DESIGN STANARDS AND DOCUMENTATION
• Design Standards• Communications• Materials• Fixtures (Plumbing / Light /Window Treatments )
• Color Palette• Plant Species• Fire Alarm / BMS Controls
• Hardware• Flooring, Etc. • IT / AV
"Facilities Excellence" 19“Facilities Excellence”
• Documentation• Design Build Contract• Division OO & O1• Outline Specifications
• Program Room Data Sheets
• Meeting Notes• Distribution
Prequalification
• Who• General Contractor
• Architect(s)• Principal Engineer(s)
• Major Design Build Subcontractors
"Facilities Excellence" 20“Facilities Excellence”
• Criteria• Construction Experience• Contractor’s License• Work History• Litigation and Arbitration History
• Disqualification from Previous Projects
• Compliance and Statutory Requirements and Safety
• Prevailing Wage Requirements
• Project Personnel• Insurance Requirements• Bonding Information• Financial Information
5/7/2014
11
RFP EVALUATION
• Assemble Review Team• Administrators / Faculty / M&O / CM Firm• Allow Sufficient review time• Clearly identify evaluation Criteria• Develop Scoring Matrix (Keep it simple)• Price • Technical Expertise• Life Cycle Costs• Skilled Labor Force• Acceptable Safety Record• Architectural Aesthetics and Design Innovation
• Project Management Plan• Program Requirements• Logistics (Occupied Campus)
"Facilities Excellence" 21“Facilities Excellence”
DESIGN BUILD ENTITY & DSA
• DSA Buy‐In Approach• Include District (Owner) participation• Establish a contact person at DSA• Schedule early and appropriate meetings• Establish firm agreed upon DSA submittal dates• Document Meetings and agreed upon discussions with attendees
• Describe incremental or phase submittals and deliverables and obtain buy‐in
• Involve structural engineer and other key consultants
• Follow requested procedure and information for submittals
• Clearly identify documents requiring approval • Provide sufficient reference CDs for reviewer information
"Facilities Excellence" 22“Facilities Excellence”
5/7/2014
12
SCHEDULE
• Ambitious vs. Conservative• Fast‐track • Normal schedule • Academic Calendar• Start of Classes• Spring Break• Finals• Commencement• Special Events• End User Wild Card• Owner Requirements Pre‐Turnover• Surplus/Salvage Process• Hazmat Removal• Rodent Control
"Facilities Excellence" 23“Facilities Excellence”
INFLUENCE
•District Able to Influence• Design Builder Relationship • Alignment of Scope with Stipulated Sum
• Initial Schedule• Effective Qualification Process• Extent & Depth of Control – Bridging Documents
•District Unable to Influence & Control• Dynamics of DSA Process• Construction Schedule• Changing Market Conditions • Constituents• Scope Creep•Weather
"Facilities Excellence" 24“Facilities Excellence”
5/7/2014
13
SUMMARY
• Design Build is a great delivery method• Partner / Team Approach• Management of Constituent & DBE Expectations
• Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
• Owner / End User• Contractor• Designer• IOR• Permitting Agencies• Not a Panacea
"Facilities Excellence" 25“Facilities Excellence”
OUR GOAL IS TO BE THE BEST BUILDER IN AMERICA.
Advantages, Disadvantages, DBE Nuances
From the Design-Build Entity’s Perspective,
Presented By: Bill Niemann, McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
CCFC Regional Workshop College of San MateoMay 7th, 2014
5/7/2014
14
LPA
DBE ARCHITECT TEAM PERSPECTIVE
LPA ARCHITECTS
PATRICK MCCLINTOCK
succ
ess
Communication
Leadership Access
Quantitative/Qualitative
Creativity & Vision
Investment /Confidential
Evaluation
COMPETITION
LPA
5/7/2014
15
enga
ge
Communication
Managed Expectations
Stakeholder Input
User Feedback
Change Management
Final Decision
AUTHORSHIP
LPAex
ecut
e
Communication
Campus Construction
Tell Your Story
Utilize Visual Tools
Celebrate Milestones
Share Progress
IMPLEMENTATION
LPA