Jose Nuñez San Mateo CCD - Community College Facility ... · PDF fileSan Mateo CCD Bill...

17
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.

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

[email protected]

"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

5/7/2014

16

lear

n

IMPROVEMENTCommunication

Building User POE’s 

Operations Feedback

Maintenance Feedback

Share Process

Share Lessons Learned 

LPA