Construction Management Strategies

R o s i k a . B a b a k h a n i a n

CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PROPOSED PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

I. Overview Scope Budget Schedule Procurement

II. Team Selection Overview Criteria

III. Relationship Overview Strategies

IV. Project Management Plan

V. Delivery Method Selection

VI. Management Tools and Systems VII. Monthly Status Report

VIII. Budget Project Budget Current Estimate Comparison

IX. Bonds and Warranties

X. Quality Control

XI. Comissioning

XII. Anticipated Challenges

OVERVIEW: SCOPE


The following is our proposed project management plan for a new elementary school with 150,000 GSF of space, accommodating 800 students in Southwest Chicago. We intend to provide a state of the art education facility with dedicated community center components for $42,115,525 which is approximately $1,740,000 less than the original budget provided by the Board of Directors. Our plan will nish the construction by the substantial completion date of 6th of July in 2013 with time contingency included, allowing the City Public School system the rest of the summer to commission and prepare the school for students in time for classes in the fall of 2013. We estimate a design period one month less than originally estimated. We have selected a design team has the skill set and previous experience necessary for a grade school building, and most importantly, the right price for the school district along with the best time frame out of all the possible candidates. We intend to deliver a complete project management plan that is mindful of the time and budget constraints that the school district faces and seeks to mitigate the downstream risks to ensure the continued delivery of quality education in a facility completed on-time and under budget.

OVERVIEW: BUDGET & SCHEDULE


Design Team Selection

Building Design

Permitting

Bidding/Procurement

Building Construction

Contingency

1 month

7 months

4 months

1.8 months

16 months

1.2 months

April ‘11 - May ’11

May ‘11 - November ’11

September ‘11 - December ’11

November ‘11 - January ’12

January ‘12 - May ’13

May ‘13 - July ’13

Hard Costs Soft Costs

Total Current Estimate

$33,238,100

$8,877,425

$42,115,525

Hard Costs Soft Costs

Total Project Budget

$33,856,100

$10,008,250

$43,864,350

$42,115,525 < $43,864,350

OVERVIEW: SCHEDULE


Apr. ‘11 Sept. ‘11 Jan. ‘12 Jun. ‘12 Jan. ‘13 May ‘13 Jul. ‘13

Design Team Selection

1 mo.

Buillding Design

Permitting

Bidding/Procurement

16 mos.Building Construction

1.2 mos.Contingency

7 mos.

4 mos.

1.8 mos.

OVERVIEW: PROCUREMENT


Elementary School Project Schedule2011 2012 2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4DUE DILIGENCESite AnalysisZoning AnalysisPreliminary BudgetsMarket Analysis+ Feasibility StudyEnvironmental AnalysisSurveyTitle Search

ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERINGSchematic DesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction DocumentsConstruction Admin

LAND ACQUISITIONLand ContractClose on Land

PERMITS + ZONING APPROVALSConstruction PermitZoning Approval+PUD

FINANCINGBudgets + ProformasLand LoanConstruction LoanTIF FinancingInvestor Equity

CONSTRUCTIONBudget BiddingFinal BiddingFinal GMPDemolitionConstuction

Super-StructureEnclosureMEP+PartitionsDrywallFinishes

Owner Fit outInspections

TEAM SELECTION: OVERVIEW


The selection criteria for each rm should be based on cost, schedule, and quality. The quality measured was based on three factors; prior experience with similar building types, reasonable costs, and a sensible duration for completion. The preference was to select a rm with experience designing large-scale school projects, especially grade schools (K-12). The second factor was experience building schools in the city of Chicago, and the third factor in determining the ability to provide a quality building was previous experience working with the City Public School system.

The rms with the lower bids were selected for closer analysis in terms of their ability to provide a school by the required delivery date. If two rms had matching or closely aligned costs for design, the rm that could deliver the design in a shorter time frame was selected due to the requirement that occupancy begin in September of 2013 in time for class. The architecture rm that t the criteria in terms of cost, schedule and quality is Cannon Design. Cannon Design is not the lowest bidder at $2,950,000 compared to Solomon Cordwell Buenz at $2,750,000; their experience, however, was superior in our opinion to SCB even though SCB stated that they could provide the design in the same time frame as Cannon.

The selection of the structural engineer and the MEP engineer followed similar principles. Cost was the primary consideration followed by quality criteria and ability to deliver in a desirable time frame. Matrix Engineering, as well as Halvorson & Partners . could deliver the structural work in six months. Matrix Engineering, however, has more experience and therefore will deliver a better structural design in our opinion. The $50,000 edge that Halvorson & Partners’ fee had also was immaterial in the end since our selection of Cannon Design as the architect of record brought our estimate for design fees $550,000 under the school board’s budget.

The selection of MEP engineer followed the same principles described above. Not only does Environmental Systems Design have the desired K-12 experience they also have the lowest bid and the shortest delivery time of 7 months which aligns with the estimate from Cannon Design. These factors combined with Matrix Engineering’s characteristics makes its inclusion in our design team a perfect t.

TEAM SELECTION: CRITERIA


Architecture Firms:

Booth Hansen: previous experience with universitiesNagle Hartray: previous experience with universities and private elementary schoolsCannon Design: previous experience wit public schools in Linonshire, EvanstonPerkins+Will: previous experience with K-12Solomon Cordwell Beunz: previous experience with universities; “campus learning environments”Destefano + Partners: previous experience with Chicago Public Schools (new construction) and universities

Structural Engineering Firms:

ARUP: previous experience with schools internationallyCE Anderson: pervious educational experience with Perkins+Will; previous experience with K-12Matrix: previous experience with Chicago Public Schools and other various elementary schoolsThornton + Thomasetti: previous experience with private elementary schools and universitiesHaivorson + Partners: experience with Evanston Public Schools

MEP Engineering Firms:

ARUP: previous experience with schools internationallydbHMS: “design-build engineering”; previous experience with charter schools, universities and day-caresEnvironmental Systems Design: “Schools, colleges, and universities”WMA Consulting Engineers: previous experience with Chicago Public Schools and universitiesPrimera: previous experience with high school and middle schools; managing engineers for Chicago public Schools for over 50 yearsSOM: previous experience with elementary schools and universities

RELATIONSHIPS: OVERVIEW


The architect of record and the local architects should be given as much leeway as possible in completing their design as long as they adhere to the program set out in the RFP. The only constraint that the project team as a whole should impose on the architects is that the design is completed at an appropriate pace. Regular meetings should be scheduled during the 7 months of design to ensure that an inordinate amount of design work is not begun until late in the project schedule. It is especially critical that the architect’s adhere to the time frame dictated by the permitting process. Since permitting can begin as early as 60-70% design completion, the project team should carefully track the architect’s prog-ress so that the permitting process can begin 4.2-4.9 months into the design process.

Architect

OwnerContractsB101B103B104

A101A102A103A107

Contractor

RELATIONSHIPS: STRATEGY


A. Strategy for working with the Architect

The architect of record and the local architects should be given as much leeway as possible in completing their design as long as they adhere to the program set out in the RFP. The only constraint that the project team as a whole should impose on the architects is that the design is completed at an appropriate pace. Regular meetings should be scheduled during the 7 months of design to ensure that an inordinate amount of design work is not begun until late in the project schedule. It is especially critical that the architect adheres to the time frame dictated by the permitting process. Since permitting can begin as early as 60-70% design completion, the project team should carefully track the architect’s progress so that the permitting process can begin 4.2-4.9 months into the design process.

The architect along with the Director of the Building project will come up with an easily interpreted report that shows the design progress for all of the major building divisions (foundation, superstructure, etc.) in numerical and graphical format. Before design begins there should be agreement on the criteria for completion (the amount of design work that constitutes a percentage of design work

nished). During the design phase this information would be included in the monthly status support.

B. Strategy for working with the Consultants

The team’s approach to working with the consultants will be to have the architect serve as a go-between between the consultants and our project team. In order to reduce the governance clutter of the project and maintain the cost and schedule objectives of this project, the architect’s decisions should be nal and based on deliberation between itself and its consultants. The contracts between the architect and its consultants should therefore contain thorough dispute resolution procedures. Dispute review and resolution involving the upper levels of the project organization including the Director of the Building Project and the City Public Schools should only be used as a last resort.

The overall goal of our team in this area is to have a hierarchical organization to consultants where they are advisers to a main project member (architect, structural, etc.) so that major project decisions arriving in front of the Director of the Building project show consensus in that division of the project—design, for example. Structuring the contractual obligations so that the number of direct relationships between the City Public Schools and the other project members is kept to a minimum should be bene cial to all parties: the school district has a simple architect-contractor-owner triad, architects and other members are more empowered, and contractual risks are spread down and away from the public organization.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN


Selection of Design Team

Cannon Design

Matrix

Environmental Systems Design

Design Process

Permitting Process

Bidding/Procurement Construction

C.P.S.

A/V Consultant

Local Government Agencies

Leed Consultant

Landscape Consultant

DELIVERY METHOD


An integrated project delivery or design-build method would be extremely di cult in implement on this project given the 25 month time constraint between April 1st and the substantial completion date of July 6, 2013. Time needed for a rm to transition to a di erent delivery method is time that this project unfortunately does not have. The CM-Agency and the CM-At Risk methods add unnecessary bureaucracy to the construction process for this public school. Any large government agency like the City Public Schools will likely have the management infrastructure to supervise a construction project. As the owner, the City Public Schools could appoint a project manager and manage the construction contracts using their existing contracting mechanisms. Since this is a public project, the delivery method should be competitive and transparent. Any method that requires the company responsible for design to also be responsible for construction will shut many general contractors out of the bid process. This could be perceived as particularly unfair if there are requirements for minority and WBE participation.

School Building

Board of DirectorsProject Management

Consultant

Director For Building Project

Architect+

Consultants

M/E/P+

Consultants

Structural Engineer+

Consultants

Sub-Contractors

Design Team General Contractor

MANAGEMENT TOOLS ANDSYSTEMS


Our team is proposing the use of AceProject as our project management tool. AceProject by de nition is “a project management tool that helps organizations get organized using a collaborative approach. Each project can be con gured with its own structure, allowing you to manage di erent types of projects in accordance with needs.”

It’s features include:

Project Management: basic and advanced PM features, such as task dependencies, which ensure a by-the-book work ow Timesheet Management: time tracking tool and time clock; allows members to send time cards and schedules for approval and generate time reports Collaboration: email noti cations and task reminders HR Management: gathers all human resources and external collaborators Document Management: allows team to upload documents to projects/tasks and share them with other users Expense Management: record expenses against projects and tasks and submit them for approval while staying on budget by tracking every project’s cost Reporting: track day-to-day workload with several reports, sync it with calendars, statistics, Gantt charts and custom task report

BUDGET: PROJECT BUDGET


College of Architecture - Illinois Institute of TechnologyARCH565: Project Management / Contract Administration

Elementary School: Budget and Current Estimate

Budget Estimate(Established) (Current)

Hard CostsHard Costs

Site Preparation Costs $3,000,000 $2,400,000New High School Construction Costs $29,000,000 $31,500,000Contractor Contingency $870,000 $945,000

$32,870,000 $34,845,000Owner's Hard Cost Contingency $986,100 $3,484,500

$33,856,100 $38,329,500

Soft CostsConsultant Fees and Other Soft Costs

Professional Services Fees - Architectural (Design) $250,000 $250,000Professional Services Fees - Architectural (AOR) $3,500,000 ???Professional Services Fees - Structural Engineering $500,000 ???Professional Services Fees - MEP Engineering $500,000 ???Project Management $1,500,000 $1,500,000Other Professional Design Services $500,000 $500,000Reimbursibles $500,000 $500,000Mockups $10 000 $50 000

April 4, 2011

Mockups $10,000 $50,000Pre-Construction Services $0 $25,000Surveys $50,000 $50,000Legal Services $50,000 $100,000Commissioning $200,000 $200,000Traffic Study $20,000 $10,000Geotechnical Services $75,000 $75,000Environmental & Abatement Services $100,000 $125,000Security During Construction $15,000 $15,000Permit Fees $50,000 Included in ConstructionInsurance - Builder's Risk and E&O $500,000 $500,000Material Testing and Inspection $100,000 $100,000Graphics $10,000 $10,000User Agency Staff $150,000 $150,000School Engineers $30,000 $30,000Utilities $400,000 $400,000Out of Town Travel $0 $0FF&E -(including Security Systems, Signage, Furniture) $300,000 $400,000

$9,310,000 $4,990,000Owner's Soft Cost Contingency $698,250 $37,425

$10,008,250 $5,027,425

Total Project Estimate $43,864,350 $43,356,925

BUDGET: CURRENT ESTIMATE


Elementary School: Budget(Current Estimate)

Hard Costs

Hard Cost Site Preparation CostsNew High School Construction CostsContractor ContingencyHard Cost Subtotal

Owner's Hard Cost Contingency

Soft Costs

Consultant Fees and Other Soft Costs

Professional Services Fees - Architectural (Design)Design Duration(Months)

Professional Services Fees - Architectural (AOR)Cannon Design (formerly OWPP in Chicago)

Professional Services Fees - Structural EngineeringMatrix Engineering

Professional Services Fees - MEP EngineeringEnvironmental Systems Design, Inc.

Project ManagementOther Professional Design ServicesReimbursiblesMockupsPre-Construction ServicesSurveysLegal ServicesCommissioningTraffic StudyGeotechnical ServicesEnvironmental & Abatement ServicesSecurity During ConstructionPermit Fees Included in ConstructionInsurance - Builder's Risk and E&OMaterial Testing and InspectionGraphicsUser Agency StaffSchool EngineersUtilitiesOut of Town TravelFF&E -(including Security Systems, Signage, Furniture)

Soft Cost Subtotal

Owner's Soft Cost Contingency

BUDGET: COMPARISON


$43,864,350

Project Budget

$10,008,250

$35,831,100

$42,115,525

Current Estimate

$8,877,425

$33,238,100

BONDS AND WARRANTEES


A. Completion bond for contractor and all subs:

In order to ensure that the school can be delivered by September 2013, the general contractor and all subs should have completion bonds so that any contractors that are forced to drop out of the project for business reasons like bankruptcy, another company can quickly assume responsibility for completion.

B. General 12 month warranty:

The original construction and design team will cover any needed building repairs (beyond normal maintenance) that arise from construction related errors

C. Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP):

We guarantee that we will be able to provide the school with a maximum price as speci ed in our nal budget, and cover any cost overruns

D. Liability Control: All team members will carry professional liability insurance to cover any negligence.

QUALITY CONTROL


A. The Goals To produce a building which satis es the client To produce a building where quality is related to the price. To produce a building in which su cient time is allowed to obtain the desired quality.

B. The Criteria Quality Control Organization The classi cations of the employees. The tasks performed by each of the classi cations. The level of detail performed by each of the classi cations. De ning of the rules and requirements.

Material Testing Requirements Detail of the testing Technician Certi cation Requirements for the People Reviewing Construction Length of the certi cation program Items covered in the certi cation Organization that provided the certi cation training

Installation and Testing Program Level of detail and items included in the testing procedures Level of detail and items included in the Installation procedures

Documentation Forms for Documenting Quality Control Level of detail of information on the forms Clarity Items to be documented

Referenced Technical Speci cations Clarity when cross‐referencing Appropriate cross‐referencing Detail of Technical speci cations

Cost

ScheduleQuality

COMMISSIONING


A. Critical items speci c to public elementary schoolComplete speci cations and operation manuals for all building components (light xtures, mechanical equipment including air conditioning and kitchen)

Estimated cost of ownership over the life of the building

Replacement costs for all building components

Procurement and maintenance information for all building components (light xtures, HVAC lters, HVAC components, window xtures, doors, re annunciation system)

Prices from more than one supplier

Listing of building components that may require a third party (other than the public school maintenance department) to service them

B. Deliverable for the facilities management teamOwner’s manual with speci cations and procurement information for building components

Contracts de ning performance guarantees and liability in event of maintenance cost overruns (tie into warranties)

For third party maintenance providers, detailed service level agreements from all companies before substantial completion

C. What training provisions will be necessary for the project?All building components and systems that do not require third party maintenance should have a complete training program in place that can be completed before substantial completion

Outsourcing of maintenance functions should be tied to cost savingsCost of training maintenance personnel must be evaluated in terms of the upfront cost versus downstream bene ts

Maintenance personnel all in-house, no SLAs to negotiate, no risks due to maintenance providers going out of business

D. Other life cycle issues involving in-house versus outsourced life cycle managementRisk analysis for all systems that would have third-party servicingPotential complications and contingency plans for unexpected loss of third-party maintenance providers due to business failure, natural disaster, etc.

E. Reason for risk analysis

Public school budget is strained due to the current economy, costs need to be controlled and projected with high degree of accuracy

Loss of support and need to contract with another company or train in-house maintenance personnel to assume responsibility for maintenance of building systems is unexpected cost that could prove disastrous

Project management team will deliver analysis before building delivery detailing contingency plans for any systems requiring third-party maintenance

ANTICIPATED CHALLENGES


-Site Selection

-Schedule Con icts And Phasing

-Owner Involvement And Understanding

-Communicating With General Contractor

*Change Orders Not Likely

Construction Management Strategies

Documents

Transcript of Construction Management Strategies