Raven Rock Case Study

Entrance with louvered brie solei night (intended textural qualities of the visitor center well beyond the standard operating parameters) (credit - LS3P Website)

ARC561 – Practice of Architecture

Case Study Synopsis

Raven Rock Visitor Center & Picnic Area

LS3P ASSOCIATES LTD

Editor: Echo Dowling email: [email protected] Group Members:

Evan Lane Rocio Lluch James Leonard Wendy Morrison Ben Minachi Phil Smith

1 | C a s e S t u d y : R a v e n R o c k V i s i t o r C e n t e r

Table of Contents

OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

CONSTITUENCIES .......................................................................................................................................... 4

SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................................................................ 4

SUSTAINABLE FEATURES ............................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION: A VISITOR CENTER LIKE NO OTHER ................................................................................... 6

PROTOCOLS: THE WEB OF DECISION MAKING ............................................................................................ 6

CONSTITUENCIES: THE CLIENT VOICE ........................................................................................................... 9

STORIES: CHALLENGES AND HURDLES ........................................................................................................ 12

IDEAS AND INNOVATION: BIG IDEAS IN A SMALL PROJECT ........................................................................ 16

MEASURES: SUCCESSFUL PROJECT BY THE NUMBERS ............................................................................... 18

SCHEDULE: .................................................................................................................................................. 19

CONCLUSION: THE LITTLE VISITOR CENTER THAT COULD .......................................................................... 20

CERTIFICATE OF OPEN VERIFICATION FOR 75% SUBMITTAL ...................................................................... 22

Appendix

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... LEED CERTIFICATION

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................. SCO | DOI COMMENT

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................... BID PACKAGE

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................... CHANGE ORDER LOG


Main entrance from walking path (indicative of the procession leading directly through the main space, a major design aspect of the visitor centers experience.) (credit - LS3P Website)

Rear of building, exterior – extended roof slab for covered public address space (exemplifies vernacular strategies of the piedmont to promote sustainable spatial design with passive thermal attributes.) (credit - LS3P Website)


OWNER:

NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources Division of Parks & Recreation

DESIGN TEAM: Architectural LS3P/Boney Associates Civil & Landscape CLH Design, p.a. MacGregor Park MEP Engineer Dewberry Structural Engineer Stewart Engineering Exhibit Design Riggs Ward Cost Estimator Mulford Cost Management

CONTRACTORS: General Contractor Harrod and Associates Constructors Plumbing Contract Wade Hardin Plumbing, Inc. HVAC Contract Watco Corporation Mechanical Contractors Electrical Contract Intelect Integrated Electrical Contractors, Inc.

Project Type: Civic

Building Type: Recreation

Service Type: Traditional Design / Bid

Construction Type: V-B

Occupancy Type: A-3

OBJECTIVE This case study takes a close look at the process that LS3P went through to design and build a new visitor center for Raven Rock State Park in Lillington, North Carolina. The project is analyzed from the beginning, when the state of North Carolina put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the end, when an 11 month Post Occupancy Evaluation was completed.

The project had several challenges for the architects involved. Being a state project required that every product on the project had to be bid on by three manufacturers. Additionally, the project was a wood construction type which was new to many involved. Finally, the project becoming LEED certified was a change order requested by the client. This forced a change in protocol, so that a LEED AP architect did the weekly site visits instead of someone from the firm’s Construction Administration (CA) team. While the end result is known – the project was LEED Gold certified and the owners are extremely pleased with the results 1 – the overall process how the project got there is still a fascinating study.

PROJECT The project also includes significant site improvements and a new visitor center for Raven Rock State Park. The improvements to the site include a new entrance procession, expanded parking for the various park and day-use functions, a new picnic shelter with a possible future site available for another, and hiking trail expansions and connections. The new visitor center accommodates exhibits with permanent installations and environmental graphics, an auditorium, classroom facilities, public restrooms and staff offices.

The site improvements encompass an area over 25 acres and the visitor center is approximately 7200 square feet.

1 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012.


CONSTITUENCIES: THE CLIENT AND THE ARCHITECT The owner/client of the project is NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources Division of Parks & Recreation (NCDENR). The improvements of the site and the new visitor center were meant to enhance the experience of visitors to the park, hikers, and surrounding school and communities. The state distributed a Request For Proposal (RFP) in March 2008. The final selection of the three qualifying firms was based on the client’s evaluation of the firms best suited for the project. LS3P’s ability to identify and appropriately address the issues of the project got the firm in the door for an interview and eventually their proposal was chosen for the project2.

SUSTAINABILITY: KEY FEATURE OF PROJECT The design of the visitor center is intended to create a seamless connection from the natural surroundings to the interior of the main lobby. This aesthetic is extended to material choices in the building itself, with exposed timber structure and stone utilized throughout. In the lobby, glue-lam beams, exposed wood roof decking and long stone walls create a welcoming atmosphere while the large northern glass wall allows an interrupted view to the fire-maintained plant community.

The focus on the environment and a desire by the NCDENR to have a LEED certified building led the design team to implement features that would allow it to reach LEED 2.2 Silver Certification. However, the project was awarded LEED Gold when the project was completed as the team had implemented many energy features which met or exceeded LEED standards. Since all the energy LEED credits were accepted by GBC, the additional credits boosted the project up from Silver to Gold3.

SUSTAINABLE FEATURES4 • Roof mounted solar panels to provide water heating • Geothermal Heat Pump that uses ground temperature to condition the air • Daylighting strategies to provide natural daylight throughout the building with the use of glass

clerestories and large punched openings • Extended overhangs to provide shelter for public gathering • Wooden louvered entrance, brie-solei • Bicycle storage facilities • Preferred parking spaces for low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles • Dual-flush water closets, waterless urinals, low-flow showerheads and low-flow lavatories • Energy efficiency measures include improved thermal envelope, high efficiency windows, • reduced lighting power density, high efficiency HVAC systems, and demand control ventilation • 10% of building materials are from recycled materials • 42.5% of the total building materials value is comprised of building materials and/or products

that have been extracted, harvested or recovered, as well as manufactured within 500 miles of the project site

• IAQ Management Plan • Low emitting | Low VOC paints and materials

2 Interview with Chris Roberts, February 7, 2012. 3 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Oral Presentation @ NC State. March 15, 2012. 4 Final Report – Echo Dowling (former employee)


• Individual thermal and lighting controls provided for every work station • Direct line of sight views for a minimum of 90 percent of all regularly occupied areas • Exemplary performance for MRc5 Regional Materials

Entrance with louvered brie solei (characteristic of local materials used in the project) (credit - LS3P Website)

Visitor center display (outsourced design and construction of exhibits, aspect of job that necessitated extra coordination) (credit - LS3P Website)


INTRODUCTION: A VISITOR CENTER LIKE NO OTHER The facility at Raven Rock offers a unique design reflecting the park’s character and attracting visitors from all over the United States. “Beyond being a focal point for the park and a gathering place for visitors, the center will be a place to learn about the state park and its natural resources. Like all our visitor centers, it offers an integrated exhibit hall, a teaching auditorium and classrooms.” says, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)5. The project represents an investment of $4.3 million from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, the principal funding source for state park capital projects and land acquisition. As mentioned by the architect, the client and designer relationship remains to be in good standing and hopes for future endeavors with the NC Parks and Recreation Department are welcomed. The Architect of record, LS3P Associates LTD. was challenged with creating a focal point for Raven Rock State Park; a visitor center which embodies the natural surroundings as well as educates the people who visit the park. This project encompasses significant site improvements and a new visitor center for Raven Rock State Park in Lillington, North Carolina. The project was designed to meet the requirements for LEED-NC (New Construction) Version 2.2 Silver Certification yet was awarded Gold Certification upon review by the USGBC6. Improvements to the site include a new entrance procession, expanded parking for various park and day-use functions, two new picnic shelters and trail network expansion and connectors. The new visitor center accommodates exhibits with permanent installations and environmental graphics, an auditorium, classroom facilities and public restrooms, along with staff offices. The site improvements encompass over twenty-five acres, and the visitor center is a total of 7,273 square feet7.

PROTOCOLS: THE WEB OF DECISION MAKING The decisions on the project, although made collaboratively as a team, were usually filtered through Chris Roberts, AIA, LEED AP. Chris is an associate principal with LS3P Associates LTD. He entered the project halfway through schematic design as the project manager. He and Katherine Peele, FAIA, LEED AP, a managing principal in the firm were the gatekeepers on the architect’s side. On the client side there was Glenn Sheppard, a Facility Engineering Specialist with the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. Glenn was the gatekeeper on the client side for all major decisions. The client was not as strict as most of LS3P’s clients about all contact funneling through a single person. In fact, most decisions were entrusted to the architect8. For the most part, the client wanted to simply know what was going on and to be kept up-to-date. The architect soon realized that despite the official contact, the person who would run the facility on a daily basis was a key player. The front desk

5 NCDNR website, Lewis Ledford, Director http://www.ncparks.gov 6 Final Report – Echo Dowling (former employee) 7 Final Report – Echo Dowling (former employee) 8 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012.

http://www.ncparks.gov/


receptionist, Jessie, is the one visitors encounter on a daily basis and she is the one who would be reporting to Parks and Recreation on the success of the project after completion9. The chain of command and decision making protocols that were put in place allowed for quick and efficient responses to keep the project moving forward. For example, initially in schematic design one of the key decision makers on the client side disagreed with another client representatives. He wanted a traditional log cabin aesthetic while the others were on board with the design LS3P had proposed. He was finally convinced by LS3P and the other decision makers to accept the design. He backed down and let the others make the call. From there he did not participate much in the discussions.

During the design process the client raised a few issues that required response from LS3P. For example the design initially called for a large glass façade over the front entry10. It faced south so the client was concerned about unnecessary solar heat gain and they that it would be a hazard to birds who might fly into the reflective surface. The architect modified the design by putting a gable in the lobby roof to reduce the height of the façade. Another issue that had to be resolved was the location of the building with respect to the site’s entry path. LS3P originally located the building centrally at the end of the entry road visually connecting the procession with the nature beyond. The client preferred it to be off-center along the side of a curved entry. Visitors would then happen upon the building with the forest surroundings being the main attraction (see site plan below). LS3P quickly realized the importance of this decision to the client and made necessary adjustments to the preliminary design to meet the client’s needs.

9 See Lobby photograph 10 See front entrance photograph with caption


Building plan and site plan showing relationship of building to site entry sequence. (credit - LS3P Website) At another point, the client asked for risers in the classroom space in the northeast corner. The architect felt they would shrink an already small space and eliminate any flexibility in the room. The client backed down on this issue after they decided to trust the architect’s judgment on spatial quality. The architect later let the client have their way with installing waterless urinals in the restrooms despite the architect’s dislike for their unappealing odor. The client was very committed to “green” technologies throughout the project and often brought energy saving ideas to the architect even if that meant an increase in budget. The client /architect relationship was a constant give and take relationship.


Photo of NW classroom interior - Space utilized/occupied by table chair configuration vs. risers (credit – Rocio Lluch) Once construction began, Chris Roberts enthusiastically volunteered to be the construction administrator11. LS3P has a separate construction administration department which typically takes the projects from the design team through construction, however the project was pursuing LEED certification and Chris was the only representative on this project with LEED accreditation. He looks back on this as a great opportunity for him to go beyond the office to see a project through to completion. Having a representative of the architect on the site during construction proved to be very beneficial as Chris was able to address issues face-to-face and point out work that fell short in time for it to be made right.

CONSTITUENCIES: THE CLIENT VOICE All the parties involved in this project, from the architects, to the owners, to the current users agree that the project overall was a success. The proficient communication and organized delegation between the owners, represented by multiple Parks & Recreation superintendents, and the architect LS3P allowed the building to be completed without any major issues.

The push to create an environmentally sustainable visitor center with cutting edge green technology actually came from the owners. The initial goal was to achieve a LEED Silver certification, which through design and construction actually reached LEED Gold. The building acts as a showcase of sustainable

11 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012.


building designs and systems. The sustainable system features include the geothermal heat pumps, environmentally controlled HVAC systems, PV solar collection, and rainwater catchment systems.12

The clients’ voice can be difficult to capture when the voice is represented by multiple user groups. LS3P met this challenge by responding to the many needs of the Parks & Recreation department in a timely fashion, which secured a strong give and take relationship with the client. The architect was also able to act as a good mediator between the multiple departments with quick responsiveness in an organized and professional manner13. After occupancy, LS3P nurtured a positive firm/client relationship by having weekly meetings to discuss any issues that came up. 14

Other aspects of the client voice had to be addressed by coordinating with specialized outside consultants regarding the exhibits that would be educating the many visitors to the State Park. Riggs Ward Design from Richmond, VA., was brought on to design and outsource the construction to Studio Design, Inc. This brought another necessary but strong facet to the project unachievable by the architects alone.

Community involvement has been well received; nearly 200,000 visitors experience the state park each year. “Visitor centers in our state parks are investments, not only as additions to local communities, but also in terms of environmental education about sustainable living,” said Lewis Ledford, state parks director. “An important part of the mission of state parks is to exemplify good stewardship of our natural resources, and the Raven Rock facility serves that mission well.”

12 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 7, 2012. 13 Park & Recreational Superintendent representing post-bid. Phone Interview. Monday, February 27, 2012. 14 Park & Recreational Superintendent representing post-bid. Phone Interview. Monday, February 27, 2012.


Above is a DENR matrix of their personnel which illustrates the large number of parties and departments that may have interests in State Funded/Constructed projects15.

15 NCDENR Organization Chart - http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/o-chart

http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/o-chart


STORIES: CHALLENGES AND HURDLES While the discussion so far has stressed the success of the project and the relatively pain-free procedure that the clients and architects went through in making Raven Rock Visitor Center a success, there were a number of stories that came up that make for an interesting insight into the architectural process.

(1) THE CASE OF THE IMPROPER GRAVEL MIX

THE ARCHITECT’S VERSION:

The client wanted the outdoor trails to be made of a granular material set in epoxy, referencing a product used in Central Park in New York City16. The design team did not specify the exact same product but one that was similar in material quality and construction process. After the subcontractor made the mix and poured the trail, the architect came out to inspect the work. During the inspection, the architect noticed that the trail had already begun to break down and this was a huge cause for concern since the type of trail material chosen was meant to be robust and withstand weathering. While reviewing the subcontractor’s invoices for materials purchased for the “trail mix,” the architect discovered an anomaly in the documentation. Using the ratio of the amount of epoxy to the amount of material used in the trail mix, the architect discovered that the contractor had in fact used only half of the epoxy that was needed for the trail mix.

The architect voiced his concern to the general contractor about the equation for the trail mix, the proper ratio of materials, and the amount of material the subcontractor had actually purchased as stated in the invoices. The general contractor set up a meeting with the subcontractor, approaching him with the information the architect had discovered. The subcontractor tried to rationalize and justify his decisions but ultimately failed to make a convincing argument, especially considering the trail had already begun to break down. The general contractor threatened to withhold payment to the subcontractor unless he made a proper trail mix according to specifications and re-poured the trail. The subcontractor purchased new materials, made a proper trail mix according to specifications, and re-poured the trail. In the end, the effort to spend only 50% the necessary gravel budget became 150% the necessary budget.

On an interesting side note, it was found that the trail mix actually seems to have the chemical property of breaking down during the cold months and resetting during the warm months. This was an issue that the architect discovered in their research. Parks in cold weather climates had noticed and reported this issue, while the ones in warm and temperate zones had no problem with the gravel mix.

THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S VERSION:

The client wanted the outdoor trails to be made with the same product used in New York City’s Central Park, but because the State of North Carolina requires three alternatives to every product specified, a cheaper, supposedly comparable, product from California was used. The general contractor had never used the product before and attempted to get the product supplier (or “the shysters from California”) to come to North Carolina to do a demonstration17. The general contractor even offered to pay for travel and accommodations for the supplier’s representative but they refused to send a representative to do a demonstration.

16 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012. 17 Larry Wirth, Harrod and Associates General Contractor. Group Interview. March 28, 2012.


According to the general contractor, the subcontractor for the trails did not read the specifications correctly. There were two major issues, the first being that the subcontractor only requisitioned 50 gallons of epoxy instead of the required 300. The problem was not entirely the subcontractor’s, since apparently this was all that the supplier could provide from their available stock. The second issue was the method with which the subcontractor applied the epoxy to the trail mix. Instead of mixing the epoxy, the subcontractor was actually spraying the epoxy on to the trail mix after it had already been laid18.

It should be noted that in both cases, regardless of the methodology to creating the trail mix, the trail still broke down and deteriorated (the culprit being climate issues mentioned in the architect’s version). The consensus between the Architect and General Contractor is that the product chosen from California was not a comparable product to the one used in Central Park New York City.

View of the North side of Raven Rock Visitor Center with a glimpse of the gravel path mentioned in section above (credit – Rocio Lluch)

(2) THE PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH TECHNOLOGY

The HVAC and Lighting at Raven Rock Visitor Center were designed to be controlled by a series of complex automated systems. For instance, each room had daylight sensors, which controlled the dimming of the lights based on the amount of daylight entering the space. The lights would also turn on at sunrise and turn off at sunset. Each room also had CO2 monitors that could detect whether people were in a room or not based on the amount of CO2 levels. These monitors controlled the HVAC system so that when people were present, fresh air would be circulated in the room and when people were not in a space the system would circulate the same air19. Automated systems would seem to alleviate any potential issues, but as it turned out they caused enough issues that the client never again asked for such systems in their future projects.

With regards to the lighting, the lights would turn off at preset times, usually around sunset and sunrise. While this functioned well for normal business hours, there were instances when employees worked

18 Larry Wirth, Harrod and Associates General Contractor. Group Interview. March 28, 2012. 19 Justin Rogers, Dewberry Project Engineer. Oral Presentation @ NC State. March 15, 2012.


late or the facility held activities past the specified “lights off” preset time. At night, the automated lighting system turning off lights became an issue. Employees found that they couldn’t get the lights to stay on for long periods of time past normal day light hours. Because there was a single override button with a preset “lights on” timer set to around fifteen to thirty minutes, this meant an employee would have to press the button several times depending on how long they stayed. The system being as complex as it is required a special consultant to program and because of this setup an employee couldn’t just adjust the settings themselves20. The lack of manual lighting overrides remains a pesky issue, especially now that the building is used for overnight stays (camps). It appears that this was an unforeseen programmatic issue that wasn’t discussed or raised by the client with the mechanical engineer who specified the system or the architect during the design phases of the project.

As for the HVAC system, if there was a power outage or other forms of power source fluctuations, the system would reset and lose its preset, programmed settings. Since the Raven Rock Visitor Center is state owned, a North Carolina state security protocol has to be followed that does not allow remote access to the building’s systems. Therefore when the programmed settings in the system are lost due to power fluctuations a consultant has to physically drive to the building and reprogram the HVAC system settings. This is another blemish on an otherwise technically advanced HVAC system.

Aforementioned issues that the client has had with these technically advanced systems, both in terms of human error and technical faults, have made state officials reluctant to use the same automated systems again in future projects.

(3) RUNNING MEP SYSTEMS ACROSS THE LOBBY SPACE

The architect and mechanical engineer were posed with an interesting problem regarding MEP systems. The lobby did not have a drop ceiling and was open to the roof structure. The State did not have the budget for two mechanical rooms and the architect and engineer had to figure out a way to run the MEP systems across the lobby’s tall volume without it being an eyesore. The mechanical engineer suggested using a spiral duct as a chase across the lobby. The chase enclosed a beam to which the MEP systems were attached for support21.

20 Justin Rogers, Dewberry Project Engineer. Oral Presentation @ NC State. March 15, 2012. 21 Justin Rogers, Dewberry Project Engineer. Oral Presentation @ NC State. March 15, 2012.


The Interior Lobby being open to the foyer proved a difficult challenge in passing services from one side to another. Spiral duct work conceals the MEP services in a building condition that visitors are accustomed to viewing. (credit – LS3P Website )

(4) CHANGING ARCHITECTS DURING THE PROJECT

The Raven Rock Project began with Architect A and Intern Architect A, both of whom went through programming and schematic design together, met with the clients to discuss the project, and researched precedents for the project. Architect A decided to pursue other professional opportunities and left Intern Architect A to manage the project for a short time until Architect B joined the project22. During this transition the design development phase began and Intern Architects B and C joined the design team. Architect B started to meet with the clients, learn about their needs and relaying that information to Intern Architects B and C. Shortly after Intern Architects B and C joined the design team, Intern Architect A decided to explore other professional opportunities and left the project23. Intern Architects B and C continued with the rest of the design development phase from where Intern Architect A had left off.

As the design development phase came to a close, Architect B and the two interns regularly met with the client to discuss the project, making the three of them the most knowledgeable team members involved with the project. The client wanted a LEED certified building and Architect B was the only professional on the project at the time who was LEED accredited. Architect B took on the Construction 22 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012. 23 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012.


Administration phase of the project because of this experience. While Intern Architects B and C worked on the Construction Document phase, Architect B spent much of the time researching material options. This was a very rigorous process because three choices had to be written into the specifications, as required by the State Construction Office for a LEED project. Architect B also made a majority of the design decisions while also handling the copious amounts of paper work required for the LEED certification process24.

With the absence of Intern Architect A, the other two intern architects had to coordinate with consultants on the project. Even though the intern architects had control over coordination of consultants, they still had to go through Architect B for approval on decisions they made. They also answered any questions the consultants had on the project. Upon completion of the Construction Document phase, the project went to bid. Architect B prepared LEED paper work for submittal as construction began. At this point in the project Architect B was still the only architect involved with the project with LEED experience, solidifying the role of lead Construction Administrator on the project25.

Turnover of Design Team during the Raven Rock Visitor Center Project (credit – James Leonard)

The Clients were pleased with the transition that occurred between the two Architects and three Intern Architects in the design team during the design development phase.

IDEAS AND INNOVATION: BIG IDEAS IN A SMALL PROJECT

As mentioned in the Constituencies section, many of the innovations that were accomplished at Raven Rock were due to the persistence of the clients to create a building that consists of different sustainable systems. LS3P attempted to satisfy the client’s desire for a sustainable building by not only incorporating the systems that had never been used before in a Park building but to also obtain a LEED

24 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Oral Presentation @ NC State. March 15, 2012. 25 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Oral Presentation @ NC State. March 15, 2012.


rating for the building. Many of the ideas and innovations that sprang forth were in part due to this dual approach to create a hallmark sustainable building. Chris and his team used many precedent projects to help inform the design decisions of the visitor center. The following images were provided by Chris Roberts as an example of the number of different projects they looked as precedents.

Large number of precedents reviewed for entrances and canopies. (Provided by Chris Roberts)

Large number of precedents reviewed for openings and overhangs. (Provided by Chris Roberts)

Precedents reviewed for material transitions. (Provided by Chris Roberts)

LEED objectives were incorporated into multiple aspects of the building’s functionality, including the use of roof mounted solar panels to provide water heating and a geothermal heat pump that uses ground temperature to condition the air. Daylighting strategies were implemented to provide natural daylight throughout the building with the use of glass clerestories and large punched openings, thereby reducing the need for artificial lighting. Sustainability was also a factor in the choice of local and recycled materials for construction and in the consideration of the long-term energy consumption of the building’s operating systems. The wide range of sustainable design strategies implemented in the Raven Rock Visitor Center uniquely position it as a model of environmental stewardship.

The client wanted to strongly advocate the use of energy efficient mechanical systems. Surprisingly, the geothermal heat pump was something that the client pushed for. The heating and cooling for the condenser water system was done through the ground coupled water loop, which was dug 300 ft deep into the ground through 28 piped wells. These wells consist of plastic tubing that is filled with a glycol liquid that flows from the compressor at the heat pump through all the 28 pipes26. Additionally, because it went through rocks instead of clay, the temperature fluctuations are more stable and there’s less likely a chance of cave-in. The condenser water circulates through the system by an inline pump.

26 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Email Correspondence. April 3, 2012.


Geothermal water source heat pump units supply to serve the building. Units consist of flat filter, heat pump coil, compressor, and reheat system for humidity control in summer. The heat pumps consist of advanced technology design and the use of these units resulted in substantial energy savings, which was part of the reason that it was awarded the highest number of available points for LEED.

The HVAC control system is a direct digital control or DDC system. The DDC system controls the heat pumps; exhaust fans, and system pumps. Each heat pump has an associated space temperature sensor and humidity sensor for reheat control. Energy data monitors meet LEED requirements and CO2 sensors were installed to meet requirements for LEED27.

As recounted in Stories section, the DDC system may have had issues that has caused the clients to not want to use this type of automated system again28. However, in terms of performing the job that it was designed for - that is to conserve energy use in the building - there is no arguments that the energy usage of the building is remarkably low. For the 7000+ sq ft public building the average monthly bill is an astoundingly low $300 a month29.

MEASURES: SUCCESSFUL PROJECT BY THE NUMBERS

Fee Breakdown for Design and Services. (credit – Evan Lane)

27 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012. 28 Chris Roberts, LS3P Architect. Group Interview @ LS3P. February 21, 2012. 29 Copy of electric bill provided by Raven Rock State Park Visitor Center onsite staff


• The site improvements will encompass over twenty-five acres, and the visitor center will total 7,273 square feet.

• Opening bid for the project was September 10, 2008, it was awarded to Harrod and Associates on October 16, 2008 and work began March 10, 2009. Final inspection was February 24, 2010; and the project acceptance on the same day.

• Warranties expired February 24, 2011. • The original contract costs were $331,253.00; however, the final design contract sum is

$465,621.00 regarding amendments with additional fees added to the original contract totaling $134,368.00.

• Major change orders include five solar operated street lights added to the project scope at $33,641.58 and water service revisions totaling $455,573.00. Thus, the final square foot cost of the project is $467.45.

SCHEDULE: TIMING IS EVERYTING

Gantt Chart of Schedule for Raven Rock Visitor Center (credit – Evan Lane) RAVEN ROCK STATE PARK PROJECT PROPOSED SCHEDULE Project: Visitor’s Center and Picnic Area Improvements LS3P Project No: 8600-061650 Revised: 02 October 2007 Finalize Program Requirements August 31, 2006 Preliminary survey to Design Consultant September 15, 2006 Schematic Design / Site Plan SD to Owner, NCDENR, State Construction & DOI ** December 19, 2006 SD Approval by Owner **March 13, 2007 SD Review Comments from SCO & DOI **March 13, 2007 Design Development DD to Owner, NCDENR, State Construction & DOI ** June 18, 2007 DD Approval by Owner ** September 24, 2007


DD Review Comments from SCO & DOI ** September 11, 2007 Construction Documents CD to Owner, NCDENR, State Construction & DOI November 19, 2007 CD to all regulatory agencies for approvals November 19, 2007 CD Approval by Owner January 21, 2008 CD Final Review Comments from SCO & DOI January 21, 2008 Revisions from State Construction & DOI Comments Resubmit February 4, 2008 Approval from State Construction February 11, 2008 Approval from DOI March 3, 2008 Advertise for Bids February 25, 2008 Pre-bid Conference March 11, 2008 Receive Bids * March 27, 2008 Notice to Proceed with Construction April 28, 2008 Substantial Completion March 9, 2009 Final Completion April 6, 2009 Eleven Month Warranty Inspection March 8, 2010 Completion of Warranty items April 5, 2010 * Target date, actual set by State Construction Office. **Actual Date Completed.

CONCLUSION: THE LITTLE VISITOR CENTER THAT COULD The facility at Raven Rock offers a unique design reflecting the park’s character and attracting visitors from all over the United States. “Beyond being a focal point for the park and a gathering place for visitors, the center will be a place to learn about the state park and its natural resources. Like all our visitor centers, it offers an integrated exhibit hall, a teaching auditorium and classrooms.” says, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)30. The project represents an investment of $4.3 million from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, the principal funding source for state park capital projects and land acquisition. The architect, the client and designer relationship remains to be in good standing and future endeavors with the users groups are likely. Even when such an innocuously simple project morphs into a complex project with incredibly advanced systems and major design decisions, the various parties managed to work through them and complete the building on time and on budget. Ethically there were some issues during construction concerning site work and construction of new and existing trails. This was explained by the architect as a breakdown in communication between the subs,

30 NCDENR Raven Rock Site - http://www.ncparks.gov/Visit/parks/raro/main.php

http://www.ncparks.gov/Visit/parks/raro/main.php


General Contractor and Architect. While interviewing the Project Architect on this topic, no other major issues were brought to attention; however a few minor setbacks are expected in a project of this caliber and size. In a combined effort between both client and architect, the issues were resolved with all parties involved agreeing and satisfied with the final resolution. “LS3P Associates is proud to have teamed with the division and Raven Rock State Park to help advance the state’s leadership in green design,” said LS3P executive Chris Roberts. “Their vision and trust made it possible to design this facility to achieve a 33 percent reduction in energy use and 55 percent reduction in water use. We applaud their efforts and feel fortunate to have been part of this project.” The project is a great example for the reader of how even a small project such as this can evolve into a complex job, based on the issues that come up during the design and building process.

APPENDIX A

RAVEN ROCK VISITOR CENTER LEED CERTIFICATION

RAVEN ROCK STATE PARK VISITOR CENTER & PICNIC AREA IMPROVEMENTS

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL

LEED REQUIREMENT OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS Table of Contents General design requirements to meet LEED prerequisites include:

• Prevent airborne dust generation through proper control of construction activities for Construction Activity Pollution Prevention prerequisite. • Provide area for the storage and collection of recyclables for prerequisite. • Ensure building is smoke-free environment by either prohibiting smoking or locating smoking area away from building openings for Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control prerequisite.

General design objectives to meet LEED credits include:

• Coordinate with Landscape Architect with exterior paving selection to help meet Stormwater Design quantity and quality credit and Heat Island Effect credit. • Provide changing room area and bicycle storage to meet Sustainable Sites - Alternative Transportation credit. • Coordinate with Mechanical Consultant and Electrical Consultant to provide Geothermal and Solar power to meet On-Site Renewable Energy credit. • Specify the diversion of 50% of construction waste to be diverted from land fill to meet Construction Waste Management credit. • Select construction products with recycled contents to meet the requirements for the Recycled Content credit. • Select construction products manufactured within 500 miles of the building site to meet the Regional Materials credit. • Select construction products utilizing rapidly renewable content to meet the Rapidly Renewable Materials credit. • Select wood construction products that are Forest Stewardship Council certified to meet the Certified Wood credit. • Specify the additional implementation of an Indoor Air Quality Management Plan to meet the Construction IAQ Management Plan credit. • Specify adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, carpet systems, composite wood and agrifiber products that limit the amount of indoor air contaminants to meet the Low-Emitting Materials credit. • Coordinate with Electrical Consultant to meet Controllability of Lighting Systems credit and Light Pollution Reduction credit. • Coordinate with Mechanical Consultant to meet Controllability of Thermal Comfort systems. • Provide daylighting design solutions to maintain thermal comfort and reduce energy dependence to meet Thermal Comfort design and verification credits. • Provide a visible and/or physical connection between the indoors and outdoors for 90% of regularly occupied areas to meet Daylighting and Views credit.

• Provide an exhibit that educates visitors about the sustainable design features of the building for Innovation and Design Process credit. • Provide at least one LEED Accredited Professional participant to streamline LEED application process to obtain Innovation and Design credit.

DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01000 Project Summary LEED general requirement objectives include: -Redirect 75% of construction and demolition debris to recycling centers for construction waste management credit. -Reuse salvaged, refurbished, or left over building materials to reduce demand for virgin materials.

DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK

02515 Unit Pavers LEED objectives include: -Coordinate with Landscape Architect to improve stormwater design by using unit pavers that reduce site imperviousness and promote infiltration. -Coordinate with Landscape Architect to reduce heat island effect by using pavers with high solar reflectance meeting ASTM Standard E1980-01. -Coordinate with Landscape Architect to obtain unit pavers manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Coordinate with Landscape Architect to utilize unit pavers with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021. 02520 Portland Cement Concrete Paving LEED objectives include: -Coordinate with Landscape Architect to utilize concrete manufactured and supplied within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Coordinate with Landscape Architect to utilize concrete manufactured with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021.

DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE

03300 Cast-In-Place Concrete LEED objectives include: -Obtain concrete extracted, processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. 03450 Architectural Precast Concrete LEED objectives include: -Obtain precast concrete materials processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. LEED objectives include: -Obtain concrete masonry units processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit.

DIVISION 5 - METALS 05120 Structural Steel

LEED objectives include: -Obtain structural steel processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. 05220 Steel Joists and Joist Girders LEED objectives include: -Obtain steel joists processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. 05400 Cold-Formed Metal Framing LEED objectives include: -Obtain cold-formed metal framing processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Utilize metal framing with 20% recycled content that meet the International Standard ISO 14021. DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTICS 06100 Rough Carpentry LEED objectives include: -Avoid plywood and other products containing urea formaldehyde resins to meet the low-emitting materials credit. -Utilize composite wood and agrifiber products to meet the rapidly renewable material credit. 06402 Interior Architectural Woodwork LEED objectives include: -Obtain architectural woodwork manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Utilize materials with 20% recycled content that meet the International Standard ISO 14021. -Utilize products that meet South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule #1168 to meet the low emitting materials credit the low-emitting materials credit. -Use rapidly renewable materials, such as certified wood and agrifiber products. DIVISION 7 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 07120 Fluid-Applied Waterproofing LEED objectives include: -Utilize waterproofing that meets South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule #1168 to meet the low-emitting materials credit. 07210 Building Insulation LEED objectives include: -Use building insulation with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021. 07710 Manufactured Roof Specialties LEED objectives include: -Reduce heat island effect by using a standing seam metal roof with high solar reflectance meeting ASTM Standard E1980-01. -Obtain metal roof products manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. Utilize metal roof products with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021.

07900 Joint Sealers LEED objectives include: -Utilize sealants that meet South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule #1168 to meet the low-emitting materials credit. DIVISION 8 - DOORS AND WINDOWS 08111 Standard Steel Frames LEED objectives include: -Use door frames manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. 08211 Flush Wood Doors LEED objectives include: -Use certified wood doors meeting the Forest Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria. -Obtain doors manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. 08800 Glass and Glazing LEED objectives include: -Use windows manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Ensure windows utilize certified wood doors meeting the Forest Stewardship Council’s Principles and Criteria. DIVISION 9 - FINISHES 09250 Gypsum Drywall LEED objectives include: -Obtain gypsum drywall processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Use gypsum drywall with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021. 09300 Tile LEED objectives include: -Obtain tile processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Use tile with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021. 09511 Acoustical Panel Ceilings LEED objectives include: -Use acoustical ceiling tiles and system with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021. 09521 Acoustical Wall Panels LEED objectives include: -Use acoustical wall panel system with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021. 09650 Resilient Flooring LEED objectives include: -Obtain resilient flooring manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Utilize resilient flooring materials with 20% recycled content that meets the International Standard ISO 14021.

-Utilize resilient products that are made from rapidly renewable resources. 09680 Carpet LEED objectives include: -Obtain carpet manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Utilize carpet materials with 20% recycled content that meet the International Standard ISO 14021. -Utilize carpet materials made from rapidly renewable resources. -Ensure carpet meets the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Plus Testing Program requirements to meet the low-emitting materials credit. 09900 Painting LEED objectives include: -Ensure paint VOC content limits meets those defined under Green Seal Standard GS-11, Paints, First Edition, May 20, 1993 to meet the low-emitting materials credit. 09950 Wall Coverings LEED objectives include: -Obtain wall coverings manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Ensure wall covering VOC content limits meets those defined under the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule #1168 to meet the low-emitting materials credit. DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES 10100 Visual Display Boards LEED objectives include: -Coordinate with Exhibit Designers to meet the regional materials credit. -Coordinate with Exhibit Designers to utilize visual display boards with 20% recycled content that meet the International Standard ISO 14021. -Coordinate with Exhibit Designers to outline high-performance characteristics of building for education purposes to meet Innovation in Design credit. 10155 Toilet Compartments LEED objectives include: -Obtain wall coverings manufactured within 500 miles of the jobsite to meet the regional materials credit. -Utilize toilet compartment partitions with 20% recycled content that meet the International Standard ISO 14021. END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS



57

LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST



59

APPENDIX B

RAVEN ROCK VISITOR CENTER FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX C

RAVEN ROCK VISITOR CENTER SCO | DOI COMMENTS

DOI Comments: 1. SD review comments from DOI:

a. Your response to Comment #4 on providing fire areas so as to eliminate the requirement for a sprinkler system by reducing the occupancy count to less than 300 within each fire area: See Comment # 5 of this review.

Response: See Response to comment # 5 of this letter.

b. Your response to Comment # 5 (Exhibit, at 869 SF with 15 SF/person, exceeds 50 occupants. Provide a 2nd (remote) exit per the requirements of NCBC-Section 1014 including Table 1014.1.) is “The exhibit designs are being developed concurrent with the building , but we believe the fixed exhibits will reduce the space/occupant load to below 50 occupants. If it does not, a second exit will be provided.” :

(1) DoI normally accepts 2 ways for determining the occupancy load in an exhibit space: With no exhibit layout, the square footage of the exhibit area is divided by 15 SF/person for calculating occupancy. The 2nd method (which appears to be applicable to this project per your response to the comment) is to deduct the square footage of the exhibits from the size of the room and then divide the remaining (net clear) square footage by 7 SF/person to determine the occupancy count.

Response: Reference Sheet G-002. We have calculated the occupancy for the Exhibit Room 116 at 15 sf/person for the entire size of the room (852 sf) to get a load of 57 occupants. Two exits are required, and are provided as shown.

(2) Please provide the occupancy calculations when you submit the layout of the exhibit layout for our review/approval.

Response: The occupancy calculations for all of the spaces are shown on the Life Safety Plan on Sheet G-002.

(3) See Comment 5.a(1) below.

Response: See response to this comment.

(4) Note to the Owner: We have no issue with Mr. Roberts response to the comment as long as he can substantiate that the occupant count will not exceed 50 people in Exhibits and thus eliminate the code requirement for a 2nd exit. However, please be aware that any future alteration or modification to the exhibits which results in an increase in the occupant count above 50 will trigger the 2nd exit requirement.

Response: As noted above, we have added a second exit in the space.

c. Your response to Comment # 8 (Please review 503.1 of the NC Fire Code for fire apparatus access as it applies to this project.): You advised that you are aware of this requirement and are working on it. Please address in your next submittal.

Response: Reference Sheet C-101. The distance from the Grass Fire Lane on the east side of the building, and from the driveway to the south of the building, provide access to any part of the building within 150 feet.

2. SD Comment # 8 from Bryan Dowdy, Chief Range:

a. Mr. Dowdy discusses the need for an “eyewash station” in the classroom. What chemical(s)

will be used (& their quantities) in this space which will require this station?

Response: An eyewash has been added to this space. Reference the following chart for quantities being used and stored, and the MSDS sheets attached to the end of this letter for information on each chemical.

Chemical Storage Quantity Working Quantity

Hydrocloric Acid 1 Gallon (5) Droppers

Potassium dihydrogen phosphate

500 mL 1 Cup

Potassium hydrogen phthalate

500 mL 1 Cup

Potassium Chloride 500 mL 1 Cup

Potassium Pyrosulfate Pk /100 Individual foil pack / 5 mL sample

Cadmium Pk /100 Individual foil pack / 5 mL sample

b. On the SD submittal this space was labeled as “Classroom” and on the DD is now labeled as “Seminar”. Has there been a change in use or activity?

Response: The use of the room has not changed; the label was changed to more closely reflect the room’s intended use. This room is not intended to be occupied continuously throughout the day as a classroom would be, but instead hold educational sessions on a periodic basis.

3. Appendix B Building Code Summary: Please recalculate your gross building area (which is currently shown as 7172 SF under the Building Data Category) as it appears to be less than the actual size as defined by the area of a building (NCBC-502.1). I am assuming the 7172 SF figure does not include the area of the covered porches, which it should. If you prefer, the square footage of the conditioned area of the building can be broken out separately from the square footage of the covered porches on the form, as long as their the total is equal to the gross

building area under the roof. Also, in the Table (under the Building Data Category), revise the square footage (to include the covered porches) in the column under “Bldg Area Per Story (Actual)”.

Response: The gross building area has been recalculated to include the exterior area under roof. The areas have been split on the Appendix B as “1st Floor Unconditioned Space” and “1st Floor Conditioned Space”. The Table cell showing “Building Area Per Story (Actual) has also been revised.

4. Legend on Life Safety Plan (Sheet LS-001): Identify that the 2 hour separation is a “fire barrier” which should be in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina Building Code (NCBC)-Section 706. Also, on the plan, the Legend includes a symbol indicating rated walls with “1 Hour Separation Per UL 905 & UL 465”…are there any walls with this designation?

Response: The Life Safety Plan, Sheet G-002, now indicates “2-HR fire barriers” separating the various fire areas. The reference to the UL details has been moved to the type of partition where it would be required on Sheet A-001. There were no 1-hour rated walls, so that designation has been removed from the legend.

5. Life Safety Plan (Sheet LS-001): a. You indicate the occupancy count for (Fire) Area A as 299 people. However, I have calculated

more than 300 occupants. The primary difference appears to be in your “Assembly-3” category, where I used the following numbers in addition to what you have shown in Area A on this plan:

(1) Your Life Safety Plan indicates 694 SF for Exhibit with 47 occupants. Assuming the plan

is drawn to scale at ¼” = 1’-0, I calculate 869 SF with 58 occupants (at 15 SF net per person). I also believe the 869 square foot figure to be correct since you provided an earlier drawing which had indicated 869 SF for Exhibit.

Response: As discussed in our meeting, we have reconfigured the fire areas to get them all below 300 occupants. Refer to response to 1.b.1 regarding the size of the Exhibit room.

(2) You do not give an occupancy count for the corridor between Exhibit & the Men’s

Toilet but do indicate that it is 765 SF. If I deduct a 4’ wide area for egress, the net SF is approximately 340. At 7 SF per occupant, this area could have 48 occupants.

Response: Reference Sheet G-002. We have included the space between the Men’s Toilet Room and Exhibit as part of the occupied space, with a load of 7 sf/person. This area has 272 square feet after deducting a 4’ wide path to the exits, equaling 39 occupants in this area.

b. We need to be in agreement on the location/limits of each fire area before you submit the

CD package. How you reconfigure the fire barrier(s) so as to reduce the occupant load to less than 300 people in Area A is your decision. However, if you wish, we can discuss by telephone or by meeting at DoI.

Response: We appreciate the opportunity we took to meet with you to get this resolved.

6. Sheet CO.1 & C1.2: No accessible parking spaces are indicated at the parking lot, adjacent to the 8 table picnic shelter. Resurfacing this is considered an alteration and is to comply with Chapter 36 of the North Carolina Accessibility Code (NCAC).

Response: Refer to sheet C-102. Accessible parking has been added next to the 8-table picnic shelter.

7. Sheet C1.2: Under “Key Notes” Type B sidewalks are constructed with “Chapel Hill Gravel”…I am not familiar with this product. Please provide a detail(s) and information on this material to substantiate that it is an acceptable surface for accessibility (and thus complies with the NCAC).

Response: Keynote B on Sheet C-101 has included more specific information about the product to be used. “Resin-bound decomposed granite”, as provided by one of the suppliers listed, includes a binder such as “Stabilizer” by Stabilizer Solutions. Literature about this product is attached to the back of these comments. When the resin binder is used, this type of surface is ADA accessible as described in the literature.

8. Floor Plan (Sheet A101):

a. Sliding pocket doors, as a component of the means of egress from Exhibit, are permitted under exception #5 of NCBC-1008.1.2 but must also comply with all of the criteria under NCBC-1008.1.3.3. Please confirm compliance.

Response: The sliding pocket doors have been removed from the Exhibit room.

b. Seating in Auditorium: Please confirm that the seats shown on the plan are “fixed” and comply with NCBC-1024.1-provide detail/drawing indicating compliance. Confirm that the seats do not have folding table arms as otherwise the interpretation is that the required width for each row is to be determined with the tablet arm in the usable position, not the retracted position.

Response: The Auditorium will not have fixed seating so as to provide a more flexible space for setting up chairs and tables in this space.

c. Door between Seminar 101 & Lobby 124: The pull side, in accordance with NCAC-7.3.1, requires an 18” clear dimension on the strike side.

Response: This door has been adjusted to allow 18” clear on the pull side, at the strike.

d. Show location of fire extinguishers on the floor plan in your next submittal.

Response: Refer to Sheet A-101. Fire extinguisher locations are noted by equipment keynote #1.

9. General Note for PM&E Drawings: for the next submittal show location of all hourly rated fire barriers on the floor plans.

Response: Locations of all hourly rated fire barriers are now shown on the plans.

10. General Comment for architectural and PM&E drawings on rated construction details and rated penetration details:

a. Your Life Safety Plan list the UL design system number for the fire barriers, which are to comply with NCBC-Section 706. The PM&E documents are to also provide appropriate sourced details for all conduits, ductwork, piping, and any other PM&E items or components which penetrate fire rated construction per NCBC-706.

Response: All UL Details are referenced beside the partition construction type on Sheet A-001 (for both stud and gypsum board, as well as CMU partitions), and the UL Details are reproduced on Sheet G-003. Penetration details for Plumbing and Electrical are shown on drawings P0.01 and E2.02.

b. These rated details are to be included in the drawings, exactly as they are shown in each detail’s source document or website. Just referencing the detail number(s) or source document(s) is not acceptable. The information must be presented in their entirety and in a non-misleading manner, without any alteration to the detail including it’s verbiage, to ensure that the proposed configuration is provided as tested.

Response: All UL Details have been reproduced on the drawings mentioned above.

c. Comply with all copyright requirements. For example, UL permits you to manually reproduce or reprint their Designs and Details ( letter of August 17, 2000) on the drawings but subject to their requirements including the following conditions to protect their copyrights: (1) the System/Designs must be presented in their entirety and in a non-misleading manor, without any manipulation of the data, (2) a statement must appear adjacent to the extracted material indicating that it is “Reprinted from the 200x Fire Resistance Directory (or whichever title is applicable) with permission from Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.” and (3) the reprinted material must include a copyright notice stating “Copyright 2xxx Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.”.

Response: The UL disclaimer has been included at the end of each of the UL Details reproduced (found on Sheets G-003, P0.01, and E2.02).

d. If UL details are provided, DoI prefers that the information be from their website than from their Directory, since the website should always have the most current approved version of any detail.

Response: The UL Details have been taken off of the UL website.

e. The purpose for providing a reprint of all construction & penetration details (from UL or whomever) on the drawings is to insure that the contractor(s), and their subcontractors, have a clear understanding of what is required by the testing agency for code compliance.

11. Mechanical Floor Plan 1/M1.01:

a. On next submittal show location of all fire dampers (& smoke if required). Also indicate location of access doors for dampers in duct work.

Response: Location of all fire dampers are shown on plans, as well as location of access doors for dampers in ductwork. No smoke dampers are required.

b. Mechanical: Toilet exhaust (from M 115 & W 117 ) in exterior wall appears to discharge directly into the covered porch, just above the drinking fountains. Per 401.5.2 & 502.7.3.6 of the NCMC, exhaust air is not to be directed onto walkways so as to create a nuisance.

Response: The toilet exhaust has been re-directed to exhaust on the east side of the building where there is no covered porch.

12. The outline electrical specifications reference DOI’s Fire Detection and Alarm Systems design guidelines. Please reference the current version which is July 25, 2005. We can email to you a copy upon request.

Response: The fire alarm specifications include all relevant criteria from the most current (July 25, 2007) Fire Detection and Alarm System Design Guideline.

END OF COMMENTS

SCO Comments:

GENERAL – Farouk Zaman, Architect

13. All documents (drawings and project manual) shall bear the seals of all designers to identify the “Author” of the document, section 301.3 State Construction Manual. Signature and date not necessary except on bid sets.

Response: Designer seals have been placed on the drawings and the project manual.

14. Cost Estimate: The Designer has failed to comply with Article 1-6 of the Owner/Designer

Agreement that requires a cost estimate to be submitted at the Design Development Document review phase.

A reminder to the Designer that the base bid should be 90% of Construction Funds available with add alternates to 110% of those funds to permit flexibility and ability to award contracts. If the bids for this project are over the available construction fund the Designer shall “re-package” the project at NO additional cost to the Owner. Project must be within budget or approval cannot be given to bid. The review of the cost estimate is still pending. Provide a cost estimate.

Response: A cost estimate was provided on July 23 that showed the base bid estimate at

approximately 95% of funds available with alternates that take it to approximately 110%. Also, an updated cost estimate for the Construction Documents is attached to this submittal. The updated cost estimate reflects a construction cost close to the July 23 estimate.

15. Project Budget (Page 67) DD Submittal booklet:

Exhibit Design Fee: There is no allowance in “design fee.” Either the quoted amount is part of the fee or if not belongs to the Owner.

The Owner/Designer Agreement does not reflect the “Funds for Exhibit Construction” amount indicated. Clarify.

Response: Design amendment #1 was for an Exhibit Design Fee. $248,470 of the Owner Reserves is being set aside to pay for exhibit fabrication, which was previously broken out, but is not in the revised budget breakdown below. The Owner has asked us to bid the exhibits fabrication as a separate package from the rest of the project, but keep the GC responsible for holding the contract for the Exhibit fabricator and coordinating the work with them. The following is our understanding of the Project Budget.

Total Project Budget: $ 4,177,916 Initial Design Fee: $ 331,253

Exhibit Design Fee: $ 101,530 LEED Commissioning Fee: $ 29,838

Owner Reserves: $ 286,315 Owner Construction Contingency: $ 99,873

Total Funds for Building Construction: $ 3,329,107

16. LEED: Submit a final updated LEED project checklist with your CD submittal.

Response: The updated LEED checklist is attached at the back of this letter.

17. Drawings:

a. A-001: Add True North and Project North Arrows. Wheel stops are shown at some parking spaces and not at others. Clarify.

Response: True North is the same as Project North, and the north arrows have been added to the plans.

b. A-101: Provide a minimum 2’-0” high splash around the mop sink in the Janitor’s room.

Response: Refer to notes for the Finish Schedule on A-721. An FRP 2’-0” high splash will be provided around the mop sink.

c. A-101, Room 104: Provide grab bars at the toilet area.

Response: Refer to Sheet A-401. Grab bars have been provided where required in the toilet rooms.

d. A-101, Room 106: Upper wall cabinet, kitchen sink and a work area at the counter shall be HC accessible.

Response: Refer to 01, 02, and 03 on Sheet A-751. The upper wall cabinet, kitchen sink, and counter are HC accessible.

e. A-101, Public Toilet Rooms: Is there any need for a “Diaper” changing table?

Response: Refer to Sheet A-401. “Baby Changing Stations” have been added to the group toilet rooms.

CIVIL/STRUCTURAL – Herbert H. Neily, PE

A. As the design progresses, please review the SCO “Site Preparation and Grading Criteria” available at http://www.nc-sco.com/Guidelines/guide.htm.

Response: These criteria have been used in preparation of the documents.

B. The structural drawings clearly indicate proposed shear wall locations for the visitors’ center.

Please be sure to provide engineered load paths from the roof diaphragm into these shear walls. For example, Plan 1/S-102 shows roof purlins offset from the columns and shear walls on Line FF. Either provide direct connection of the roof deck to the shear wall or ensure that diaphragm reactions have a suitable path through the roof framing.

Response: All shear walls needed to resist code required lateral loads are now indicated on plan. Load distribution and load paths have been fully analyzed. Please refer to the roof framing plans, indicated wall sections, and 2/S-401 for shear wall connection to the roof diaphragm. Additionally, please refer to the foundation plan, indicated wall sections, 4/S-401, and 5/S-401 for shear wall connections to the foundations.

FORMS AND DOCUMENTS – Joseph H. Baden, PE

A. Show rated walls on all mechanical and plumbing drawings.

Response: Rated walls are now shown on all PME drawings.

B. Provide key plans and north arrows, as appropriate, on all mechanical and plumbing drawings.

Response: North arrows have been added to the Mechanical and Plumbing drawings.

MECHANICAL DRAWINGS – Joseph H. Baden, PE

A. M0.01 General Mechanical Notes:

1. Notes 10 and 22, verify references to “WCPSS”

Response: Notes have been revised to eliminate references to WCPSS.

2. Add note 29: Ducts shall not be internally lined as appropriate. Duct liner should be

avoided except where fan noise is a concern.

Response: Ducts are only to be internally lined right at exit and entrance to heat pumps, where fan noise is a concern.

3. Add note 30: All individual motor starters and disconnects for mechanical equipment

(fans, pumps, etc) shall be furnished and installed under Division 15 unless indicated as a part of a motor control center. Motor starters for mechanical equipment provided in motor control centers shall be furnished under Division 16. Under Division 16, power wiring shall be provided up to a termination point consisting of a junction box, trough, starter, variable frequency drive, or disconnect switch. Under Division 16 line side terminations shall be provided. Wiring from the termination point to the mechanical equipment, including final connections, shall be provided under Division 15. The Mechanical Contractor shall be responsible for the proper direction of rotation for all

three phase equipment. The Mechanical Contractor shall furnish and install all control circuitry.” Review other specifications for conformance to this division of responsibility.

Response: Note has been added.

4. M1.01, verify “XXX” at EF-2.

Response: “XXX” has been replaced with the appropriate dimensions.

5. M6.01:

A. Provide all missing specifications.

Response: Complete specifications have been provided.

B. Indicate “Basis of Design” instead of “Manufacturer/Model” on all schedules.

Response: “Manufacturer/Model” has been replaced with “Basis of Design” on all schedules.

PLUMBING DRAWINGS – Joseph H. Baden, PE

A. P0.00:

1. Plumbing Fixture Schedule, provide at least three manufacturer names for each item of the equipment.

Response: Manufacturers listed in Plumbing Fixture Schedule are intended to be the Basis of Design. Please see Sheet P0.00, General Note #4. Additional manufacturers are listed in contract specifications.

2. Detail 1, verify that the janitor’s sink faucet incorporates check valves on the hot and

cold water sides to prevent crossflow if a nozzle is attached to the faucet and both valves are open.

Response: Some janitor’s sink faucets come standard with check valves and some do not. Please see Sheet P1.02 for check valves added in piping to prevent cross flow of water between cold and hot water system.

3. Detail 4: a. Verify that flow through the solar heat collectors is limited to conditions when

minimum 140 degree water is available from the heat collectors.

Response: Please see added note indicating pump shall run only when 140 deg is available from solar collector.

b. Provide inlet and outlet dimensions for the thermostatic mixing valve.

Response: Please see added mixing valve inlet and outlet sizes.

PLUMBING SPECIFICATIONS – Joseph H. Baden, PE

A. Page 39:

1. Section 15250P, clarify above and below grade plumbing insulation requirements.

Response: Please see attached Specification Section 15250P Plumbing Insulation indicating all domestic water piping above grade shall be insulated with 1" fiberglass insulation.

2. Section 15440P, add enamel cast iron to the wall mounted lavatory (P-3A) specifications, to match drawing P0.00.

Response: Please see Sheet P0.00 for P-3A lavatory changed to vitreous china.

ELECTRICAL – Lora K. Salib, PE

A. It’s the engineer’s responsibility to read and comply with all relevant criteria in the 2005 SCO Electrical Guidelines and Policies in your next submittal. Any design noncompliance with the Electrical Guidelines and Policies resulting in a change order shall be the responsibility of the designer.

Response: Electrical plans and specifications will comply with all applicable criteria in the “2005 SCO Electrical Guidelines and Policies.”

B. In your response confirm that the Construction Document submittals comply with all relevant

criteria on the Electrical Guidelines.

Response: Please see response to Comment A.

C. The Electrical Guidelines are available on the State Construction Office web site http://www.nc-sco.com/

Response: Please see response to Comment A.

D. During specification writing, special attention shall be directed to section 16025 of the Electrical Guidelines and Policies of 2005 issued by this office. Strict adherence to this publication is required.

Response: Please see detail on sheet E2.02 for division of labor between electrical and mechanical/plumbing.

E. Sheet E0.02: Provide complete electrical site plan and show telephone service point to the

building.

Response: There are existing underground utility telephone lines running along the existing road to a set of pay phones. The utility will route the new telephone service through the ductbank infrastructure shown entering at manhole #1 and terminating in the electrical room. Please refer to the enlarged electrical room plan on sheet E1.02 for location of the demark.

F. The MDP shall be located immediately where the service conduit enters the building. Or, show

the service conduit encased in three inches of concrete all the way to the MDP. See NEC 230 for more information.

Response: The MDP is located in panelboard MDP which is served by an underground/below slab feeder from the service transformer. The feeder will turn up directly into the panelboard enclosure.

G. The Power Utility pad mounted transformer shall be located 20ft away from the building.

Response: The pad mounted transformer has been relocated to 20’ away from the building.

H. In your next submittal, provide detailed electrical cost estimate.

Response: Detailed cost estimate is attached.

CIVIL/SITE UTILITIES DRAWINGS - Elizabeth G. Kotek, PE ([email protected])

A. List minimum three names of manufactures for all equipment specified by a brand name. in accordance with NCGS 133-3, anywhere a manufacturer is named, names of minimum two additional manufactures must be included as well. Compliance with NCGS 133-3, regarding naming minimum three manufacturers shall be observed. Also per 133-2, using plans and details by material furnisher are prohibited.

Response: Part 2 – “Products”, Section 02540 “Septic Tank Systems”, Division 2 “Site Work” includes minimum three names of manufacturers for equipment.

B.

1. Drawing and design shall bear PE seal and signature. Please provide.

Response: Septic Plan drawings SP 101, SP 102, and SP 103 contain PE seal and signature.

a. Provide pump rating, and specification. Info appears to be missing.

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 2 and SP 102 - 3 contain pump rating and specifications

Item 2.6 “Simplex Submersible Effluent Pump”, Part 2 – “Products”, Section 02540 “Septic

Tank Systems”, Division 2 “Site Work” includes pump specifications.

b. Coordinate with electrical design for power service to dosing pump appear to be missing on current electrical drawing. Please coordinate for pump HP and Voltage.

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 4 contains information regarding coordination of electrical design for power service to dosing pump

Item 1.9 “ Coordination”, Part 1 – “General”, Section 02540 “Septic Tank Systems”, Division

2 “Site Work” details coordination of on-site wastewater system electrical services with Electrical Contractor.

Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 2 contains specific information regarding pump HP and Voltage

c. Per updated design control panel will be freestanding mounted on post next to the dosing pump tank. Please provide protection against un-authorized access to the electrical equipment for securing public safety

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 4 contains information regarding protection of pump control panel against unauthorized use through use of steel enclosure with hinged locking door secured by lock; one of two possible locations for control panel is on exterior wall of Visitor Center, providing additional security.

d. Consider connecting distribution pumps to Building Automation System for monitoring and alarms. Please provide and coordinate with mechanical design.

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 4 includes electrical connection from control panel auxiliary alarm output contact to Building Automation System to be performed by Electrical Contractor

e. Provide detail for pump tank, structure and installation. Provide approximate dimensions for pump tank. Provide built-in steps inside the pump tank.

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 2 provides detail for pump tank, structure, and installation, including approximate dimensions;

Pump can be lifted from inside of pump tank via stainless steel chain; therefore, built-in steps inside pump tank are not necessary to access pump for repairs; pump tank depth (approximate 5 feet) allows suitable access to pump tank (e.g., external ladder) without requiring built-in steps

f. Provide detail for septic tank size, structure and installation. Provide approximate dimensions for septic tank.

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 101 – 3 and SP 101 – 4 provide detail for septic tank, structure, and installation, including approximate dimensions

g. Provide location of pump tank and pump rating, mounting detail and specification. Please improve readability of details. Text size used in drawings shall be 1/10" high (10 point) minimum. Plans are microfilmed for archival storage, and text smaller than 10-points becomes illegible when reproduced from microfilm.

Response: Septic Plan drawing SP 101 – 1 provides approximate location of pump tank

Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 3 provides pump rating with suitable readability

Septic Plan drawing SP 102 – 2 provides pump mounting detail and specification with suitable readability

C. Provide specification for septic system including shop drawing submittals, installation standards, inspections and acceptance certificates. Please include it in CD documents.

Response: Item 1.4 “ Submittals”, Part 1 – “General”, Section 02540 “Septic Tank Systems”, Division 2 “Site Work” provides specifications for septic system shop drawing submittals.

Part 3 – “Execution”, Section 02540 “Septic Tank Systems”, Division 2 “Site Work” provides specifications for septic system installation standards.

Item 1.5 “Quality Assurance”, Part 1 – “General”, Section 02540 “Septic Tank Systems”, Division 2

“Site Work” provides specifications for septic system inspections and acceptance certificates.

ARCH/ P&M COORDINATION - Elizabeth G. Kotek, PE ([email protected])

A. Provide detail for installation of solar panels at roof structure. Please provide the info.

mailto:[email protected]

Response: Please see the attached brochure on the S-5 clip which is specified as an attachment in Section 07410. This system allows positive attachment of the solar panels without penetrating the roofing metal, and works with all manufacturer’s mounting systems.

B. Coordinate between architectural and mechanical trades regarding detailing of air louvers, as on State owned projects, they typically installed by general contractor. Please provide detail for installation of exterior louvers. Coordinate w/ mechanical for division of work.

Response: The air louvers will be provided and installed by the general contractor. The louvers are specified under Section 10200. The detail for interfacing the air louvers with the exterior wall has been placed on sheet A-521; please see details C1 and C3.

PLUMBING DRAWINGS - Elizabeth G. Kotek, PE ([email protected])

A. P1 .02: coordinate water entrance with mechanical equipment. Relocate main BFP close to the water entrance, so exposed and unprotected piping is kept to a minimum (to avoid possibility of any future water connection downstream of backflow preventer).

Response: Please see revised Sheet P1.02. Backflow Preventer has been relocated to Mechanical 121 at domestic water entrance.

MECHANICAL DRAWINGS - Elizabeth G. Kotek, PE ([email protected])

A. Have the soil boring been conducted for the geothermal field? If the site name "Raven Rock" means anything, there shall be concern about rocky soil as boring in such ground are proven to be very difficult and expensive. Please provide copy of the soil report. Per Designer respond, the soil boring is available up to approximately 25 feet with no rock encountered. The deeper boring may not be economically feasible for this relatively small system. The Design Team decided to include in spec section "Allowance" provision for rock drilling (based on estimated quantities) to cover any possibility of boring thru rock when installing geothermal wells.

RESPONSE: The design Civil Engineer of the project has contacted a Geotechnical Engineer concerning this issue. The recommendation from the Geotechnical Engineer is not to include an allowance for rock for the drilling of the geothermal wells. In consideration of a standard geothermal well installation, the depth is to an extent where rock is encountered almost every occasion and the drilling equipment utilized is designed for the rock. Therefore, no allowances are included for the drilling of the geothermal wells.


a. Provide detail for underground distribution piping manifold and valves. Missing in resubmitted documents

Response: Please see revised Detail #8 on Sheet M6.02. Underground vault has been added to piping schematic. Also, please see this detail for the underground distribution piping manifold, valves, requirement to seal all penetrations watertight, and piping materials. Please see Detail #2 on Sheet M6.01 for added notes for all penetrations to be sealed watertight and piping materials also.

b. Det.2: clearly indicate the depth of well grouting. Per the NC Division of Water Quality, to protect aqua source, each geo-well needs to be grouted at minimum of 20 feet from the top, however if casing is to be removed (as it is shown on that detail) the entire cavity around pipe shall be backfill with grout. Item appears to be not covered.

Response: Please see revised Detail #2 on Sheet M0.02. Notes have been added to require the Contractor to provide grout for entire depth of well.

B. MI .01: verify and add note or dimension indicting that the exhaust and intake air louvers shall be separated by distance min of 10 feet (this in reference to two 36x18 louvers at west side). When required distance has been obtained, a possible conflict between duct and beam is been uncounted. Please verify and coordinate.

Response: Please see revised Sheet M1.01 for added separation distances between the two 36x18 louvers on the West side of the building. Conflict between the louver, ductwork, and building structure has also been resolved in revised layout.

C. MI .02: show on piping plan location of air separator, expansion tank and glycol feed port. . Verify and coordinate. Indicate the location for glycol feeder (can be field adjusted).

Response: Please see revised Detail #2 on Sheet M1.02 for added Glycol feed location. Note #6 has also been added to coordinate exact location of feed location in field. Please see added Detail #15 on Sheet M5.01 for added detail of Gylcol fill station.

a. Det. 8: coordinate with architectural designer regarding installation of air louvers. Typically, the louver mounting detail is shown on architectural drawings and they are installed by general contractor. Coordinating is still needed.

Response: The air louvers will be provided and installed by the general contractor. The louvers are specified under Section 10200. The detail for interfacing the air louvers with the exterior wall has been placed on sheet A-521; please see details C1 and C3.

b. Det. 12: verify dimension graphics - the detail implies that the CDWS/R would be 6” not 3” as shown on M0.02. Please verify and correct.

Response: Please see revised Detail #12 on Sheet M5.01. Dimensions have been modified to reflect accurate pipe dimensions.

c. Provide pump mounting detail. Provide detail for valve arrangement around pump(s).

Response: Please see added Detail #8 on Sheet M5.01 for Inline pump valve arrangement.

D. Provide UL listed detail for pipe penetrations through the fire rated structures. Verify if posted details are current.

Response: Please see Sheet M0.01 for UL Details. UL details have been updated to meet current standards.

MECHANICAL SPECIFICATION - Elizabeth G. Kotek, PE ([email protected])

A. 3.7: clarify and add specification for insulation proposed on exposed round ducts (particularly in Seminar Room and office areas). Clearly indicate on drawings extend of double insulated air duct installation.

Response: Please see added Note #7 on Sheet M1.01 to indicate exposed ductwork is double wall. Key note has been added to Exhibit 116, Break Room 105, Office/Staff 106, and Superintendent 109.

P&M COST ESTIMATE - Elizabeth G. Kotek, PE ([email protected])

The updated cost estimate has not been included in the re-submittal therefore the comments were not reviewed.

A. Plumbing: exterior, dual drinking fountain is not included in the pricing list.

Response: Included in updated estimate, please see attached.

B. Mechanical: address cost for building system commissioning.

Response: Commissioning agent is contracted by the owner already.

C. LEED Certification: address any contractors cost associated with documentation for LEED testing, documentation and records.

Response: This would be a guess at this point. The last project the Department of Parks and Recreation took bids on, the breakout pricing for this ranged from $0 - $181,000.

ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS - Lora Salib, PE (919-807-4099) ([email protected])




A. Previous comments D21 &22: Please comply with the comments.

Response: The spare parts section of the Fire Alarm System specification has been revised to reflect the project and training requirements.

ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS - Lora Salib, PE (919-807-4099) ([email protected])

A. Previous comment C.4: The ballast switch shall be part of the package, and the package as all shall be third party listed.

Response: Note revised to include requirement for ballast disconnect to be included as part of third party listed assembly.

B. Previous comment D.1: Provide note on the power riser saying that the service conduit is encased in 3" of concrete and will run 24" below the 4" concrete slab.

Response: Note added to riser diagram requiring 3” of concrete encasement from transformer to edge of building and to maintain routing 24” below 4” floor slab.

C. Previous comment D.2: Show the location of the electrical room on the site plan.

Response: Location of the electrical room added to the site plan.

D. Previous comment D.4: On the site plan, please show the telephone utility service point

Response: Location of telephone utility service point added to site plan.

END OF COMMENTS

APPENDIX D

RAVEN ROCK VISITOR CENTER BID PACKAGE

LS3P

ASS

OC

IATE

S LT

D.

1 of

3

Proj

ect:

Proj

ect #

:Bi

d D

ate:

Bid

Loca

tion:

SCO

ID:

BLU

E R

IDG

E EN

TER

PRIS

ES34

91y

yy

3,26

8,00

0$

Plum

bing

C

obal

tM

echa

nica

l M

Sta

ffEl

ectri

cal

Inte

grat

ed E

lect

rical

CSI

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

2566

yy

y3,

541,

000

$

Pl

umbi

ng

Kauf

man

Mec

hani

cal

M S

taff

Elec

trica

l Al

man

DIX

IE G

ENER

AL

CO

NTR

AC

TOR

SN

o B

id-

$

Plum

bing

M

echa

nica

l El

ectri

cal

GEO

. RA

PER

& S

ON

No

Bid

-$

Pl

umbi

ng

Mec

hani

cal

Elec

trica

l H

AR

RO

D &

ASS

OC

IATE

CO

NST

RU

CTO

RS

3279

1y

yy

3,22

8,00

0$

Plum

bing

H

ardi

nM

echa

nica

l W

atco

Elec

trica

l In

telle

ct E

lect

ric H

BS

CO

NTR

AC

TOR

S34

97y

yy

3,56

7,70

0$

Plum

bing

Ka

ufm

anM

echa

nica

l M

Sta

ffEl

ectri

cal

Alm

an IN

LAN

D C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N C

OM

PAN

Y24

87y

yy

3,87

0,73

8$

Plum

bing

Ka

ufm

anM

echa

nica

l M

Sta

ffEl

ectri

cal

Inte

grat

ed E

lect

rical

MA

CA

LLEN

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

5681

3y

yy

3,24

5,00

0$

Plum

bing

Ka

ufm

anM

echa

nica

l W

atco

Elec

trica

l In

telle

ct E

lect

ric P

LAYE

R, I

NC

.14

87y

yy

3,41

9,00

0$

Plum

bing

Ka

ufm

anM

echa

nica

l M

Sta

ffEl

ectri

cal

Inte

llect

Ele

ctric

TH

AM

ES C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N C

O.

5027

0y

yy

4,10

0,00

0$

Plum

bing

Ka

ufm

anM

echa

nica

l M

Sta

ffEl

ectri

cal

Inte

llect

Ele

ctric

WEC

C, I

NC

.41

383

yy

y3,

873,

842

$

Pl

umbi

ng

Har

din

Mec

hani

cal

Uni

ted

Elec

trica

l In

telle

ct E

lect

ric

05-0

6699

-01A

MB

EA

dden

da R

ecei

ved

Bas

e B

id

Gen

eral

Con

trac

tors

Prim

e Su

bcon

trac

tors

Li

cens

e #

Bid

Sec

urity

Rav

en R

ock

Stat

e Pa

rk V

isito

r Cen

ter &

Pic

nic

Area

Impr

ovem

ents

Tues

day,

Jul

y 29

, 200

8

Tim

e: 3

:00

pm

Rav

en R

ock

Stat

e Pa

rk M

ain

Offi

ce

30

09 R

aven

Roc

k R

oad,

Lilli

ngto

n, N

C 2

7546

8600

-061

650

BID

TAB

ULA

TIO

N

SIN

GLE

PR

IME

B

ase

Bid

(Par

t A)

LS3P

ASS

OC

IATE

S LT

D.

2 of

3

Proj

ect:

Proj

ect #

:Bi

d D

ate:

Bid

Loca

tion:

BLU

E R

IDG

E EN

TER

PRIS

ES11

8,00

0$

130,

000

$

4,

000

$

120,

000

$

-

$

3,00

0$

215,

000

$

17

,500

$

6,00

0$

36,0

00$

100,

000

$

4,01

7,50

0$

CSI

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

116,

943

$

13

1,02

5$

2,59

2$

10

6,54

2$

-$

2,

242

$

23

5,70

0$

270,

000

$

3,

954

$

34

,732

$

18

,900

$

4,

463,

630

$

DIX

IE G

ENER

AL

CO

NTR

AC

TOR

S-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-$

-$

GEO

. RA

PER

& S

ON

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-$

-

$

-

$

-

$

HA

RR

OD

& A

SSO

CIA

TE C

ON

STR

UC

TOR

S12

0,00

0$

136,

000

$

3,

000

$

114,

400

$

-

$

2,30

0$

214,

000

$

26

5,00

0$

4,40

0$

38,0

00$

12,0

00$

4,13

7,10

0$

HB

S C

ON

TRA

CTO

RS

138,

600

$

15

9,10

0$

9,10

0$

11

0,24

0$

-$

-

$

297,

000

$

5,

100

$

5,90

0$

62,1

00$

150,

000

$

4,50

4,84

0$

INLA

ND

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

MPA

NY

169,

265

$

18

9,10

3$

2,70

0$

12

3,45

5$

-$

2,

335

$

21

6,31

0$

30,0

00$

10

,771

$

36,0

20$

-$

4,65

0,69

7$

MA

CA

LLEN

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

116,

000

$

13

7,00

0$

11,0

45$

10

7,00

0$

-$

2,

200

$

19

7,45

0$

264,

000

$

4,

795

$

32

,800

$

7,

500

$

4,

124,

790

$

PLA

YER

, IN

C.

135,

000

$

15

7,00

0$

3,50

0$

11

2,00

0$

-$

2,

500

$

21

5,00

0$

15,0

00$

5,

500

$

35

,000

$

2,

500

$

4,

102,

000

$

TH

AM

ES C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N C

O.

146,

500

$

16

6,00

0$

8,60

0$

11

9,00

0$

-$

2,

300

$

21

5,00

0$

no b

id6,

500

$

33

,700

$

no

bid

4,79

7,60

0$

WEC

C, I

NC

.91

,586

$

109,

198

$

9,

198

$

15,1

90$

-

$

-$

23

2,35

4$

29,7

03$

7,

731

$

11

,020

$

-

$

4,

379,

822

$

Alte

rnat

e #

11A

ltern

ate

# 4

Alte

rnat

e #

8A

ltern

ate

# 9

Alte

rnat

e #

10TO

TAL

B

ase

Bid

+ A

ltern

ates

Rav

en R

ock

Stat

e Pa

rk V

isito

r Cen

ter &

Pic

nic

Area

Impr

ovem

ents

86

00-0

6165

0

Tu

esda

y, J

uly

29, 2

008

Ti

me:

4:0

0 pm

R

aven

Roc

k St

ate

Park

Mai

n O

ffice

3009

Rav

en R

ock

Roa

d, L

illing

ton,

NC

275

46

Alte

rnat

e #

1A

ltern

ate

# 2

Alte

rnat

e #

3G

ener

al C

ontr

acto

rsA

ltern

ate

# 5

Alte

rnat

e #

6A

ltern

ate

# 7

BID

TAB

ULA

TIO

N

SIN

GLE

PR

IME

Al

tern

ate

Bid

s (P

art B

)

LS3P

ASS

OC

IATE

S LT

D.

3 of

3

Proj

ect:

Proj

ect #

:Bi

d D

ate:

Bid

Loca

tion:

BLU

E R

IDG

E EN

TER

PRIS

ES14

$

100

$

15

0$

36$

4

$

1,60

0$

1,

000

$

CSI

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

15$

11

0$

140

$

36

$

375

$

3,

772

$

3,23

4$

DIX

IE G

ENER

AL

CO

NTR

AC

TOR

S-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

GEO

. RA

PER

& S

ON

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

HA

RR

OD

& A

SSO

CIA

TE C

ON

STR

UC

TOR

S15

$

110

$

15

0$

35$

4

$

1,51

2$

86

4$

HB

S C

ON

TRA

CTO

RS

16$

11

5$

145

$

40

$

5$

2,

000

$

1,20

0$

INLA

ND

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

CO

MPA

NY

16$

11

3$

141

$

37

$

4$

1,

960

$

1,12

0$

MA

CA

LLEN

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

16$

11

0$

135

$

35

$

4$

1,

500

$

900

$

PLA

YER

, IN

C.

14$

10

0$

125

$

40

$

4$

2,

000

$

1,20

0$

TH

AM

ES C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N C

O.

16$

11

0$

140

$

37

$

4$

1,

800

$

100

$

WEC

C, I

NC

.30

$

150

$

18

0$

45$

14

$

2,50

0$

1,

500

$

Uni

t Pric

e #

4

Rav

en R

ock

Stat

e Pa

rk V

isito

r Cen

ter &

Pic

nic

Area

Impr

ovem

ents

86

00-0

6165

0

Tu

esda

y, J

uly

29, 2

008

Ti

me:

4:0

0 pm

Gen

eral

Con

trac

tors

Uni

t Pric

e #

1U

nit P

rice

# 3

W. E

lliott

O'N

eal,

Jr.,

CSI

, Ass

ocia

te P

rinci

pal

Rav

en R

ock

Stat

e Pa

rk M

ain

Offi

ce

30

09 R

aven

Roc

k R

oad,

Lilli

ngto

n, N

C 2

7546

Uni

t Pric

e #

7U

nit P

rice

# 5

Uni

t Pric

e #

6U

nit P

rice

# 2

BID

TAB

ULA

TIO

N

SIN

GLE

PR

IME

U

nit P

rices

(Pa

rt B

)

APPENDIX E

RAVEN ROCK VISITOR CENTER CHANGE ORDER LOG

Raven Rock Case Study

Documents

Transcript of Raven Rock Case Study