Office of Financial Management
Washington State Major Project Status Report
December 31, 2009
FINAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Agency Number: 699
Agency: SBCTC
Project Number: 06-1-326
GA State Project # 2005-196
School/Campus: Pierce College Fort Steilacoom
Project Title:
Cascade Building Core Renovation Phase I
Bill Reference(s): Chapter 520, Laws of 2007, Section 5217
Chapter 488, Laws of 2005, Section 837
Contact:
Jim Taylor
Director of Facilities
Pierce College District
(253) 964-6588
jtaylor@pierce.ctc.edu
Project Description: This project is located in the City of Lakewood, Pierce County. The
project encompassed the renovation of core areas of the Cascade Building. This building,
completed in 1973, is, at 247,595 square feet, the largest and oldest structure on the College
campus. Specifically, this renovation expanded and reconfigured Student Services and Library
areas on the third and fourth floors of the building. A new building main entry was constructed
and circulation areas within the building were modified in order to enhance access, way finding
and overall space utilization. The project renovated approximately 56,096 square feet and added
new space of approximately 1,872 square feet.
This renovation project was funded over two biennia. The design phase was conducted in the
2005-07 biennium and the construction phase conducted in the 2007-09 biennium.
Although the project, as a partial building renovation, did not achieve an overall LEED Silver
Certification for the building, the project included sustainable design features and, to the greatest
extent possible, set LEED Silver as a design standard.
The 2005-07 design appropriation for this project included a $2,000,000 allocation for the
purpose of funding a portion of the cost of installing fire sprinklers throughout the Cascade
Building. This installation was mandated by the City of Lakewood. Fire sprinkler installation
was completed in Fall 2006.
Square feet: 57,968 GSF
1
Scope changes: Cost escalations impacted this project and the scope of the project was revised
in order to meet the cost engineer’s estimates. Total size has been reduced from an originally
planned 69,800 square feet.
Project Total Cost:
Phase
Predesign
Design
Construction
Construction
Other (Approp/Non Approp)
Total
Biennium
NA
2005-07
2007-09
2007-09
2007-09
Appropriation
NA
H31 Fund 057
I10 Fund 057
I62 Fund 057
None
Amount
NA
$1,350,622*
$17,602,000**
$ 1,000,000**
$
0
$19,952,622
MACC = $10,300,000
*Additional $2,000,000 appropriated for fire sprinkler installation in Cascade Building – total of
$3,350,622
** $4,000,000 total added to construction funding in the 2008 Legislative session to repair
moisture and mold damage. $3,000,000 added in Appropriation I10 and $1,000,000 in
Appropriation I62.
Schedule:
Predesign Complete
Start Design
Bid Date
Notice to Proceed
50% Complete
Substantial Completion
Final Acceptance
Budget Schedule
06/30/04
07/01/05
05/31/07
07/01/07
06/30/08
05/01/09
06/30/09
Actual/Forecast
06/30/04
07/01/05
08/21/07
09/14/07
07/15/08
04/17/09
01/15/10
Variance (wks)
0
0
11
10
6
-2
21
NOTE: Interior renovation of the building and availability for occupancy of renovated and new
spaces was accomplished in April 2009. Replacement of selected exterior wall sections as part of
moisture and mold damage remediation and completion of exterior building entrance and
landscaping in conjunction with this was not fully complete until December 2009 with building
final acceptance expected by early to mid January 2010. Delays in delivery of building exterior
metal siding panels have impacted completion and final acceptance.
2
Project Status and discussion of Critical Path for Construction: The project is fully
complete. The Cascade Building layout was complicated and the project was rather difficult.
Detailed attention on the part of the design team and contractor was necessary throughout the
project to address emergent conditions encountered. The impact to building occupants, programs
and services has been significant and required methodical coordination and planning to minimize
construction impacts. Critical path necessarily had to consider impacts to programs and services
in an occupied building. Emergent site and building conditions impacted critical path. The
discovery of considerable moisture penetration and resulting damage, including mold conditions,
in exterior wall sections of the building as well as the discovery of an unexpected level of failing
hydronic piping and poor ducting insulation inside interior building columns and under floor
slabs added considerable complexity to the project. Delays were also experienced in coordinating
gas line relocation with the local utility provider and this also impacted critical path.
Contract Award History
Building Renovation
A/E Agreement
Original Agreement
Amendments
Pending Changes
Total
Current Design
Contingency
Construction Contract (excl. sales tax)
$ 849,845
$1,115,225
$
4,510
$1,969,580
Bid Award Amount
Change Orders
Pending Changes
Total
Current Construction
Contingency
$ 140,000
$ 9,107,438
$ 1,555,827
$ 38,216
$10,803,776
$
95,354
Building Moisture/Mold Damage Repair
A/E Agreement
Original Agreement
Amendments
Pending Changes
Total
Current Design
Contingency
Construction Contract (excl. sales tax)
$
$
$
$
22,500
85,232
0
107,732
Bid Award Amount
Change Orders
Pending Changes
Total
Current Construction
Contingency
See above
3
$ 0
$ 2,850,764
$ 0______
$ 2,850,764
See above
Potential for Project Cost Overruns/Claims: Building conditions discovered during construction,
as already noted, contributed to cost overruns in the project. Damage to exterior wall sections and
the need to replace the building envelope significantly added to overall project cost. Conditions
inside interior building columns and under floor slabs, discovered during demolition, also added to
cost. These conditions included leaking pipes and fittings, as well as poorly or non-insulated pipes
and ducting dating from original construction of the building. The contractor submitted delay claims
and these claims have totaled approximately $481,576.
Discussion of Project Quality: The design phase of the project was executed effectively. The
College’s leadership team and impacted departments were engaged in planning throughout the
design process. This project was one of the more complex efforts undertaken by the College. Prior
to construction, a number of critical programs and services were displaced and relocated to
temporary spaces. Additionally, the building was occupied throughout construction. The firm of
McGranahan Architects was selected to design and oversee construction of this project.
McGranahan Architects is a highly capable firm with intimate knowledge of the college campus and
has developed a close working relationship with college personnel. Value engineering and
constructability review were incorporated early in the design phase to benefit quality control and
project viability. Construction planning and phasing considered impacts to college operations. The
general contractor, Pease Construction, is a well qualified company. The contractor’s team did a
good job of managing construction activity in a difficult environment and was cooperative in
working with the college to minimize impacts to occupants.
4
Project Photographs:
5