Cancer Institute
Penn State Milton S. Hershey
Medical Center
Hershey, Pennsylvania
Chris Voros
Construction Management
April 17, 2007
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
Presentation Topics





Project Overview
 Building summary, project team members, and construction sequence
Structural Breadth-Foundation Redesign
 Intermediate, Geopier-reinforced Mat Slab vs. Micropile Foundation System
 30% Weight- 15% Value Engineering, 10% Schedule Reduction, 5% Constructability
Electrical Breadth- Utility Redesign and Energy Impact
 Utility rerouting plan & energy loss study for PSHMC’s East Campus
 30% Weight- 15% Constructability, 10% Value Engineering, 5% Schedule Reduction
Depth Study- Industry Influences on Subcontractor Markups
 Identify factors that impact a subcontractor’s “multiplier” value
 40% Weight- 40% Research
Conclusion, Acknowledgements & Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Structural Breadth
Study:
Intermediate, Geopier-reinforced
Mat Slab versus Deep Micropile
Foundation System
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Background & Problem
Statement
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
•
•
Central PA- Karst Topography
Parking Garage Complications
– Piles averaged 20’ deeper
than 70’ predicted average
– Change Order of $600,000
(33% Increase)
– Schedule delayed 36 days
(49% Inflation)
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
Proposal
•
•
•
Avoid possible subsurface issues with finding competent rock
Utilize soil stabilization techniques that will enable a shallow
foundation- Geopier Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAPs)
Break building footprint into three zones for analysis:
– Primary (1), Radiotherapy Vaults (2), Shell Space (3)
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
EXISTING PLAN SPECS:
• 387 Micropiles @ 65’ each (8” dia.)
–
–
–
•
•
•
Zone 1 = 233
Zone 2 = 70
Zone 3 = 84
Column Piers & Grade Beams
Slab on Grade (5” to 7”)
36” Slab for Radiotherapy Vaults
Depth StudyPROPOSED LAYOUT SPECS:
Building Respect:
•
916 Geopier RAPs @ 15’ each (30” dia.)
Industry Influences
– Zone 1 = 419
on Subcontractor
Markups
– Zone 2 = 228
Conclusion &
Questions
•
– Zone 3 = 269
Mat Slab Thickness– Zone 1 = 2’-9”
– Zone 2 = 4’-6”
– Zone 3 = 1’-3”
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
SCHEDULE ANALYSIS
-Proposed System saves
13% on foundation
Installation sequence
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
2 Week
Reduction
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
CONSTRUCTABILITY ANALYSIS
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
-Existing System Costs• Piles
• Pile Caps, Col. Piers, & SOG
-Proposed System Costs• Geopier RAPs
• Mat Slab
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
VE CONSIDERATIONS:
• Avoid Subsurface Issues
• Maintain Settlement Tolerances
• Reduce ICRA Impact
• Consider for Children’s Hospital
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% CR
10% VE
5% SCH
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Electrical Breadth
Study:
High Voltage Utility Relocation
Plan and Distribution Systems Loss
Analysis
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% CR
10% VE
5% SCH
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Background & Problem Statement
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Four 15kV Feeders service PSHMC:
• Hospital A & B – main hospital
complex (incl. CI and Children’s)
•
Master Plan Goal:
• Carry main ductbank from
substation across Centerview Drive
and split feeders
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
•
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
Loop A & B – support facilities
(ASB, PG, UPC, Student Housing)
Separate A and B lines into
designated manholes to ease
construction and maintenance
Proposal Goal:
Phase HV installation for Parking
Garage, Cancer Institute and
Children’s Hospital at same time
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% CR
10% VE
5% SCH
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
EXISTING LAYOUT SPECS:
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
•
•
•
•
(7) new manholes
3,111LF of duct bank
Loop Feeders- 669’; Hospital Feeders- 832’
3 Road Crossings
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
PROPOSED LAYOUT SPECS:
•
•
•
•
(4) new manholes; (1) Handhole/Pullbox
2,988 LF of duct bank
Loop Feeders- 607’; Hospital Feeders- 777’
2 Road Crossings
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--35% Weight-15% CR
10% VE
5% SCH
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Distribution System Line Loss Evaluation
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Sample Calculations:
Voltage Drop (Volts) = [Avg. Amps] * [Resistance]
Average Losses (Watts) = [Avg. Amps]^2 * [Resistance]
Average Losses/ year (kWh) = [Loss Factor] * [Peak Losses] *[8760 hrs/yr]
[1000 W per kW]
Annual Cost of Losses ($) = [$0.0877/kWh] * [Avg. Losses]
(Resistance = 3 Phases @ 0.0222 Ohms/ 1000 ft each)
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% CR
10% VE
5% SCH
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
CONSTRUCTABILITY & COST ANALYSIS
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
-Cost Breakdown• Duct banks (incl. excavation, concrete, backfill)
• PVC Conduit (5” typical)
• Wiring–
3 Phase, 4 Wire Okonite Copper Conductors – 500
kcmil Feeders and #4/0 Ground Conductor
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
• Phase PG utility installation at same time as CI
•
Consolidate construction costs and overall site impact of layout
•
Construction Savings, Proposed System (incl. EMHs) =
$54,699
•
Yearly Energy Savings, Proposed System = $225 per year
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Building Respect:
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor Markups
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview

Goal

Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign

Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
Approach


Improve Construction Manager and General Contractor
Relationships with their Subcontractors
Identify factors that go into a subcontractor’s “multiplier”the value added above allowable bid package markup
Methodology



Two surveys, one tailored to CM/GC professionals and one
to Subcontractors
Create a “Multiplier Matrix” that predicts a BP multiplier
based on a given set of conditions
Compare and Contrast results from both surveys with respect
to perceived markup determinants
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Survey Contents
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
CM/GC
• Anonymous
• Mailed Packet
• Qualitative/ Written
Responses
• Question Base:
– Bid Package vs.
Contract Markups
– Determinants of a BP
Markup
– Company SelfAssessment
April 17, 2007
Subcontractors
•
•
•
•
Anonymous
Online Survey
Quantitative & Qualitative
Question Base:
– Part 1• 10 Questions/Scenarios
• Select impact on multiplier
based on a scale from -3
(decrease) to +3 (increase)
– Part 2• 3 Case Study Analyses
• Assign a markup/multiplier
and provide reasoning
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
CM/GC Survey Results
•
Contract Markups: 10% to 20% (incl. OH&P)
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
•
Bid Package Markups: -2% to 8%
– Multiplier factor
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
•
Self- Assessment
– 90-100% Returning Subs
– 70-90% Repeat Clients
•
Markup Determinants
– Majority are objective/quantifiable
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Subcontractor Survey Results- Part 1
Relationship-oriented Factors
• Past successes with CM/GC, incl. some of team personnel
• Bad history with company, but none of personnel
• Bad history with CM/GC personnel
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Subcontractor Survey Results- Part 1
Business-related Factors
• AIA Contract is vague with respect to markup procedures
• CM/GC bid-shops on a regular basis to trim bid to owner
• CM/GC uses “nickel-and-diming” practices on project CO’s
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Subcontractor Survey Results- Part 1
Regional Factors
• CM/GC is a start-up company
• CM/GC is national firm, but new to region
• Project at bid is a “target of opportunity” (one-shot deal)
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Subcontractor Survey Results- Part 1
Multiplier Matrix
• Take average value of applicable scenarios and use
Multiplier Impact Scale to determine magnitude of expected
markup
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Subcontractor Survey Results- Part 2
Case Study #1: Alpha
Construction Company
-Dominant CM/GC moving into
region
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Alpha Survey Average = 3.31%
Case Study #2: Beta
Depth StudyContractors
Building Respect:
Industry Influences -Start-up company of
on Subcontractor
experienced principals
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
Case Study #3: Choice
Management
-Respected CM, by owners and
subs alike
April 17, 2007
Beta Survey Average = 1.6%
Choice Survey Average = 0.1%
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--40% Weight-40% Research
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Survey Comparison:
•
•
•
•
Key deciding factor is Regional Economics (supply vs.
demand, work availability, competition)
CM/GC professionals take an objective view, placing less
emphasis on business relationships
Subcontractors value reputations CM/GC/A/E above other
factors, contradicting CM/GC survey responses
CM/GC companies need to value & actively maintain their
sub relationships in order to minimize BP markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Conclusions & Recommendations
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
Foundation Redesign:
• Consider for Children’s Hospital if Cancer Institute
experiences subsurface issues of same magnitude as
Parking Garage project
High Voltage Utility Relocation:
• Implement proposed layout, which improves on
construction and operation of high voltage distribution
for PSHMC’s new facilities (PG, CI, & Children’s)
Industry Influences on Subcontractor Markups:
• Maintain positive business relationships to improve
company reputation and build respect among
subcontractors
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Acknowledgements:
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
-AE and Construction Management Faculty:
Dr. David R. Riley
Dr. Michael J. Horman
Dr. John I. Messner
Professor Parfitt
Professor Holland
-The Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical
Center
Dick Aradine
Mike Lekey
Centerline Associates
Chris Leyenberger
Array Healthcare Facilities Solutions
Mike Connor
-Gilbane Building Company, Hershey Project
Team:
Dennis Vance
Don Hergenreder
Patrick Hardister
Tom Gutherman
Andrew Notarfrancesco
Marianne Jones-Pichler
John Vicanovick
Dan Munn
April 17, 2007
-Dick Harris, PSU Office of Physical Plant
-Shad Hoover, CMT Labs
-John Masland, ARM Group, Inc.
-Kord Wissman, Geopier Foundation
Company, Inc.
-GeoStructures, Inc:
Mike Perlow
Eric Hilberath
Ed O’Malley
-Davis Construction:
Bill Moyer
David Argentieri
-All the survey participants (anonymous)
…and to My Family and Friends- Thanks!
Questions?
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Research Progression
•
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
•
•
Investigate alternative foundation
systems
Compare and contrast each
Research most feasible solution
further– Geopier Rammed Aggregate
Piers (RAPs)
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management
--30% Weight-15% VE
10% SCH
5% CR
PSHMC Cancer Institute
Hershey, PA
Project Overview
Structural BreadthFoundation
Redesign
Electrical BreadthUtility Redesign
and Energy Impact
Depth StudyBuilding Respect:
Industry Influences
on Subcontractor
Markups
Conclusion &
Questions
April 17, 2007
Chris Voros
Construction Management