March 7, 2014
Jag Bhargava
AGENDA
1. Overview
2. Background
3. Project Evolution
4. Lessons Learned
5. What We Would Do Again
6. What We Would Not Do Again
7. Conclusion
8. Q & A
2
OVERVIEW
GSA completed the modernization of the Sidney Yates
Building
Bridging-Design Build. $30M, 210,000 GSF
This ambitious project was delivered in only 7-months,
on-time and on-budget.
Discuss lessons learned
Discuss how leadership, team building and
communication facilitated resolution of many issues.
3
BACKGROUND
Project consolidates spaces leased by FS.
Increased occupancy from 420 FTE to 762 FTE.
Scope includes:
Complete interior modernization.
Upgrading the HVAC system from a 2-pipe to a 4-pipe
hot/chill water distribution system.
Open office spaces, lighting and acoustical measures.
4
FREEZE THE FOOTPRINT
FOREST SERVICE COSOLIDATION
The modernization and space consolidation provided the
Forest Service the opportunity to achieve the following goals:
• Design an improved work environment for employees
• Increase collaboration
• Create the workplace and workforce of the future
• Significantly limiting the number of private offices,
utilizing one workstation size, providing shared
conference and common support spaces and assigning
workstations for only 75 percent of the staff, are changes
that bring a positive impact on reducing space.
5
PROJECT EVOLUTION
1.
Project Definition BDs






2.
Design-Build Construction- Design

3.
100 CDs
-
RTKL (Architect-of-the-Record)
Design-build Contractor (DBC)



4.
Program of Requirement
- Studios (Bridging Architect)
Concept
- Studios
Design Development
- Studios
Change Management
- Studios
Performance Specifications
- Syska Hennessy Group
Commissioning - Commissioning & Green Building Solutions
General Construction/DBC
HVAC Sub
Electrical Sub
-
Grunley
Limbach
Singleton
-
URS
Construction Management
•
CM
6
LESSONS LEARNED
1. Delivery Method
2. Bridging Architect and Bridging Design
3. Construction Manger
4. Design-Build-Contractor
5. GSA
6. Forest Service/Customer
7
DELIVERY METHOD
(BRIDGING-DESIGN-BUILD)
Problem 1: Incomplete levels of design and conflicting
requirements in the bridging documents.
Lessons Learned: Clearly and explicitly state and qualify in
the RFP, and prior to DBC contract award that
there are incomplete levels of design, NICs,
uncoordinated historic elements and that the
DBC is responsible to clarify what the design
intent and requirements are.
Problem 2: Some prescriptive design requirements are not
fully coordinated with the existing structure.
Lessons Learned: Ensure the DBC confirms the prescriptive
requirements are viable and that design and
construction can successfully be achieved.
8
DELIVERY METHOD
(BRIDGING-DESIGN-BUILD) CONTINUED
Problem 3: Bridging Design-Build may not work for all
projects.
Lessons Learned: Ensure bridging design-build works for
your project.
Problem 4: In the kick-off meeting, a clear definition of
design delivery was not made and the bid (firm
fixed price) is based on the bridging documents.
Lessons Learned: Make sure all team members understand
that GC’s budget is a fixed price contract and is
based on the bid provided for the bridging
documents. Otherwise the deviation from the
RFP documents, both the schedule and the cost
will be impacted.
9
BRIDGING ARCHITECT/BRIDGING DESIGN
Problem 1: The bridging design was completed without performing a
thorough site visit, as there were several issues, such as fire
protection of raised floors, architectural features that the
existing structure could not support.
Lessons Learned: Make sure enough site visits are conducted and
uncover al the hidden elements in walls, floor, etc.
Problem: 2 Some design requirements were not cost effective.
Numerous types of lighting fixtures were specified. Lighting
was an option to the DBC’s contract. That was not exercised
due to high cost.
Lessons Learned: Ensure the bridging documents are properly
reviewed and life cycle costs are determined prior to issuing
the RFP.
Problem: 3 The bridging design had in several location marked NIC.
This was not discovered prior to issuing the RFP, resulting in a
costly change order.
Lessons Learned: Ensure the bridging documents are well reviewed
and coordinated prior to issuing the RFP.
10
DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR (DBC)
Problem 1: The DBC not providing a resource loaded CPM
schedule until late in the project.
Lesson Learned: Ensure that the DBC understands the
expectations prior to contract award that resource
loaded CPM schedule to be submitted within the
time prescribed in the RFP. Normally, 60 days after
NTP
Problem 2: 3500 punch list items 3 weeks prior to
occupancy.
Lessons Learned: Ensure that the punch list items are
addressed as the floors are completed and not wait
until all floors are occupied. Also have one
consolidated punch list between GSA, CM & DBC.
11
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (CM)
Problem: The CM was not on board until after the DBC
started design. The ongoing document and
frequent lack of direct communication between
DBC and CM was partially the result of CM
coming on board so late.
Lesson Learned: To prevent mistakes for not
coordinating and reviewing, could have been
avoided , if the CM contracted for the project
prior to issuing the RFP, maybe even when the
BDs are done.
12
GSA
Problem 1: Adversarial relationship, blame game, letter war during
construction, particularly in such a fast paced contract.
Lessons Learned: Ensure communication between all parties, particularly at
all levels of the project teams. Hold partnering sessions to solve
problems and work through the issues.
Problem 2: The RFP and the DBC’s contract award letter indicated
performance period of 7 months, dated May 22, 2013. 7 months
would have been December 22, 2013. However, NTP was issued 22
days later called for November 30, 2013, contract completion.
Lessons Learned: Never indicate in the NTP completion date, but cite the
number of calendar days.
Problem 3: Several historic elements were not reviewed early on by GSA historic
preservation officer, DC SHPO and CM review personnel.
Numerous, historic element, solutions were discussed during the
CD’s design. Had to revisit the previously approved concepts and
hiccups during construction
Lessons Learned: Involve GSA historic preservation officer, DC SHPO and CM
review personnel at the concept and schematic stage. Also make
GSA’s historic preservation officer present in all design review
meetings & partnering sessions.
13
GSA (Continued)
Problem 4: The exclusion of furniture and tele/data design in the
DBC contract was a serious problem, such as the
conduit for tele/data exposed on newly framed
partitions.
Lessons Learned: Include furniture selection, installation and
tele/data design in the DBC’s contract.
Problem 5: Insufficient time for VE workshop was a problem with
cost effective solutions.
Lessons Learned: Ensure VE sessions are conducted prior to the
DBC starting the design.
Problem 6: Very little design coordination/information of
existing MEP infrastructure was provided in the RFP
documents.
Lesson Learned: Ensure more time be allowed to coordinate
existing and proposed architectural conditions with
existing MEP systems prior to CDs stage to avoid
unexpected costs and schedule impacts.
14
CUSTOMERS/FOREST SERVICE
Problem : Tenant requirements not incorporated into
construction documents.
Lessons Learned: All support and “specialty” criteria,
including, but not limited to, furniture, IT,
telecommunications, security, audio visual,
signage should be identified before the RFP is
issued. If this cannot be done, the owner should
include language, making all aspects of the
activity a part of the DB contract and/or include
allowances line item for a lump sum amount in
the base contract to minimize the impact of
future change orders and delays.
15
WHAT WOULD WE DO AGAIN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Partnering.
Good communication with DBC before writing letters.
Weekly progress meeting with all parties.
Have a strong CM, which is really vital.
Have a well-defined change order process.
Punch list process, GSA’s and DBC’s
Phased turnover if expedited.
Orderly progression of work with little stacking of trades.
Well coordinated furniture delivery.
Material delivery in good condition – logistics.
16
WHAT WE WOULDN’T DO AGAIN
Definitely have one entity do the programming, concepts and DD’s.
More thorough research needed of the existing conditions prior to
completing BDs.
3. Furniture delivery and installation not done by DBC and not coordinated
with CDs.
4. Bridging A/E needs to verify design will work.
5. Failure to provide cost loaded baseline and resource loaded schedule.
6. Insufficient time to complete punch list items.
7. Failure to provide clear definition of design-build delivery at the project kickoff meeting.
8. Excluding DC SHPO and GSA’s Historic Preservation Officer and the CM
design review personnel during concept stage.
9. Failure to allow additional time for building survey prior to the start of
design.
10. Very little coordination/information of existing MEP infrastructure was
provided in the RFP documents.
11. Failure to include furniture selection and tele/data design in the DBC
contract
12. All time for VE workshop prior to award of bid
1.
2.
17
Pictures after Project Completion
 usda fs pics.pdf
18
CONCLUSION
The bridging-design-build delivery method of the
Yates project was a tremendous success.
The project required team work and dedication of
everyone; Studios, URS, Grunley, RTKL, Limbach,
Singleton, Syska Hennessey Group, Commissioning &
Green Building Solutions, Forest Service, and GSA.
 It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to work
with such a committed group of professionals on a
truly unique and interesting building!
19
GSA/NCR Projects in the
President’s 2014 Budget
Project Name
1. St. Elizabeth’s Phase
2a (DHS &FEMA)
Delivery Method
Funds ($Millions)
Bridging Design Build
155
DBB
54.3
3. Commerce
DBB Exercise Option
77.4
4. Department of
Interior
DBB Exercise Option
60.1
DBB
58.9
2. Lafayette Phase 2
5. Department of State
Phase 1C
20