Technical Assignment 2 - Pennsylvania State University Publi… · Technical Assignment 2 was developed to provide a more detailed description of the Recovery – King Hall Galley

Technical Assignment 2

Recovery—King Hall Galley Renovation

Annapolis, Maryland

Tom Horensky

Construction Management Option

Advisor: Dr. Rob Leicht

October 27, 2010

Penn State AE Senior Thesis Capstone Project

P a g e | 1

Recovery – King Hall Galley Renovation October 27, 2010

Technical Assignment 2 was developed to provide a more detailed description of the Recovery – King

Hall Galley Renovation Project in a few key areas, namely the project schedule, the project site layout,

the detailed structural systems estimate, and the general conditions estimate.

The Barton Malow/HKS Design/Build project team developed a very aggressive 25 month construction

schedule for this project. The team began work on the project in July 2009 immediately after it was

awarded. Construction will last until August of 2011 at which point the only remaining work will be the

closeout documentation and the LEED Certification application. To keep up with the aggressive finish

date the project team has sequenced the work into five key phases which are described in further detail

within this document. In order to fully understand the project, a study had to be performed of the area

immediately surrounding King Hall and the temporary facilities that were constructed to support the

renovation project. Detailed site plans of the Interior Phase and of the Construction Trailer layout are

provided for analysis. These plans were used to assess the layout and safety of the project team’s

logistics plan. Additionally, a critique was included to judge the site logistics planning of the General

Contractor. The product of this critique was a clear statement that the project team utilized the space

provided on the constricted Naval Academy Base to the best of its abilities.

A detailed structural systems estimate was performed to calculate the value of the concrete package for

the King Hall Galley Renovation using the RS Means 2007 manual, adjusted for time and location. All of

the structural concrete within the permanent kitchen was priced and found to be 34% lower than the

actual concrete package value of $1,763,461. Upon taking a closer look, however, it was found that the

actual construction cost of $1.7 million included miscellaneous concrete work and the temporary

kitchen concrete work which were valued at a combined $680,316 based on the budget produced by

Barton Malow. The temporary kitchen work was not possible to estimate because the details were not

available to perform take-offs, therefore the budgeted value from the contractor was used to make an

adjusted total concrete estimate of $1,835,961 which lies within 4% of the actual value. This detailed

estimate was then compared to the square foot estimates produced in Technical Report 1, and found to

be significantly more accurate for a number of reasons stated later in this document.

Finally, a general conditions estimate was performed using a historical database provided by Barton

Malow Company. This database was used to calculate items like project staffing costs, bonding and

insurance, and temporary facilities costs and totaled $4,688,198. It was found that the project staff

appeared unusually large for a project with only a $46 million contract, but later decided that the large

project team was necessary. Additionally, conditions specific to renovation projects were discussed and

found to add to the total cost estimated for general conditions.

Executive Summary

P a g e | 2


Executive Summary Page 1

Table of Contents Page 2

Detailed Project Schedule Page 3

Site Layout Planning Page 6

Detailed Structural Systems Estimate Page 10

General Conditions Estimate Page 14

Critical Industry Issues Page 17

Appendix A – Detailed Project Schedule Page 23

Appendix B – Site Layout Plan Page 31

Appendix C – Detailed Structural Systems Estimate Take-off Summary Page 34

Appendix D – Detailed Structural Systems Estimate Pricing Summary Page 39

Appendix E – Detailed Structural Systems Estimate Sample Calculations Page 46

Appendix F – General Conditions Estimate Page 55

Table of Contents

P a g e | 3


The Barton Malow/HKS Design/Build team began working on the design and procurement of the King

Hall Galley Renovation immediately following the awarding of the project in July of 2009. Because the

project is fast tracked to minimize the schedule, the design will continue long after the construction

begins, with the LEED Certification design review not ending until August 2, 2010. Additionally, due to

significant unknown conditions, much of the design relied on explorative demolition before it could be

finalized. In other words, the project team had to wait and see what the existing conditions actually

were before they could make decisions.

Beginning on November 9, 2009 the

construction of the temporary

kitchen began. This temporary

facility had to be fully operational

and 100% commissioned before any

demolition of the existing galley

could begin. Additionally, all of the

Naval Academy’s staff had to be

trained on the temporary facility’s

equipment. After 96 days the temporary kitchen was completed and the staff training could begin. This

made the permanent galley available for demolition on March 29, 2010, at which point the project team

began to remove the large equipment from the existing galley space. The demolition phase involved

completely demolishing the interior including all of the kitchen equipment, the supporting MEP

infrastructure, furniture, sections of the slab-on-grade, and a large portion of the existing architectural

elements. In order to speed up the construction schedule, the building was sequenced in 5 phases.

All of the work began in Phase A and moved Eastward with Phase E being the last area for work to start.

Since the proposed schedule was so tight, the plan was that as soon as one contractor was finished in a

Phase, the next contractor would follow right behind them. This meant, for example, that while

demolition was taking place in Phases C, D, and E, there would be new construction taking place in

Phases A and B. Logistics had to be carefully planned to make sure that the demolition crews and the

new construction crews were not conflicting with each other. While the under slab MEP was being

Detailed Project Schedule

Primary Milestones Date

Temporary Kitchen Ready for Use 22-Mar-10

Conditioned Air Available 6-Dec-10

Roof Complete 11-Feb-11

Interior Complete 12-Jul-11

Substantial Completion 11-Aug-11

Early Occupancy 30-Aug-11

Final Project Completion 21-Dec-11

Figure 1 – Project Sequence

Figure 2 – Key Milestones

P a g e | 4


installed in Phases A and B on the West end of the building, the demolition crews had to remove all of

their spoils through the East entrance. All of this is reflected in the Detailed Project Schedule seen in

Appendix A. The overlapping of activities is very evident due to the sequencing of the work.

One key sequencing item to note is that a small section of the slab-on-grade in Phase B was actually

poured out of sequence in order to allow access into the space from the West Courtyard. If the slab had

been poured in sequence there would have been no way for the Bobcats and other equipment to enter

the building from the West side while the concrete was curing. Consequently, the slab was poured at

the end of the Phase B concrete work. The circulation path that required preservation can be seen

below highlighted in red on Figure 3.

The sequence of work within each phase follows a logical flow. Due to the age of the building being

renovated, the first step after interior lighting was installed was to begin identifying and removing

hazardous materials like asbestos. Next a very cautious mechanical cut and cap process was

undertaken. Extreme caution was necessary because the utilities feeding the dormitory complex above

King Hall needed to be kept online during construction. Therefore, much of the mechanical cut and cap

was performed around live electrical lines, high pressure steam lines, and sprinkler lines. Underslab

utilities were able to directly follow demolition as soon as the MEP coordination was completed. This

was because the saw cutting of existing slabs was included in the structural demolition package.

Because of this, the plumbing contractor did not have to waste time saw cutting their own trenches.

Concrete pours drove the underslab utility installation, and immediately following the pours, the MEP

contractors were able to begin the remainder of their work existing above ceiling. Due to the large

amount of kitchen equipment present, a significant amount of MEP infrastructure was installed to

support the equipment’s functions. Additionally, seven new air handling units were added to the space

and the required distribution was included with this package.

The only portion of the renovation contract involving high end finishes was the servery, which was

sequenced simultaneously with Phase C. An extensive millwork contract was included in this space

along with additional equipment designed for serving, rather than cooking or storage. Terrazzo flooring

Figure 3 – Delayed Slab Pour

P a g e | 5


was also designed for the servery which was different than the typical sheet vinyl flooring or exposed

concrete that exists elsewhere in the building.

Exterior work on King Hall Galley began on the first of October, 2010 with roof layout and continued

through mid-April 2011, ending with the new dumpster enclosure. Two new loading docks were also

included in the renovation package and the construction of those took place between the roof work and

the dumpster enclosure work. The final construction task to be completed was the masonry façade

repair. After all other work had finished, the façade had to be repaired to appear as if it had never been

touched.

Closeout and commissioning will begin on March 3, 2011 when the project team starts the Pre-Final

Checklists for the generator and the automated temperature system. NAVFAC will issue their punchlist

on July 27, 2011 and the Barton Malow/HKS team will have the punchlist completed by August 9, 2011.

The Certificate of Occupancy will be issued and the Galley will be substantially complete on August 11,

2011. However, due to the pursuit of LEED Certification the Project Final Completion will not occur until

December 21, 2011 when the project receives its LEED Certification from the USGBC.

P a g e | 6


The King Hall Galley is located at the heart of the United States Naval Academy Base on the ground level

of Bancroft Hall, the primary dormitory building on campus. Due to its central locale and the rich history

of the building it is contained in, the King Hall Galley Renovation has tremendous implications in regards

to maintaining the tradition of the United States Naval Academy. Due to the importance of the services

provided by the galley, a temporary 31,000s.f. facility was built to store, prepare, and cook all of the

meals for the midshipmen. This structure is located to the south of the permanent kitchen and connects

directly to the dining hall. Figure 4 below shows the locations of the permanent kitchen, temporary

kitchen, and temporary offices.

Interior Phase Site Plan

Interior work accounts for the vast majority of the King Hall Galley work scope. As seen in the Interior

Phase Site Plan in Appendix B the location of the renovation area is extremely congested and makes

construction logistics very complicated. All delivery trucks enter the site plan from the North on one of

the two North-South roads that border King Hall. The trucks are required to drive along the narrow

streets of the base. Limited parking was available on base for those vehicles which had the proper

security clearance badges. All construction vehicle traffic is displayed with the black arrows. The three

main roads located in the immediate area around the building permit two-way traffic, which is not

typical for the Naval Academy Base. During the interior phase, the “Renovation Area” is the only

location where work is taking place. This renovation area has a loading dock and ramp on the East and

Figure 4 – Naval Base Plan View (Courtesy of Google Maps)

Site Layout Planning

P a g e | 7


West side, and delivery trucks are able to pull directly up to the loading docks. The East and West

courtyards which contain the loading docks are also used for laydown and storage areas. In addition,

located within each of the courtyards are dumpsters, port-a johns, and for this particular phase a 40 ton

crawler crane with a 58’ boom for the installation of the grease interceptors located at each end of the

building. These cranes were each delivered to the site on trailers and remained on site for 5 days each

during the installation of the grease interceptors. It was not necessary for either of the cranes to swing

over existing facilities or any pedestrian walkways. This made the process much simpler because the

construction team was not required to install any overhead protection during this phase of the project.

However, as an extra precaution, a flagger was placed behind each crane during use to prevent workers

from entering the swing zone. The East and West courtyards and the laydown area located to the far

West end of the plan are all protected by construction fencing to prevent the public from entering the

construction zone. Additionally, anytime a delivery was being received, it was required that the

contractor provide a flagger to guide the large amount of pedestrians on base around the delivery

vehicle. Safety was of the utmost importance and there was zero tolerance for slacking off in these

areas. The fourth construction zone is located directly to the West of the temporary offices. This space

was used by the owner to store materials for short periods of time. Temporary lighting was provided

around the site for safety purposes as well.

The utilities for the renovation area were all fed from the boiler and chiller rooms in the basement of

Bancroft Hall. Utilities for the temporary facilities were fed from the existing dining hall. Included

within these utilities were domestic water, gas, electric, sanitary, and telecom. Having the utilities fed

from an existing facility greatly simplified the temporary infrastructure for the construction team.

Because the site was so tight and storage space was a luxury, the contractors were all required to

coordinate the storage of their materials in weekly meetings with Barton Malow.

Construction Trailer Site Plan

The construction trailers were located over a thousand feet away from the actual construction area.

With the large parking lot located directly to the East of the trailer compound the overall location was

very ideal for office trailers. Sufficient parking was available for those vehicles which had the proper

badge for security clearance adjacent to the trailers. This entire compound was fenced in to prevent the

public from entering the area. A quadruple trailer was installed for the General Contractor and smaller

trailers were installed for key subcontractors, for example, the electrical and plumbing contractors. The

compound also contained some additional parking and a small laydown area. Port-a johns and

dumpsters were also available within the space. Temporary utilities for the construction trailers were

fed from a building to the South-West of the compound. The temporary feeds ran underground and

were connected through the exterior wall of the existing office building. As with the other laydown

areas, contractors were required to coordinate the storage of their materials at the weekly meetings

with Barton Malow. Finally, temporary lighting was provided as a security measure. A site plan of the

construction trailer compound can be seen in Appendix B.

P a g e | 8


Contractor Layout Critique

As stated earlier, the Naval Base is a very constricted area with a large number of buildings and

extremely narrow roads. Many of the roads on the base are only one way and require a lap around the

entire base in order to turn around. With the King Hall Galley being located right at the heart of the

crowded base, the General Contractor made the most out of the circumstances given to them.

Taking full advantage of both the East and West courtyards was essential for circulation and also for

storage of materials. Although it required a detailed discussion with the owner, Barton Malow was able

to obtain the area directly to the West of the West courtyard as additional staging space. During the

MEP phases of the project this added storage was crucial for plumbing layout. Without the added

space, the plumbing contractor would have been forced to store their materials inside the building

which would have restricted the movement within the already tight space.

The location of the construction trailers was the best possible scenario for the contractor. They were

located near parking and existing utility hookups. Additionally, the parking lot was located directly off of

one of the main circulation roads on the Navy Base. Due to owner restrictions it was established that

Figure 5 – Site Plan Overview (Courtesy of Google Maps)

See “Interior Phase Site Plan”

See “Construction Trailer Site Plan”

P a g e | 9


Barton Malow could not have planned their site logistics any better. They took full advantage of every

square foot that the owner permitted them to use. The laydown area was also strategically placed

closest to the building while the construction trailers were located closer to parking and main roads.

P a g e | 10


The King Hall Galley Renovation project preserved and reused the existing structural steel building

frame. For this reason no new steel is being added. Concrete is the only structural package involved

with the renovation project. At the time of procurement King Hall Galley was supposed to receive a

limited amount of concrete work based on the selective slab demolition that was required. Also, some

additional foundations and miscellaneous concrete work were needed in order to support the increased

requirements of the building.

Figure 6 above displays a comparison between the actual concrete package and the structural concrete

package that was estimated. The difference between the two is $3.37/SF and over $600,000 total. At

first glance, the estimate, which is over 34% lower than the actual cost, may seem to be highly

inaccurate. However, it is necessary to consider what costs were included in each total value. The

estimated cost of $1,155,645 includes only the new slab-on-grade, foundations, freezer slabs, ramps,

equipment pads, raised slabs, slab patching, and an estimated general conditions amount. In reality the

actual value of the concrete package includes much more than just structural concrete. Miscellaneous

items like concrete curbs, concrete bollards, waterstops, and concrete locker bases are also included in

the $1,763,461 value. Additionally, excavation and backfilling costs were included in Barton Malow’s

concrete package but were not included in the estimate produced here. These values added up to a

total of $350,316 based on the Barton Malow budget. By far, however, the greatest single cost not

included in the estimate was the value of the temporary kitchen concrete work. Details were not

released on the concrete foundation and slab-on-grade for the temporary structure and therefore it was

not possible to estimate the work. However, Barton Malow budgeted $330,000 for this work and this

will also be included in the adjusted value. Figure 7 below displays adjusted values based on the

estimate plus Barton Malow’s budgeted value for miscellaneous concrete work and temporary kitchen

concrete work.

Adjusting the estimate brought the overall value to within 4% of the actual cost, with the estimated

value being $72,500 greater than the value budgeted by Barton Malow. The detailed takeoffs can be

seen in Appendix C and the pricing values can be seen in Appendix D. Having a value within 4% of the

actual budget validates the accuracy of the structural concrete takeoffs and pricing that were conducted

System $/SF Total $/SF Total $/SF Total

CIP Concrete $6.41 $1,155,645 $9.78 $1,763,461 $3.37 $607,816

Estimated Actual Difference

System $/SF Total $/SF Total $/SF Total

CIP Concrete $10.18 $1,835,961 $9.78 $1,763,461 -$0.40 -$72,500

Adjusted Estimate Actual Difference

Figure 6 – Raw CIP Concrete Estimate Comparison

Figure 7 – Adjusted CIP Concrete Estimate Comparison

Detailed Structural Systems Estimate

P a g e | 11


to perform the detailed structural systems estimate. When compared to the square foot estimates

produced in Technical Report 1 by RS Means and D4Cost, the values differ greatly. The RS Means

estimate produced a value of only $552,000 or $3.06/SF, while D4 produced a value of $3,539,506 or

$19.62. However, the drastic differences can be easily explained by the nature of the project. Neither

RS Means nor D4Cost have options for producing estimates for renovations projects. RS Means

developed a much lower value per square foot because in new construction it is much simpler to place a

slab-on-grade than it is to form, reinforce, and pour a slab inside an existing building. D4Cost had an

inaccurate value because of the comparable building chosen. There were no options for a commercial

kitchen or renovation work within the D4 database. Therefore the closest project type was a high end

restaurant. While the services provided in a restaurant may seem similar to a commercial kitchen, the

infrastructure necessary to facilitate the equipment is tremendously different, therefore producing a

highly overpriced value of $19.62/SF.

For the purposes of the detailed structural estimate, RS Means 2007 standard costs and labor rates were

used. Sample calculations for the takeoffs performed can be found in Appendix E. Because the project

was bid in 2009, the Means values were adjusted for time and also for location. The total multiplication

factor for time and location was 1.11786. Adjusting the RS Means values with this factor brought all

data up to date and included the proper location rates.

Item Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost

023600 Soil Treatment 34,914 SF $1.15 $40,200

031100 Concrete Forming 6,943 SFCA $10.62 $73,735

032100 Reinforcing Steel 49 Tons $2,131.39 $103,585

032200 Welded Wire Fabric Reinforcing 138 CSF $66.51 $9,170

032400 Fibrous Reinforcing 186 CY $14.14 $2,636

033000 Cast-in-Place Concrete 1,242 CY $162.40 $201,734

033500 Concrete Finishing 45,159 SF $0.85 $38,366

033900 Concrete Curing 738 CSF $30.74 $22,674

071300 Sheet Waterproofing 35,549 SF $6.74 $239,703

072100 Thermal Insulation 10,138 SF $34.90 $353,788

Total - - - $1,085,591

Figure 8 – CSI Masterformat Cost Summary

P a g e | 12


The cost breakdown by CSI Masterformat can be seen in Figure 8. Termite control was specified for all

new slabs-on-grade within the space. A unit cost of $1.15/SF was taken from Means and then a 10%

waste factor was included in the total quantity. 10% is a reasonable value because the termite control is

sprayed manually onto the subsoil before placement. Manually spraying a fluid is a very wasteful

process. Concrete forming was priced at $10.62. Because of the different types of concrete usages, a

variety of formwork had to be used. Wooden-4 use edge forms on grade, flat plate job-built plywood,

and formwork for walls below grade over 16” high were all taken into account for the formwork

estimate. Three different types of steel reinforcing were used on the project, including #3, #4, and #6

bars. Because of the tight areas that some of these bars were being placed into, a waste factor of 8%

was used for rebar. These bars combined for a total tonnage of 49 and were valued at $2,131.39/Ton.

Welded wire fabric, WWF 6x6, W2.9xW2.9, was used sparingly in the project and totaled only 138 CSF

with the 8% waste factor. 8% is appropriate because of some of the smaller areas that the fabric had to

fit within. The cast-in-place patching situations were handled with cast-in-place concrete with a

macrofiber reinforcing. The macrofiber reinforcing was a creative solution to the problem of fitting

reinforcing into such a small area. Totaling all of the macrofiber reinforced concrete on the project

produced a cubic yardage of 186CY worth of concrete priced at an increase of $14.14/CY when

compared to the regular concrete.

1,242CY of new concrete was poured in the King Hall Galley Renovation. A 3% waste factor was used to

account for any spilling or lost concrete during the project and a total cost of $201,734 was estimated.

The majority of the concrete poured required finishing of some sort. Since machine trowels were used,

a unit cost of $0.85 was estimated, producing a total cost of $38,366 with no waste factor included

because no materials are being used. Per NAVFAC specifications, all cast-in-place concrete on the

project had to have a 7-day wet cure. This 7-day cure with a waste factor of 10% totaled $22,674. The

method for wet curing the concrete was to lay burlap and spray the burlap down daily with water.

Because spraying water with a hose isn’t necessarily an accurate and efficient process, 10% waste is

Figure 9 – CSI Masterformat Cost Summary Distribution

Soil Treatment

Concrete Forming

Reinforcing Steel

Welded Wire Fabric

Fibrous Reinforcing

Cast-in-Place Concrete

Concrete Finishing

Concrete Curing

Sheet Waterproofing

Thermal Insulation

P a g e | 13


appropriate. $239,703 was the estimated cost of waterproofing. While this may seem extremely

expensive, the labor required for placing the waterproofing justifies the high unit cost of $6.74/SF. The

waterproofing all had to be rolled out by hand and additionally, any holes in the polyvinyl 30 mil

membrane had to be taped to form a seal. Accounted for in the total cost is an 8% waste factor to allow

for any wasted plastic and tape. The final and single most expensive item estimated was the thermal

insulation needed for the freezer slabs. It was necessary to tightly seal and insulate all of the freezer

slabs within the space. In order to do this, a double layer of 60PSI insulation was used in between two

layers of concrete for the freezer slabs. This process totaled $353,788 and included an 8% waste factor.

Because the strongest rigid insulation RS Means contains was 25PSI, the square foot costs were

extrapolated to produce the $34.90/SF unit cost for the material and labor required for the rigid

insulation.

P a g e | 14


This section has been submitted separately for grading

and will not be published.

General Conditions Estimate

P a g e | 15




P a g e | 16




P a g e | 17


The PACE Conference was a gathering of industry members and Penn State Architectural

Engineering students designed to facilitate interaction between the two parties and provide

insight into critical industry issues. During the conference I was able to network with

individuals who I already knew in addition to meeting a few industry members for the first time.

These contacts will be crucial for my thesis research in the next coming months and I made sure

to get business cards from everyone I could. Faculty members opened the conference by

updating the industry members on current happenings within the department and then Dr.

Riley shifted the group into the breakout discussion groups. Detailed summaries of the two

sessions which I attended are contained below.

Breakout Session 1

The first breakout session I attended was “Exploring the drivers behind highly integrated

delivery of projects”. This session was facilitated by Dr. Rob Leicht who conducted some of his

Ph.D. research in this particular area. Dr. Leicht began the discussion by opening the floor to

comments on the concerns, risks, and barriers to integrated project delivery or IPD.

The general consensus within the group was that without a significant history it was impossible

to perform case studies on projects where a true integrated project delivery was used. Lacking

any valuable case study information on integrated project delivery successes or failures makes

the decision to pursue an IPD contract a very challenging one and one that more often than

not, owners will choose not to pursue in its entirety. Also, many contractors perform a large

portion of their work in the State Government market. Some states, for example Pennsylvania,

have laws preventing delivery methods like integrated project delivery from being used in order

to pay the lowest price for their project. Until laws like this evolve, it will be impossible to

break into certain State markets with an integrated project delivery approach.

Another general attitude throughout the group is that the construction industry is very

traditional and typically is resistant to radical change. Even with the development of proven

successful project delivery methods like Design/Build the industry still has the tendency to

revert back to the old design-bid-build project delivery method. The fact is that people know

the way construction has been done for years and they are not willing to change the methods

they have become familiar and comfortable with performing.

Many owners will endorse the principals of an integrated project delivery and try to create an

IPD attitude within their project team, but are not willing to actually develop and sign an

integrated project delivery contract. They believe in the philosophies of a high level of

coordination and the elimination of the adversarial relationships that sometimes exist on

Critical Industry Issues

P a g e | 18


construction projects, but are not willing to risk putting a signature on such an open ended

contract that leaves the owner exposed to various liabilities and additional concerns.

Additionally, determining how to select the best value IPD project team becomes extremely

difficult compared to determining best value for a design-bid-build contract. The owner will not

be able to base his decision on cost with this type of contract and this greatly complicates the

decision of awarding a contract. Additionally, the different contractors will have to come

together and closely coordinate their proposal as one group. This creates problems because

interested contractors may not have working relationships with other contractors interested in

the project. The entire project team for each of the major contractors would have to be

somewhat assembled before a proposal is submitted.

The final concern with integrated project delivery was the resistance to the delivery method

from attorneys. The industry members within the discussion group all seemed to agree that

the lawyers would be one of the largest barriers to overcome with IPD contracts. Eric from the

Penn State Office of the Physical Plant said that studies have been done and it is questionable

that an IPD contract would even hold up in court as being valid. Through the studying of both

successful and failing IPD projects the education of the industry and its stake holders will be key

to using the delivery method more often in the future.

While there are a substantial amount of risks involved with such an unproven contract type like

integrated project delivery, there are also a tremendous amount of opportunities for the

advancement of the industry. The most important opportunity and most desirable for owners

in particular is the increased potential of a high quality building.

The increased potential for the delivery of a higher quality building stems from the much

increased coordination between all project team members including the owner. By its very

nature, IPD forces project teams to be assembled much earlier on in the lifetime of a project.

This includes not just the owner and the architect, but all major contractors and especially the

general contractor or construction manager. With the earlier development of relations

between contractors it can make the actual construction a much more streamlined process.

The owner and architect can also begin to receive feedback on feasibility from the contractors

right away. Considering that the contractors know their work better than anyone, this is

critically important feedback for preventing issues during construction. With all of the major

players having a say at the beginning of the project, the owner can find out the best and most

efficient way to build what they need. The contractors can suggest their value engineering

solutions much earlier in the design process which works in favor of all of the parties involved.

Another key benefit of having all of the major parties involved with the decision making process

P a g e | 19


is the potential reduction in the duration of decision making. Having more expert input can

help expedite design change issues and can produce a much quicker RFI process.

The philosophies of integrated project delivery can also drastically reduce the amount of

adversarial conflicts that often develop on construction projects. Since the entire team would

be bound under one contract it creates an environment where in order to look out for oneself

the contractors must look out for the best interests of the entire group. Cost savings and

schedule savings that benefit one contractor end up creating cost and schedule savings for the

entire team. This creates significantly more motivation for all of the players to look out for

ways to help one another. Additionally, the IPD projects that have been studied have all

utilized some sort of incentive based contract to motivate the contractors to find sources of

cost and schedule savings. As mentioned earlier, savings for one contractor end up creating

savings for everyone involved. This further motivates individuals to search for ways to save

time and money for the entire group. Creating the environment where value engineering can

be utilized throughout the entire life of a project can do nothing but benefit the owner in the

end.

Because owners are currently so hesitant to sign an IPD contract, one of the ideas suggested in

the discussion group was that the philosophies of integrated project delivery be used without

the binding contract. The consensus was that owners would love to have the cooperative and

constructive team-like atmosphere throughout the project and the best way to accomplish that

in the short term is to try to instill this mindset in the minds of the project team members

without a formal contract. However, one argument to this was that without the formal

contract, the different players have no real motivation to place the group before the individual

when making decisions.

Overall, I am very happy with my decision to sit in on the discussion about integrated project

delivery. I was able to learn a lot about some of the IPD projects that have been completed and

knowing the opinions of some influential industry members will definitely help me in my thesis

and in my career. I was able to network with Bob Grottenthaler, a Vice President from Barton

Malow, Nick Ulmasala, a Project Engineer from Barton Malow, and Trey Hooper, a

Superintendent from DPR. These connections may prove to be very valuable when I begin

conducting my research for my senior thesis project. After sitting in on this discussion I believe

I will conduct some further research on King Hall Galley to determine the potential benefits that

an IPD contract could have provided.

P a g e | 20


Breakout Session 2

The second breakout session that I attended was facilitated by Dr. David Riley and was focused

on the discussion of “The Smart Grid: Energy impacts in the building industry”. The common

denominator between most of the group during this session was that almost no one had any

idea what Smart Grid actually meant. After establishing that the majority of the group was

clueless to the idea of the Smart Grid, Dr. Riley laid out five specific topics of discussion for the

group to think about. The five subjects were as follows: Power Generation, Advanced

Metering, Cyber Security, Distributed Energy Generation, and Energy Efficiency and Controls.

The group briefly discussed power generation and distribution as the first subtopic of the Smart

Grid. Economics was said to be a primary driver for the field of energy distribution and largely

contribute to most decisions made within the area of energy. Additionally, power purchase

agreements are a key way for large energy consumers to save money. Organizations that must

power large complexes or facilities often purchase their power ahead of time and can save

significant amounts of money by accurately predicting their consumption.

Advanced metering is a constantly developing field and will contribute largely to the innovation

of Smart Grid technologies. The days of the traditional meters that show only the total

consumption for a facility or home will eventually become a thing of the past as smart meter

technology develops and becomes more affordable. Smart meters are able to read and

produce data on when energy was used, not just how much. This can be very important when

an owner is trying to find ways to save on energy costs. If it is determined that the majority of

the energy loads for a facility take place during peak energy cost hours, it may be possible to

reduce costs be shifting those loads to a period when energy cost less. For example, the

highest energy rates are in the middle of the afternoon. If an individual would like to lower

their costs, they shift some of their energy consuming activities to earlier in the morning or

later in the afternoon. Also, as the production of energy becomes more prevalent at the

individual level, advanced metering will be essential in determining how much energy is being

produced and fed back into the grid by a home, building, or entire facility. In other words, if a

homeowner has a photo voltaic system that produces more energy than the house consumes,

using a smart meter they can track how much energy is being fed back into the grid and the

local energy company can pay them for the production. Another key benefit of smart metering

involves advanced tracking of energy usage for building owners. With a smart meter, an owner

can track what areas of the building are consuming the most energy and at what time of the

day they are consuming this energy. This can potentially be as accurate as determining which

cubicles use the most energy, if an owner decides to pursue that level of detail.

P a g e | 21


Distributed energy generation is an issue that all building owners will most likely become

concerned with in the very near future. Being able to produce energy for oneself is one of the

best ways to save money on energy consumption. While traditional methods like wind turbines

and rooftop photo voltaic panels are being constantly improved, there are also new

technologies like curtain wall integrated photo voltaic systems that are breaking into the

market and will begin to play a larger role in sustainability. Possessing the ability to produce

energy is also an excellent way to reduce transmission losses that occur with large power

distribution grids. Having the power generated on site, whether on the roof or in the curtain

wall, drastically reduces the distance the energy has to travel and thus reducing transmission

losses. Also, with smart metering, owners can now start to sell energy back to the power

companies in some regions. On the cutting edge of generating power locally are the curtain

wall integrated photo voltaic systems. While these systems have been in use for a few years in

countries like Germany, architects in the US are just beginning to see the amazing impact these

systems can have on the net energy usage of a building.

The topic that all members of the discussion group were able to offer opinions on was the

energy efficiency issue. This conversation was focused mainly on the ways efficiency will be

improved upon in the future. However, the group began by throwing out some of the primary

ways energy is wasted in buildings. Phantom loads were agreed to be a large contributor to

energy waste. Phantom loads are loads that are produced when equipment isn’t actually

operating, but is still plugged in to the receptacle. These loads power items like the red

indicator lights on stereo systems or televisions. One suggested solution to this problem was to

plug in multiple pieces of equipment into one power strip. This power strip can then be turned

off when the occupant leaves the room for an extended period of time.

Controls have begun to play a big role in energy efficiency, and this role will only continue to

grow in the coming years as green design becomes more and more prevalent. With the use of

localized controls in buildings, waste due to conditioning can be greatly reduced. Allowing

different spaces to have separate controls permits the user to customize their air conditioning

needs to their particular space. This as opposed to conditioning entire buildings at the same

rate is a much more energy efficient method of temperature control. Another key way to

increase energy efficiency is to properly train the staff on how to operate the controls. Often

times when a building is finished being constructed it is turned over to the facility manager and

they are left to read the operations and maintenance manuals to try to figure out the controls.

It was also suggested that transition teams should be included in a contract. With a transition

team, the owner could learn from the people who really understand the controls, rather than

P a g e | 22


playing a guessing game and ruining the efficiency. These methods all apply to making lighting

systems more efficient in buildings as well.

Cyber security was the final topic discussed and was covered only briefly. Terrorists have developed

ways of hacking into our energy grid and now have the potential to track our energy usage. This could

be used to determine when a building is unoccupied and therefore can be broken into and robbed. As

with all new technologies, new methods of securing them must be discovered in order to protect their

users.

I learned a great deal from this breakout session. The industry members present were Bob

Grottenthaler, a Vice President from Barton Malow, Dan Kerr, from McClure Construction, and

Chuck Tomasco, from Truland Systems. Mr. Kerr was the only individual present in the group

besides David Riley who had a strong understanding of the Smart Grid topics. He would be an

excellent source for any thesis questions I had that dealt with the field of energy.

Thesis Research Criteria

The PACE conference proved to be an excellent source of information for my thesis research.

After attending the conference, I am relatively certain that I will look further into the idea of

integrated project delivery. Because King Hall is already a Design/Build project delivery, shifting

the method to IPD wouldn’t be as drastic of a change that could potentially exist. Additionally,

due to the significant amount of unknown conditions in the project’s work scope, I believe that

having an integrated delivery would have benefitted all of the parties involved, especially the

owner, The United States Navy Academy. Close coordination is key to any project’s success and

I think that with the sophisticated combination of the Building Information Modeling process

that already exists at King Hall with an Integrated Project Delivery, the project could have been

delivered quicker and at an overall lower cost to the owner. Regarding energy, I now have a

basis of information to begin my research on improving the efficiency of the systems being

installed in the building. If I decide to pursue this breadth, I have a few resources that I can

begin to contact and ask for information on improving building energy efficiency.

P a g e | 23


Appendix A – Detailed Project Schedule

ID Task Name Duration Start

1 King Hall Galley Renovation 624 days Fri 7/31/09

2 Design and Preconstruction 624 days Fri 7/31/09

3 Design 262 days Fri 7/31/09

4 Temporary Kitchen 96 days Mon 11/9/09

5 Temporary Kitchen Ready for Use

0 days Mon 3/22/10

6 Permanent Kitchen Permitting

22 days Fri 12/11/09

7 Procurement 161 days Thu 1/21/10

8 Submittals 244 days Wed 2/3/10

9 Existing Galley Available for Demolition

0 days Mon 3/29/10

10 Preconstruction Meetings 456 days Wed 3/24/10

11 Phases A and B 336 days Mon 3/29/10

12 Remove Large Equipment 2 days Mon 3/29/10

13 Install Temporary Infrastructure

1 day Mon 3/29/10

14 Demo Ceilings 5 days Mon 3/29/10

15 Haz Mat ID and Removal 9 days Mon 3/29/10

16 MEP Cut/Cap 28 days Wed 3/31/10

17 Non-Structural Wall Demo &MEP Demo

20 days Mon 4/19/10

18 MEP Coordination Drawings 52 days Tue 5/18/10

19 Underslab Utilities 32 days Tue 6/8/10

20 Structural Demo 15 days Mon 6/21/10

21 FRP Concrete 22 days Tue 7/6/10

22 Wall Layout 19 days Tue 7/13/10

23 Field Measure Freezer/Cooler Boxes

8 days Mon 8/2/10

24 Raise/Install AHU-1,2,3 Ductwork

72 days Mon 8/2/10

25 Raise/Install Condensate/Steam Vent

17 days Mon 8/9/10

26 Raise/Install Plumbing 28 days Mon 8/9/10

27 R/I/Pull - Electric 38 days Mon 8/9/10

28 Insulate Ductwork 24 days Wed 8/11/10

29 Raise/Install Sprinkler 22 days Tue 8/17/10

King Hall Galley Renovation

Design and Preconstruction

Design

Temporary Kitchen

Temporary Kitchen Ready for Use

Permanent Kitchen Permitting

Procurement

Submittals

Existing Galley Available for Demolition

Preconstruction Meetings

Phases A and B

Remove Large Equipment

Install Temporary Infrastructure

Demo Ceilings

Haz Mat ID and Removal

MEP Cut/Cap

Non-Structural Wall Demo & MEP Demo

MEP Coordination Drawings

Underslab Utilities

Structural Demo

FRP Concrete

Wall Layout

Field Measure Freezer/Cooler Boxes

Raise/Install AHU-1,2,3 Ductwork

Raise/Install Condensate/Steam Vent

Raise/Install Plumbing

R/I/Pull - Electric

Insulate Ductwork

Raise/Install Sprinkler

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only

Manual Summary Rollup

Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 1

Project: Detailed Project ScheduleDate: Wed 10/27/10


30 Raise/Install Cleaning System Lines

37 days Tue 8/24/10

31 Raise/Install HWS 16 days Wed 9/1/10

32 Raise/Install Refridgeration Piping

26 days Wed 9/1/10

33 R/I/Pull - Fire Alarm 21 days Wed 9/1/10

34 R/I/Pull - Tele/Data 21 days Wed 9/1/10

35 Install Masonry Walls 21 days Wed 9/1/10

36 Set HM Frames in Masonry 17 days Tue 9/7/10

37 Insulate Piping 47 days Thu 9/9/10

38 Install Kitchen Hoods 52 days Thu 9/9/10

39 Frame Walls 31 days Thu 9/9/10

40 Fireproof Existing Steel 5 days Fri 9/10/10

41 Install Drywall 34 days Mon 9/13/10

42 Install Floating Slab at Catering Freezer

3 days Thu 9/30/10

43 Install Kitchen Equipment 124 days Thu 9/30/10

44 Install Ceramic Tile 30 days Fri 11/26/10

45 Interior Painting 16 days Tue 12/21/10

46 Install ACT Grid 4 days Wed 1/12/11

47 Misc. FF&E 52 days Wed 1/12/11

48 Drop Tile 5 days Fri 1/14/11

49 Trim Out MEP 10 days Fri 1/21/11

50 Set & Connect AHU-G-1 17 days Fri 1/28/11

51 Program Controls 21 days Fri 1/28/11

52 Set & Connect AHU-G-2 32 days Mon 1/31/11

53 MEP Hookups - Equipment 49 days Mon 1/31/11

54 Set & Connect AHU-G-3 46 days Tue 2/1/11

55 Install Flooring 13 days Fri 2/4/11

56 Seal Exposed Concrete 6 days Fri 2/4/11

57 Test and Balance 59 days Tue 3/15/11

58 Punchlist 54 days Fri 4/15/11

59 Area A and B Complete 0 days Wed 6/29/11

60 Phase C Including Servery 337 days Mon 3/29/10

61 Remove Large Equipment 29 days Tue 3/30/10


4 days Tue 3/30/10

Raise/Install Cleaning System Lines

Raise/Install HWS

Raise/Install Refridgeration Piping

R/I/Pull - Fire Alarm

R/I/Pull - Tele/Data

Install Masonry Walls

Set HM Frames in Masonry

Insulate Piping

Install Kitchen Hoods

Frame Walls

Fireproof Existing Steel

Install Drywall

Install Floating Slab at Catering Freezer

Install Kitchen Equipment

Install Ceramic Tile

Interior Painting

Install ACT Grid

Misc. FF&E

Drop Tile

Trim Out MEP

Set & Connect AHU-G-1

Program Controls


MEP Hookups - Equipment


Install Flooring

Seal Exposed Concrete

Test and Balance

Punchlist

Area A and B Complete

Phase C Including Servery




Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 2



63 Demo Ceilings 2 days Tue 3/30/10

64 Haz Mat ID and Removal 9 days Mon 4/5/10

65 MEP Cut/Cap 16 days Thu 4/15/10

66 Non-Structural Wall Demo and MEP Demo

20 days Mon 5/3/10


68 Structural Demo 20 days Mon 6/21/10

69 Underslab Utilities 15 days Mon 7/19/10

70 Fireproof Existing Steel 15 days Wed 7/28/10

71 FRP Concrete 10 days Mon 8/2/10

72 Wall Layout 3 days Mon 8/16/10


3 days Thu 8/19/10

74 Raise/Install AHU-2, 3, 4,6 ,7Ductwork

29 days Tue 9/7/10


10 days Tue 9/14/10

76 Insulate Ductwork 15 days Fri 9/17/10

77 Raise/Install Soda Conduit 10 days Thu 9/23/10

78 Raise/Install Plumbing 10 days Tue 9/28/10



16 days Tue 9/28/10

81 R/I/Pull - Fire Alarm 16 days Tue 9/28/10

82 Raise/Install HWS 21 days Tue 9/28/10

83 R/I/Pull - Electrical Wire 26 days Tue 10/5/10

84 Install Masonry Walls 16 days Tue 10/12/10


5 days Wed 10/20/10

86 R/I/Pull - Tele/Data 5 days Wed 10/20/10

87 Set HM Frames in Masonry 5 days Wed 10/27/10

88 Frame Walls 9 days Mon 11/1/10

89 Install Floating Slab at Blast Chiller

11 days Wed 11/3/10

90 Install Kitchen Equipment 129 days Wed 11/3/10

91 Install Kitchen Hoods 23 days Wed 11/3/10

92 Install Drywall 16 days Wed 11/3/10

Demo Ceilings


MEP Cut/Cap

Non-Structural Wall Demo and MEP Demo


Structural Demo

Underslab Utilities


FRP Concrete

Wall Layout


Raise/Install AHU-2, 3, 4,6 ,7 Ductwork


Insulate Ductwork

Raise/Install Soda Conduit





Raise/Install HWS

R/I/Pull - Electrical Wire





Frame Walls

Install Floating Slab at Blast Chiller



Install Drywall


Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 3



93 Misc. FF & E 121 days Fri 11/19/10

94 Insulate Piping 29 days Thu 11/18/10

95 Install Sheetrock Ceilings 11 days Fri 11/26/10

96 Restore Masonry Columns and Arches

11 days Fri 11/26/10

97 Install Ceramic Tile 1 day Mon 1/10/11


99 Interior Painting 11 days Wed 2/2/11

100 Install Terrazzo 15 days Mon 2/14/11

101 Seal Exposed Concrete 5 days Thu 2/17/11

102 Install ACT Grid 5 days Thu 2/17/11

103 Drop Tile 5 days Thu 2/24/11

104 Trim Out MEP 11 days Thu 3/3/11

105 Trim Out Low Voltage 11 days Thu 3/3/11

106 Install Servery Millwork 42 days Mon 3/7/11

107 Program Controls 15 days Fri 3/18/11

108 Install Flooring 12 days Fri 3/18/11

109 Install Specialty Servery Equipment

32 days Tue 3/22/11

110 MEP Hookups - Equipment 16 days Fri 4/22/11

111 Test and Balance 16 days Mon 5/16/11

112 Punchlist 5 days Fri 6/24/11

113 Area C and Servery Complete

0 days Thu 6/30/11

114 Phases D and E 336 days Mon 3/29/10

115 Remove Large Equipment 22 days Thu 4/22/10


4 days Tue 3/30/10

117 Demo Ceilings 2 days Mon 4/5/10

118 Haz Mat ID and Removal 13 days Tue 3/30/10

119 MEP Cut/Cap 33 days Wed 4/7/10

120 Non-Structural Wall Demo &MEP Demo

40 days Mon 5/31/10


122 Structural Demo 27 days Thu 6/24/10

123 Underslab Utilities 27 days Wed 7/28/10

124 FRP Concrete 23 days Fri 8/13/10

125 Fireproof Existing Steel 5 days Wed 8/18/10

Misc. FF & E

Insulate Piping

Install Sheetrock Ceilings

Restore Masonry Columns and Arches



Interior Painting

Install Terrazzo


Install ACT Grid

Drop Tile

Trim Out MEP

Trim Out Low Voltage

Install Servery Millwork

Program Controls

Install Flooring

Install Specialty Servery Equipment


Test and Balance

Punchlist

Area C and Servery Complete

Phases D and E



Demo Ceilings


MEP Cut/Cap

Non-Structural Wall Demo & MEP Demo


Structural Demo

Underslab Utilities

FRP Concrete



Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 4



126 Wall Layout 14 days Tue 8/31/10


4 days Fri 9/3/10

128 Raise/Install AHU-1,2,3 Ductwork

30 days Mon 10/4/10


6 days Mon 10/11/10

130 Raise/Install Plumbing 30 days Tue 10/19/10

131 Raise/Install HWS 15 days Tue 10/19/10


15 days Tue 10/19/10

133 R/I/Pull - Electric 31 days Tue 10/26/10

134 Insulate Ductwork 16 days Wed 10/27/10

135 Install Masonry Walls 37 days Tue 11/2/10



6 days Tue 11/9/10

138 Raise/Install Pulper System Piping

11 days Tue 11/9/10

139 R/I/Pull - Fire Alarm 17 days Tue 11/9/10

140 R/I/Pull - Tele/Data 17 days Tue 11/9/10

141 Set HM Frames in Masonry 26 days Wed 11/17/10

142 Install Kitchen Equipment 124 days Fri 11/19/10

143 Install Kitchen Hoods 12 days Wed 11/24/10

144 Frame Walls 39 days Wed 11/24/10

145 Install Floating Slab at Main Freezer

12 days Wed 11/24/10

146 Install Drywall 41 days Fri 11/26/10

147 Insulate Piping 15 days Wed 12/8/10

148 Misc. FF & E 103 days Fri 12/10/10

149 Install Ceramic Tile 16 days Mon 1/3/11

150 Interior Painting 35 days Tue 1/25/11

151 Set & Connect AHU-G-6 17 days Wed 2/2/11

152 Set & Connect AHU-G-7 32 days Thu 2/3/11

153 Install ACT Grid 30 days Tue 2/8/11

154 Drop Tile 29 days Wed 2/16/11

155 Seal Exposed Concrete 29 days Wed 2/23/11

156 Trim Out MEP 29 days Wed 2/23/11

157 Install Flooring 37 days Wed 3/9/11

158 Program Controls 40 days Wed 3/9/11

159 MEP Hookups - Equipment 16 days Thu 4/28/11

Wall Layout


Raise/Install AHU-1,2,3 Ductwork



Raise/Install HWS


R/I/Pull - Electric

Insulate Ductwork




Raise/Install Pulper System Piping






Frame Walls

Install Floating Slab at Main Freezer

Install Drywall

Insulate Piping

Misc. FF & E


Interior Painting



Install ACT Grid

Drop Tile


Trim Out MEP

Install Flooring

Program Controls



Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 5



160 Test and Balance 4 days Fri 5/20/11

161 Punchlist 5 days Wed 6/15/11

162 Area D and E Complete 0 days Tue 6/21/11

163 Roof Work 110 days Fri 10/1/10

164 Layout Roof 4 days Fri 10/1/10

165 FRP Equipment Pads 2 days Thu 10/7/10

166 Cuts and Penetrations 11 days Thu 10/7/10

167 Set Equipment 6 days Fri 11/26/10

168 Set & Connect AHU-G-4 16 days Fri 2/4/11


170 Set Relief Air Plenums 2 days Tue 2/8/11

171 Loading Dock 23 days Thu 2/3/11

172 Close Loading Dock for Construction

0 days Thu 2/3/11

173 Demo Loading Dock 3 days Thu 2/3/11

174 Pour Loading Dock Foundations

9 days Tue 2/8/11

175 Vestibule Construction 11 days Tue 2/8/11

176 Dock Canopy Structure 11 days Mon 2/21/11

177 Dumpster 21 days Tue 3/8/11

178 Demo Dumpster Walls and Slabs

3 days Tue 3/8/11

179 FRP Foundations and Slabs 8 days Mon 3/14/11

180 Raise Walls 10 days Mon 3/14/11

181 Repair Masonry Façade 10 days Wed 3/23/11

182 Install Dumpster Roof 8 days Thu 3/24/11

183 Closeout & Commissioning 209 days Thu 3/3/11

184 PFC & Start-Up Generator & ATS

15 days Thu 3/3/11

185 Fill, Flush, & Treat Hydronic Systems

10 days Tue 4/5/11

186 PFC & Start-Up AHU's 5 days Wed 4/20/11

187 Complete Building Testing & Balancing

20 days Wed 4/27/11

188 Work-Off NAVFAC Punchlist 10 days Wed 7/27/11

189 Final Inspections/CoO 2 days Wed 8/10/11

190 Galley Substantial Completion

0 days Thu 8/11/11

191 LEED Certification Construction Review

22 days Mon 8/15/11

Test and Balance

Punchlist

Area D and E Complete

Roof Work

Layout Roof

FRP Equipment Pads

Cuts and Penetrations

Set Equipment



Set Relief Air Plenums

Loading Dock

Close Loading Dock for Construction

Demo Loading Dock

Pour Loading Dock Foundations

Vestibule Construction

Dock Canopy Structure

Dumpster

Demo Dumpster Walls and Slabs

FRP Foundations and Slabs

Raise Walls

Repair Masonry Façade

Install Dumpster Roof

Closeout & Commissioning

PFC & Start-Up Generator & ATS

Fill, Flush, & Treat Hydronic Systems

PFC & Start-Up AHU's

Complete Building Testing & Balancing

Work-Off NAVFAC Punchlist

Final Inspections/CoO

Galley Substantial Completion

LEED Certification Construction Review


Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 6



192 NAVFAC Start-Up Training 5 days Tue 8/16/11

193 King Hall Galley Kitchen Early Occupancy

0 days Tue 8/30/11

194 Submit to USGBC 0 days Wed 9/14/11

195 Project Receives LEED Certification

0 days Tue 10/11/11

196 Project Final Completion 0 days Wed 12/21/11

NAVFAC Start-Up Training

King Hall Galley Kitchen Early Occupancy

Submit to USGBC

Project Receives LEED Certification

Project Final Completion


Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

External Tasks

External Milestone

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only


Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

Deadline

Progress

Page 7


P a g e | 31


Appendix B – Site Layout Plan

36’ Tall

24’ Tall

38’ Tall

54’ Tall

27

’ Tall

45

’ Tall

Renovation Area (21’ Tall)

Temp

orary

Kitch

en

(32

’ Tall)

Temp

orary

Offi

ces (12

’ Tall)

Pedestrian

Underpass

Pedestrian

Underpass

N 16’ 96’

Legend

12’ X 8’ Dumpster

Construction Loading Dock & Ramp

Construction Fence

Construction Gate

Construction Traffic

Pedestrian Traffic

Construction Laydown Area

Parking Lot

Utility Feed (Water Lines, Electric Lines,

Sanitary Lines, Data Lines, Gas Lines)

Stormwater Lines

Port-a John

Fire Hydrant

Temporary Lighting

40 Ton Crawler Crane


United States Naval Academy

NAVFAC

Barton Malow/HKS

Interior Finish Site Plan

Scale:

Legend

12’ X 8’ Dumpster

Construction Fence

Construction Gate

Construction Traffic

Pedestrian Traffic

Construction Laydown Area

Parking Lot

Utility Feed (Water Lines, Electric Lines,

Sanitary Lines, Data Lines, Gas Lines)

Stormwater Lines

Port-a John

Fire Hydrant

Temporary Lighting

Construction Trailers


United States Naval Academy

NAVFAC

Barton Malow/HKS

Construction Trailer Site Plan

38’ Tall

16’ 96’

N

P a g e | 34


Appendix C – Detailed Structural Systems

Estimate Take-off Summary

P a g e | 35


Item Length (FT) Width (FT) Depth (FT) Concrete (CY) Rebar Type Rebar (Tons) WWF (SF) Formwork (SF)

F1 184 2 1 14 #4 @18" o.c. 0.11 - -

F2 184 1 2.167 15 #4 @18" o.c. 0.14 - 798

F3 50 3 2 12 5 - #3 0.05 - -

F4 142 1 2 11 4 - #4 0.1 - 568

F5 244 2 2 36.1 5 - #4 0.4 - -

F6 211 2 2 31.3 4 - #4 0.3 - -

F7 168 2 2 24.9 4 - #4 0.2 - -

F8 118 3 2 26.2 5 - #6 0.4 - -

F9 142 2 1 11.0 #4 @18" o.c. 0.2 - -

Total - - - 182 - 2 - 1366

Foundations - 3,000PSI Concrete, Normal Weight

Cast-in-Place Concrete Takeoff Summary


S1 62 31 0.75 54 - - 1936 330

S2 16 16 0.75 8 #6 @ 12" o.c. 0.4 - 48

S3 58 27 0.75 43.5 #6 @ 12" o.c. 2.4 - 127.5

S4 47 41 0.75 53.5 #6 @ 12" o.c. 2.9 - 132

S5 32 17 0.75 15.1 #6 @ 12" o.c. 0.8 - 73.5

S6 17 38 0.75 17.9 #6 @ 12" o.c. 1.0 - 82.5

S7 12 35 0.75 11.7 #6 @ 12" o.c. 0.6 - 70.5

S8 39 18 0.75 19.5 #6 @ 12" o.c. 1.1 - 85.5

S9 45 21 0.75 26.3 #6 @ 12" o.c. 1.4 - 99

S10 37 54 0.75 55.5 #6 @ 12" o.c. 3.0 - 136.5

S11 44 48 0.75 58.7 #6 @ 12" o.c. 3.2 - 138

S12 59 46 0.75 75.4 #6 @ 12" o.c. 4.1 - 157.5

S13 16 24 0.75 10.7 #6 @ 12" o.c. 0.6 - 60

Total - - - 450 - 21 1936 1541


8" Structural Slab - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight

P a g e | 36



P1 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P2 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P3 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P4 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P5 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P6 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P7 15 8 0.5 2.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 46

P8 20 10 0.75 5.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.3 - 45

P9 20 10 0.75 5.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.3 - 45

P10 20 10 0.75 5.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.3 - 45

P11 45 10 0.75 12.5 #6 @12" o.c. 0.7 - 83

Total - - - 46 - 3 - 540


Equipment and Site Pads - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight

* Multiple pours will occur on the same day and therefore CY of concrete can be fractional


R1 6 4 0.667 0.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 13

R2 9 4 0.667 0.9 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 17

R3 4 4 0.667 0.4 #6 @12" o.c. 0.0 - 11

R4 12 12 0.667 3.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 32

R5 29 5 0.667 3.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 45

R6 21 8 0.667 4.1 #6 @12" o.c. 0.3 - 39

R7 6 40 0.667 5.9 #6 @12" o.c. 0.4 - 61

R8 26 5 0.667 3.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 41

R9 26 18 0.667 11.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.7 - 59

R10 6 8 0.667 1.2 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 19

R11 18 4 0.667 1.8 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 29

R12 6 14 0.667 2.1 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 27

R13 8 5 0.667 1.0 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 17

R14 7 20 0.667 3.5 #6 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 36

Total - - - 44 - 3 1340

Ramps - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight



P a g e | 37


Item Length (FT) Width (FT) Depth (FT) 5" Concrete (CY) Rebar Type Rebar (Tons) 4" Concrete WWF (SF) Formwork (SF)

FS1 16 16 Varies 4.0 #6 @12" o.c. 0.4 3.2 256 43

FS2 28 30 Varies 13.0 #6 @12" o.c. 1.3 10.4 840 77

FS3 60 28 Varies 25.9 #6 @12" o.c. 2.6 20.7 1680 117

FS4 7 4 Varies 0.4 #6 @12" o.c. 0.04 0.3 28 15

FS5 18 30 Varies 8.3 #6 @12" o.c. 0.8 6.7 540 64

FS6 34 30 Varies 15.7 #6 @12" o.c. 1.6 12.6 1020 85

FS7 28 6 Varies 2.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.3 2.1 168 45

FS8 28 6 Varies 2.6 #6 @12" o.c. 0.3 2.1 168 45

FS9 10 6 Varies 0.9 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 0.7 60 21

FS10 10 7 Varies 1.1 #6 @12" o.c. 0.1 0.9 70 23

FS11 59 27 Varies 24.6 #6 @12" o.c. 2.4 19.7 1593 115

FS12 74 18 Varies 20.6 #6 @12" o.c. 2.0 16.4 1332 123

FS13 60 24 Varies 22.2 #6 @12" o.c. 2.2 17.8 1440 112

Total - - - 142 - 14 114 9195 890


Raised Freezer Slabs (4" concrete, 4" insulation, 5" concrete, 8" insulation - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight


Item Length (FT) Width (FT) Depth (FT) 6" Concrete (CY) WWF (SF) 6" Concrete WWF (SF) Formwork (SF)

FS14 16 12 Varies 4.0 192 4.0 192 98


Raised Freezer Slabs (6" concrete, 15" insulation, 6" concrete, 4" insulation - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight

Item Length (FT) Width (FT) Depth (FT) Concrete (CY)

T1 449 2 0.5 17

T2 710 1 0.5 14

T3 1052 3 0.5 58

T4 987 4 0.5 73

T5 500 2 0.5 19

Total - - - 181

Cast-in-Place Patching - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight Macrofiber Reinforcing


P a g e | 38



RS1 12 10 0.417 1.9 #4 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 18

RS2 36 9 0.417 5.0 #4 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 38

RS3 28 12 0.417 5.2 #4 @12" o.c. 0.2 - 33

RS4 9 6 0.417 0.8 #4 @12" o.c. 0.0 - 13

RS5 22 23 0.417 7.8 #4 @12" o.c. 0.3 - 38

RS6 48 8 0.417 5.9 #4 @12" o.c. 0.3 - 47

RS7 40 24 0.417 14.8 #4 @12" o.c. 0.6 - 53

RS8 14 13 0.417 2.8 #4 @12" o.c. 0.1 - 23

Total - - - 44 - 2 - 262


Raised Slab (5" concrete, 16" insulation) - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight



TS1 31 20 0.417 9.6 - - 620 43

TS2 18 7 0.417 1.9 - - 126 21

TS3 13 12 0.417 2.4 - - 156 21

TS4 18 7 0.417 1.9 - - 126 21

TS5 28 9 0.417 3.9 - - 252 31

TS6 45 16 0.417 11.1 - - 720 51

TS7 41 28 0.417 17.7 - - 1148 58

TS8 52 61 0.417 49.0 - - 3172 94

TS9 36 28 0.417 15.6 - - 1008 53

Total - - - 113 - - 1262 392


Typical 5" SOG - 4,500PSI Concrete, Normal Weight


P a g e | 39


Appendix D – Detailed Structural Systems

Estimate Pricing Summary

P a g e | 40


Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/SF Labor Cost/SF Equipment Cost Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S 18225 20048 SF $0.73 $0.14 $0.00 $17,441.33 $20,648.93

P 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

R 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FS 9195 10115 SF $0.73 $0.14 $0.00 $8,799.62 $10,417.94

FS14 192 211 SF $0.73 $0.14 $0.00 $183.74 $217.54

RS 2866 3153 SF $0.73 $0.14 $0.00 $2,742.76 $3,247.18

T 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TS 1262 1388 SF $0.73 $0.14 $0.00 $1,207.73 $1,429.85

$35,961.42

023600 Soil Treatment

Total

Cast-in-Place Concrete Pricing

Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/SFCA Labor Cost/SFCA Equipment Cost Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 1366 1,475 SFCA $2.33 $7.30 $0.00 $14,206.95 $20,506.39

S 1541 1,664 SFCA $0.65 $2.55 $0.00 $5,325.70 $7,805.47

P 540 583 SFCA $4.40 $3.65 $0.00 $4,694.76 $6,152.76

R 1340 1,447 SFCA $4.40 $3.65 $0.00 $11,649.96 $15,267.96

FS 890 961 SFCA $4.40 $3.65 $0.00 $7,737.66 $10,140.66

FS14 98 106 SFCA $4.40 $3.65 $0.00 $852.01 $1,116.61

RS 262 283 SFCA $4.40 $3.65 $0.00 $2,277.83 $2,985.23

T 0 0 SFCA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TS 392 423 SFCA $0.65 $2.55 $0.00 $1,354.75 $1,985.56

$65,960.64


031100 Concrete Forming

Total

P a g e | 41


Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/Ton Labor Cost/Ton Equipment Cost Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 2 2 Ton $850.00 $630.00 $0.00 $3,196.80 $4,212.00

S 21 23 Ton $850.00 $575.00 $0.00 $32,319.00 $42,525.00

P 3 3 Ton $850.00 $630.00 $0.00 $4,617.00 $6,318.00

R 3 3 Ton $850.00 $630.00 $0.00 $4,795.20 $6,075.00

FS 14 15 Ton $850.00 $630.00 $0.00 $22,377.60 $29,484.00

FS14 0 0 Ton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RS 2 2 Ton $850.00 $575.00 $0.00 $3,078.00 $4,050.00

T 0 0 Ton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TS 0 0 Ton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$92,664.00


032100 Reinforcing Steel

Total

Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/CSF Labor Cost/CSF Equipment Cost Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 0 0 CSF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S 19.36 21 CSF $19.80 $23.00 $0.00 $894.90 $1,244.07

P 0 0 CSF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

R 0 0 CSF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FS 91.95 99 CSF $19.80 $23.00 $0.00 $4,250.30 $5,908.71

FS14 1.92 2 CSF $19.80 $23.00 $0.00 $88.75 $123.38

RS 0 0 CSF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

T 1.81 2 CSF $19.80 $23.00 $0.00 $83.67 $116.31

TS 12.62 14 CSF $19.80 $23.00 $0.00 $583.35 $810.96

$8,203.43


032200 Welded Wire Fabric Reinforcing

Total

P a g e | 42


Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/CY Labor Cost/CY Equipment Cost Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

P 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

R 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FS 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FS14 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RS 0 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

T 181 186 CY $11.50 $0.00 $0.00 $2,143.95 $2,358.34

TS 0 CY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$2,358.34


032400 Fibrous Reinforcing

Total

Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/CY Labor Cost/CY Equipment Cost/CY Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 182 187 CY $104.00 $13.25 $5.00 $22,916.99 $26,244.40

S 450 464 CY $110.00 $10.75 $4.06 $57,849.44 $65,817.00

P 46 47 CY $110.00 $10.75 $4.06 $5,913.50 $6,727.96

R 44 45 CY $110.00 $10.75 $4.06 $5,656.39 $6,435.44

FS 142 146 CY $110.00 $15.30 $5.80 $19,174.69 $22,085.26

FS14 4 4 CY $110.00 $10.75 $4.06 $514.22 $585.04

RS 44 45 CY $110.00 $15.30 $5.80 $5,941.45 $6,843.32

T 181 186 CY $110.00 $15.30 $5.80 $24,440.97 $28,150.93

TS 113 116 CY $110.00 $15.30 $5.80 $15,258.73 $17,574.89

$180,464.24Total


033000 Cast-in-Place Concrete

P a g e | 43



Item

F 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S 18225 18225 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $9,477.00 $13,851.00

P 1890 1890 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $982.80 $1,436.40

R 1755 1755 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $912.60 $1,333.80

FS 9195 9195 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $4,781.40 $6,988.20

FS14 192 192 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $99.84 $145.92

RS 2866 2866 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $1,490.32 $2,178.16

T 9774 9774 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $5,082.48 $7,428.24

TS 1262 1262 SF $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $656.24 $959.12

$34,320.84

033500 Concrete Finishing

Total


Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/CSF Labor Cost/CSF Equipment Cost Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 28.86 32 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $680.95 $873.02

S 182.25 200 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $4,300.19 $5,513.06

P 18.9 21 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $445.95 $571.73

R 17.55 19 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $414.09 $530.89

FS 91.95 101 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $2,169.56 $2,781.49

FS14 192 211 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $4,530.24 $5,808.00

RS 28.66 32 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $676.23 $866.97

T 97.74 108 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $2,306.18 $2,956.64

TS 12.62 14 CSF $13.10 $8.35 $0.00 $297.77 $381.76

$20,283.53


033900 Concrete Curing

Total

P a g e | 44



Item

F 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S 18225 20412 SF $1.89 $2.75 $0.00 $94,711.68 $123,125.18

P 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

R 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FS 9195 10298 SF $1.89 $2.75 $0.00 $47,784.58 $62,119.95

FS14 192 215 SF $1.89 $2.75 $0.00 $997.79 $1,297.12

RS 2866 3210 SF $1.89 $2.75 $0.00 $14,894.03 $19,362.24

T 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TS 1262 1413 SF $1.89 $2.75 $0.00 $6,558.36 $8,525.87

$214,430.36


071300 Sheet Waterproofing

Total

Quantity Adj. Quantity Units Material Cost/SF Labor Cost/SF Equipment Cost/SF Total Cost Total O & P

Item

F 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

S 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

P 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

R 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

FS 9195 9931 SF $13.40 $10.25 $0.00 $234,858.69 $310,013.47

FS14 192 207 SF $13.40 $10.25 $0.00 $4,904.06 $6,473.36

RS 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

T 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TS 0 0 SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$316,486.84

072100 Thermal Insulation

Total


P a g e | 45


Item Total O & P Adjusted Total O & P

F $51,836 $57,945

S $280,530 $313,593

P $21,207 $23,706

R $29,643 $33,137

FS $462,607 $517,130

FS14 $15,767 $17,625

RS $39,533 $44,192

T $41,010 $45,844

TS $31,668 $35,400

General Conditions $10,000 -

Cold Weather Allow. $10,000 -

Ice Allowance $40,000 -

Cumulative Total $1,033,801 $1,155,645

P a g e | 46


Appendix E – Detailed Structural Systems

Estimate Sample Calculations

P a g e | 55


Appendix F – General Conditions Estimate

P a g e | 56




P a g e | 57




P a g e | 58




P a g e | 59




Documents

Technical Assignment 2 - Pennsylvania State University Publi… · Technical Assignment 2 was developed to provide a more detailed description of the Recovery – King Hall Galley