CAMPUS DESIGN GUIDE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS …...The unit requesting the tree removal requests a tree removal permit from the Grounds Division. The Design Professional is to advise

CAMPUS DESIGN GUIDE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Table of Contents

DESCRIPTION SITE Storm Water Discharge Permit Environmental Review and Documentation Tree Protection and Removal Process Tree Evaluation Tree Rating Definitions Tree Removal Permit Protocol Road Closure Procedures O&M Utility Shut Down Process CODES AND STANDARDS MOU State Fire / UC Code In Effect Request for Alternative Method of Design CLOSEOUT Substantial Completion Letter Certificate of Occupancy Landscape Acceptance Letter Warranty Phase Flowchart

DESCRIPTION Administrative Requirements of the Campus Design Guide (CDG) provides an overview of the campus internal processes that are involved in a typical capital project. Since these processes are intended for campus internal use, this section of the Campus Design Guide is only accessible to campus representatives. These processes are frequently updated and they are maintained on the Design and Construction Management (DCM) website. SITE STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT The storm water permit for municipal discharges that covers the campus requires implementation of procedures and development principles that will protect storm water after construction is completed. The CDG requires structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants after construction of the project is completed. In addition, the campus shall develop and implement strategies and controls that prevent pollution of storm water runoff and ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION Environmental documentation begins during project planning phases, when projects are classified by their probable impact and need for environmental documentation. Facilities must prepare environmental documentation for all projects. A project may fall within the general exemption, may be categorically exempt, or may require an Initial Study to determine the severity of its impacts. The Initial Study identifies areas of environmental concern and is used to assess whether potential impacts are significant and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or if not significant, a Negative Declaration is prepared instead. If potential impacts are significant, a full EIR is prepared, usually with the assistance of outside consultants; this process includes publication and public review of a draft EIR and a public hearing. The final EIR is then prepared, also with the assistance of outside consultants. The final EIR responds to all comments received in writing and at the public hearing during the review period. It also proposes measures designed to mitigate significant environmental impacts and a program for monitoring these mitigation measures. The environmental documentation must be reviewed and approved by either The Regents or the Chancellor before a project is approved. The campus shall include in construction contracts for large construction projects near receptors, the following control measures: 1. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. 2. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from

sites with a slope greater than one percent. Refer to Division 1, Storm Water Pollution Prevention for additional requirements.

3. Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

CAMPUS STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 2 July 2014

The campus shall implement the following control measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors from construction equipment exhaust: 1. To the extent that equipment is available and cost effective, the campus shall encourage

Contractors to use alternate fuels and retrofit existing engines in construction equipment. 2. Minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes when construction equipment is not in use. 3. To the extent practicable, manage operation of heavy-duty equipment to reduce emissions. TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PROCESS TREE EVALUATION

1. Before a project is approved under the physical design framework, the campus will perform a tree survey of the project site. Grounds, the office of Administrative and Resource Management, and the office of Design and Construction Management will provide input about tree classifications and will modify project design to avoid important trees if feasible.

2. Grounds (with tree survey group) surveys trees and prepares a report that shows trees and indicates importance of trees.

3. Campus Planning and Community Resources (CPCR) reviews Tree Evaluation Review and resolves any disagreements and/or potential building conflicts with Grounds.

4. Campus Planning and Community Resources includes Tree Evaluation Review in PPG Abstract, with resolution about any potential conflicts.

5. DCM reviews Tree Evaluation Review and resolves any disagreements and/or potential building conflicts with Grounds and CPCR.

6. Grounds is involved during DPP development to update Tree Evaluation Review. 7. DPP will include the Tree Evaluation Review. 8. If a project would necessitate removal of a Specimen Tree, the project would relocate the tree if

feasible, or would replace the tree with the same species or species of comparable value (relocation or replacement should occur within the project area if feasible). This would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

9. If it is determined during the design phases that a project cannot avoid a #1 tree, per current tree permit protocol, the Associate Vice Chancellor of CPCR will make a final determination. (If definitions of special trees are updated, approval from the Chancellor's Coordination Committee on Campus Planning and Design might be necessary to agree on removal of 'heritage' trees.)

10. During design, DCM will work with Grounds in the round table review process to discuss options for saving and incorporating #2 trees. Site plan drawings will show which trees will be preserved and which will be removed. Per current tree removal permit protocol (see below), trees that will be removed will require a Tree Removal Permit.

11. If a tree that is not identified for removal is damaged or removed during construction, DCM will implement mitigation measures and/or penalties in accordance with the construction contract provisions.


TREE RATING DEFINITIONS Class 1 Trees: Most important category.

Would be a significant loss to the campus if removed. One of the following sub-categories applies to the Class 1 tree(s) (describe why the sub-category applies):

Heritage Tree: Any healthy valley oak tree with a trunk diameter of 33 inches at a height of 54 inches from the ground.

Landmark Trees: A healthy tree or stand of trees that is of historical significance to the campus.

Specimen Trees: A healthy tree or stand of trees that is of high value to the campus due to its size and/or species.

Class 2 Trees: Important tree.

Healthy tree that provides value to the campus due to its aesthetics, maturity, placement, and/or rarity in the region. An effort should be made to save.

Class 3 Trees: Average importance.

Young tree not yet of significant value to the campus, tree identified as problematic, or a tree starting to decline that might recover if given extra care. Could save or remove.

Class 4 Trees: Least important tree. Very young tree, tree identified as problematic, or tree in serious decline. Remove. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROTOCOL The following actions must be completed before any campus unit may remove a campus tree.

1. The unit requesting the tree removal requests a tree removal permit from the Grounds Division.

The Design Professional is to advise the Project Manager on recommendations for removal of trees. The Project Manager is to obtain the permit. The permit will include information on the tree type, size, location, need for removal, any alternatives to removal and an indication of when a decision is needed. The Grounds Division processes permits.

2. Before approving a tree removal permit, a Grounds Division Supervisor will review the permit with

the Arboretum Superintendent. If the tree removal involves a project with a Building Committee appointed by the Executive Vice Chancellor, the University’s Representative will review the permit with the Building Committee chair.

3. When the Grounds Division Supervisor, the Arboretum Superintendent, and the project Building Committee chair all agree that the tree(s) should be removed, the Grounds Division Manager may approve the tree removal permit. The Grounds Division Manager will submit all approved tree removal permits to the Associate Vice Chancellor - CPCR at least one week prior to the scheduled work.

4. If the Grounds Division Supervisor, the Arboretum Superintendent, and the project Building Committee chair do not agree that the tree(s) should be removed, the unit requesting the tree removal will fund, and the Grounds Division will hire a certified arborist to provide a written


recommendation concerning the tree(s). The Grounds Division Manager submits the “unapproved” permit with the arborist report to the Associate Vice Chancellor - CPCR for a final determination.

Pursuant to the Campus’ Long Range Development Plan EIR, the Campus shall conduct a pre-construction or pre-tree pruning or removal survey of trees greater than 30-feet tall during March 1 through August 31. The office of CPCR manages this effort. ROAD CLOSURE PROCEDURES

1. Once it becomes clear during design that a road will need to be closed for construction, a

presentation by the DCM Project Manager (PM) needs to be made at the Transportation & Parking Work Group (T.P.W.G) which meets every two months.

2. The PM then needs to contact Grounds and Taps for a job walk to determine if bike path detours

are needed and what signage will be needed. There is a Grounds Road Closure Form on the Web (http://grounds.ucdavis.edu) that the PM fills out and takes with him to the job walk. Agreement will be made between Grounds & DCM for which signs they will be responsible for. Basically, Grounds will provide signage for the edges and bike detours. Signage at the construction site can be provided by the Contractor.

3. Signage, fencing and other pertinent items can be described in Division 1 of the bid documents.

4. 3 Weeks Prior to Actual Closure: The PM drafts language detailing the road closure and emails it

to various campus departments. After receiving feedback from the campus, the Project Manager prepares final draft text for the road closure and forwards it to the DCM Engineering Executive Assistant, along with a PDF map showing the area of closure.

5. The road closure directive will be published in the UC Davis Friday Update distributed

electronically every week to all faculty & staff.


Draft May 22, 2003 To: Sarah Dickerman, Associate Planner, Resource Planning From: Skip Mezger, Landscape Architect, Grounds Division RE: Evaluation of Trees @ Facilities Services (see map) On May 22, 2003, I performed a Tree Evaluation Review at the above noted location as you requested on May 21, 2003. We believe most of the trees were planted in the 1960’s, although there may be a few from an earlier period. Our comments are recorded with a tree map attached. The numbering system is based on the Davey Tree Report of 1998. This system is being used to clarify the tree locations. The evaluation will start with the southwest corner of the site and proceed counter clockwise to the north. This report should be considered more detailed and supersedes any other report prepared in the past. It should also be used in conjunction with an Arborist’s report. The Arborist’s report will note the health of the trees and will make recommendations for long term protection practices that will promote continued health of any trees that will remain on the site. The Tree Committee has developed the following tree rankings to help classify a tree’s value to the University landscape. These rankings were agreed upon by all members of the committee after careful consideration. #100 trees are on UC Davis property and #200 trees are on CalTrans property. TREE RATINGS #1 = Most Important. ‘Heritage tree:’ any healthy valley oak tree with a trunk diameter of 33 inches at a height of 54 inches from the ground. ‘Landmark trees:’ a healthy stand of trees that is of historical significance to the campus. ‘Specimen trees:’ a healthy tree or stand of trees that is of high value to the campus due to its size, species, and/or its extraordinary educational and research value. Would be significant loss to campus if removed. (SAVE) #2 = Important tree. Mature or rare providing value to the campus landscape. (TRY TO SAVE). #3 = Average Importance. Young tree not yet significant to the campus; or tree starting to decline, that might recover if extra care were given. Tree may also need significant work or further investigation. (COULD SAVE OR REMOVE) #4 = Least important tree; very young tree or tree in serious decline. (REMOVE OR MOVE)

EVALUATION Tree # Tree Species/ Common Name Rating 1. 1520-1523 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #2) 2. 1524-1525 Olea europea/olive (rated #2) 3. 1718 Celtis sinensis/Chinese hackberry (rated #2) 4. 1719 Celtis sinensis/Chinese hackberry (rated #3) 5. 1720-1726 ,1728 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #3) 6. 1726,1727 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated # 2) 7. 1728 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #3) 8. 1729 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #4) 9. 1730 Ulmus americana/American elm (rated #3) 10. 1732A,1733 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwoods (removed) 11. 1731-1733 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #2) 12. 1733-1736 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #2) 13. 1740 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #3) 14. 1741-1742 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #2) 15. 1745 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #3) 16. 1747 Quercus lobata/valley oak (rated #2) 17. 1748 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #2) 18. 1752 Celtis sinensis/Chinese hackberry (rated #4) 19. 1753-1757 Celtis sinensis/Chinese hackberry (rated #1- specimen) 20. 1758 Celtis sinensis/Chinese hackberry (rated #2) 21. 1759 Morus alba/white mulberry (removed) 22. 1760-1761 Celtis sinensis/Chinese hackberry (rated #1- specimen) 23. 1762 Ligustrum lucidum/glossy privet (rated #4) 24. 1763 Arbutus unedo/strawberry tree (rated #3) 25. 1765 Morus species/ mulberry (rated #2) 26. 1766 Sapium sebiferum/Chinese tallow (rated #2) 27. 1766a Xylosma congestum/shiny xylosma (rated#3) 28. 1767 Pinus halepensis/Aleppo pine (rated #1- specimen) 29. 1767a,b Cercis canadensis/Western redbud (rated # 3) 30. 1767c Acer platanoides/Norway maple (rated #2) 31. 1768 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #3) 32. 1769-1770 Sequoia sempervirens/coast redwood (rated #2)

No ‘heritage’ quality trees were noted in the review, but several number 1 trees are noted in this report. These trees should be protected at all costs. Heritage and other #1 rated trees are of special value to the campus landscape for teaching (academic) value as well as aesthetics, functional and general interest. Several important #2 trees were also noted on this site. These trees should be saved if possible. Based on these evaluations, we may want to talk further about what might be done to save trees on this site. Let’s discuss at your earliest convenience.

Thanks, Skip Mezger, Grounds Division cc:Warren Roberts, John Lichter, Cary Avery

1. Review Utility Shutdown Form for Completeness and Lead Time

Courtesy Notice – Notify building occupants there maybe O&M craft persons on site or a minor interruption may occur. For example: During fire alarm testing fire panels may beep. Since the interruption is so minor we advise the departmental contacts but do not require their approval.

Routine (4 working day advance notification required.) – This would typically

be maintenance, repairs or tie-ins to mechanical systems such as plumbing, steam, water or HVAC and with limited duration and affect on the building occupants.

Large (7 working day advance notification required.) – Differs from routine

shutdown request with a greater impact on the building occupants which could include longer duration, multiple buildings or shutdown threatens research, animal welfare or instruction.

Major (Minimum of 14 working day advance notification required.) – Wide

area affected, multiple days or extreme affect to research, animal/human welfare or instruction. These shutdowns would have to be handled on a case by case situation.

Emergency – Emanate repair is needed to prevent damage to the building or

O&M systems. Usually the utility is already down due to damage or failure. For example: A water line has burst or a contractor has inadvertently hit a line and water is flowing. *Please note that time restrictions and scheduling conflicts are not justifiable criteria for an emergency shutdown.

2. O&M Customer Support Center types a notification and sends it via email and fax to campus department contacts; all shops; Fire & Police and EH&S and all the departments contacts who are affected.

UC Davis: Architects & Engineers - Project Manual Updated 04/05/05 http://gstickley.ae.ucdavis.edu/intranet/PMManual/pmmanual.pdf Page 82 of 96




CODE IN EFFECT

REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF DESIGN

Project Name & Address

Date: Code Section: Code Requirement: Code Intent: Request: Justification: Conclusion: Prepared by: Type Firm/Agency here (Signature)_____________________________________________________________________ Name Date Approved by: Office of the State Fire Marshal Code Enforcement (Signature)______________________________________________________________________ Name/Title Date


SAMPLE DOCUMENT

Outstanding Architecture & Associates 1234 Main Street

Anytown, California 90011 (213) 555-1234

REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE METHOD OF DESIGN

California State University 1234 College Street

College Town, California 90015 Date: December 16, 2002 Code Section: 1998 CBC Section 703. Code Requirement: Section 703.1 requires that fire-resistive materials and assemblies be as

described in Table 7-A, B or C of the code, or tested by a third party acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

Code Intent: To design construct fire-resistive systems, which have been tested, or

otherwise shown to provide the required fire resistance. Request: To allow the 1-hour and 2-hour columns and beams within this Type V –

1-hour building to be protected with a composite assembly consisting of wood, gypsum and the steel member. These columns and beams are concealed within the 1-hour walls cavities. To allow the floor-ceiling assemblies and the supporting beams to be protected for 1-hour utilizing a composite assembly, consisting of wood and gypsum and the steel members. To allow the proposed wall assemblies to be considered 1- and 2- hour wall assemblies. The proposed assemblies are shown in Attachment A.

Justification: The beam and column assemblies are enclosed within 1- and 2- hour

wall assemblies, and are protected further by the addition of plywood sheeting and/or 2X or 4X wood nailers. These assemblies have been evaluated using computational models to evaluate their fire resistance. In accordance with UBC test standards, columns may be tested without load by measuring the temperature of the steel column for the duration of the test. The steel column must not exceed 1,200º F at any one point, or 1,000º F (538º C) at an average of 4 measuring points. The steel beams within the walls must not exceed 1,300º F at any one point or 1,100ºF as an average. Fire resistance models were used to calculate the temperature of columns and the beams utilizing the standard ASTM E119 fire test curve assumed on both sides of the wall simultaneously. Two models were used to evaluate all typical conditions and show that the temperature at the steel is less that 538º C (1,000º F) for all of the 1- and 2-hour conditions, including interior and exterior, shear and non-shear walls. The interior assemblies were assumed to not include insulation within the wall cavity. Cavity insulation, according to SFPE Handbook,


SAMPLE DOCUMENT

REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE METHOD OF DESIGN Page 2

December 16, 2002

would increase the level of fire resistance of a wall assembly. These two models, SAFIR and FEHT show good correlation with each other and with other standard calculation procedures for columns. The beams in the walls represent the similar and less restrictive condition to the columns and were, therefore, not modeled. More information about the models and the results of the computations are attached as Appendix B.

The floor-ceiling assemblies consist of a cementitious underlayment over

a ¾ - inch plywood sub floor supported by steel beams ranging in size from W12 X 14 to W24 X117. The typical floor assembly includes W18 X 35 beams. The beam assembly includes a 2X or 4X nailer above the top flange and below the bottom flange. The assembly will be protected with two layers of 5/8 -inch Type X gypsum below. The system is similar to UL Design No. L524, which has achieved a 1-hour fire resistance rating with two layers of ½ - inch (not Type X but regular gypsum). Type X gypsum is known to provide more fire resistance than non-Type X gypsum. UL Design L524 is similar in that is includes steel beams supporting a wood and cementitious floor, protected below by two layers of gypsum. In the UL L524 assembly, the gypsum is supported on steel channels. The proposed assembly includes wood nailers in lieu of the steel channels. The wood material will increase fire resistance of the assembly compared to light gage steel. The wood nailers are attached to the steel beams, with metal bolts welded to the beam. Gypsum will be attached to the wood nailers with screws and joints as described in Item 8 of the UL listed assembly. The joints will be staggered as described in UL L524. Please note the architectural drawing attached to this equivalency only includes one layer of gypsum. A second layer will be added.

The wall assemblies are similar to typical ICBO and UL listed and 1- and

2- hour wall assemblies, except that they include wood nailers and plywood. The fire resistance models show that these assemblies meet the wall criteria; a maximum temperature rise of 250º F (139º C) on the unexposed side.

Conclusion: The proposed column, beam and floor-ceiling/beam assemblies provide

the required 1- and 2-hour fire resistance. In the case of the columns and beams, the assemblies have been modeled with two different fire resistance models, which provide a similar result. The floor-ceiling assembly is similar to a UL listed floor-ceiling assembly, but with the provision of Type X gypsum instead of regular gypsum and the use of wood in lieu of light gage steel in certain locations within the assembly. The walls meet pass/failure criteria of the wall fire resistance test.


SAMPLE DOCUMENT

REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE METHOD OF DESIGN Page 3

December 16, 2002 Prepared by: Outstanding Architecture & Associates 1234 Main Street Anytown, California 90011 (Signature) 12/16/02 John Doe, Principal Architect Date Approved by: Office of the State Fire Marshal Code Enforcement Division Hugh Council, Division Chief, Code Enforcement North Date

255 Cousteau Place Davis, California 95618

(530) 754-1111 (530) 754-0107 FAX

Date CHRISTINE MC UMBER Administrative and Resource Management LESLIE CARBAHAL Administrative and Resource Management GREGORY MURPHY Police Department SUE FIELDS Environmental Health & Safety CLIFF CONTRERAS Transportation & Parking Services ZACKARY O’DONNELL Communications Resources KAREN WILLIAMS Facilities Management ALLEN TOLLEFSON Facilities Management PETE LENTINO Facilities Management BRENDA SCALZI ARM: Utilities Division JENNIFER JONES ARM: Utilities Division MORGANA YAHNKE Safety Services Project: Project Name & Number Subject: Substantial Completion Notification – Date of Substantial Completion This memo is to advise you that a Certificate of Substantial Completion has been issued on Substantial Completion Date for the referenced project. The Certificate of Substantial Completion is a contractual document between the University and General Contractor whereby the University accepts the building as being sufficiently complete for occupancy. In addition, the Certificate starts the one year Guarantee to Repair period for all the building systems. Following is the contractual description of Substantial Completion:

“Substantial Completion means the stage in the progress of the Work, as determined by the University’s Representative, when the Work is complete and in accordance with the Contract Documents except only for completion of minor items which do not impair University’s ability to occupy and fully utilize the Work for its intended purpose.”

Again, as of now maintenance and operation of the building is the University's full responsibility from this point forward. Please contact Project Manager’s name, Project Manager, if you have any questions. Project Manager’s Name Title of Project Manager PC initials Via Email c: Vice Chancellor Name Assistant Vice Chancellor & Campus Architect Halliday

Building Rev. 05/13/2013

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

Project Name: Project Name Project No: Project Number Grant No: N/A or grant number Owner's Name: The Regents of the University of California Project Location: Project Location, Address or CAAN Number

University of California, Davis Campus Yolo County, Davis, California 95616

Description: Short Project Description

The Campus Fire Marshal is the “Building Official” for State Fire Marshal regulations and grants “fire clearance” before a building is occupied.

The Project has been granted a fire clearance and is approved for occupancy by the UC Davis Fire Marshal under the MOU with the California State Fire Marshal. (Fire Clearance from UCD Fire Department Attached.)

OR This Project was exempt from fire clearance and occupancy approval by the UCD Fire Department. Due to

the nature of this work, this project is exempt.

[Add any additional required approvals, i.e. Bio Containment approval from EH&S.]

Campus Fire Marshal: Campus Fire Marshal Date

The project has been inspected for compliance with the Contract Documents and California Building Standards Code, and is to the best of our knowledge in compliance with the requirements:

Inspector of Record:

Inspector of Record Date

Plan examiners and construction inspectors, whether hired or contracted by the Campus Building Official, must meet qualifications and requirements established in California Health and Safety Code, Sections 18949.25-18949.31. If not registered professional engineers, licensed land surveyors, or licensed architects, they must be certified by a recognized state, national, or international association and have at least three years of verifiable experience in the appropriate fields, as determined by the Campus Building Official. Pursuant to the California Building Code and based on the representations above, permission is given to occupy Project Name Issuance of this certificate shall not be construed as an approval of violations of the provisions of code or any other applicable laws or regulations.

Campus Building Official: Clayton Halliday Date

The Campus Building Official functions as required by the California Building Standards Code to ensure code compliance for projects and ensure that fire and life safety requirements are reviewed by the Designated Campus Fire Marshal and Disabled Access requirements are reviewed by the Division of the State Architect, Access Compliance and to issue a Certificate of Occupancy after verification of code compliance and review by other officials, as appropriate. cc: Nathan Trauernicht, Fire Department Christine McUmber, Administrative and Resource Management Leslie Carbahal, Administrative and Resource Management Gaby Renteria, Risk Management Services Jeff Price, Facilities Management

Allen Tollefson, Facilities Management Jennifer Calori, Design and Construction Management

Rev: April 30, 2014 Certificate of Occupancy

Date Skip Mezger Grounds Project Name: Project name here Project Number: Project # here Subject: Landscape Maintenance This is to advise you that the landscape contractor has completed all contract obligations for the referenced project. There were no outstanding punch list items as of the last walk through on date with list attendees for the walk through. The University will now take ownership and is now responsible for continued maintenance. Sincerely, Project Manager

Architecture Construction Administration Engineering Project Management Real Estate

255 Cousteau Place, Davis, CA 95618 530.754.1111 main 530.754.0107 fax

Customer Support Center receives call fromCampus Dept. requiring maintenance and/or

repair to a system. The appropriate shopdispatches a Maintenance Technician to

investigate the problem

Emergency

Maintenance Techresponds to request

Maintenance Techreviews warranty list and

verifies problem iscovered

Maintenance Techimplements repair

End

O&M SPOCresponds to

request

O&M identifiesproblem should be

corrected byContractor

Repair is minor andcompleted quickly

Life safety issue orsimilar critical issues

(research)

End

Maintenance Techremediates the problem

(isolate or repair)

O&M SPOC contactsA&E PM advising with

the warrantyissue

A&E meets O&M atsite to review

problem

A&E & O&M agreethe problem is covered

under warranty

Isolated

Repaired

O&M corrects problemand discusses costs with A&E.

A&E to bill/negotiate withContractor.

End

Elevate to SeniorSupervisors

O&M agrees it ismaintenance issue

Maintenance Techimplements repair

End

A&E notifies Contractorof the problem and issues

a GDN (10 daysto repair)

Contractor respondsto warranty issue

O&M, A&E andContractor meet on site

to investigateproblem

Contractor correctswork

A&E elevateswarranty issue within

Contractor’sorganization

A&E/O&M coordinateand implement all

repairs

Warranty Phase Flow ChartA&E and O&M Interaction

Yes

No Yes

Yes

Yes

NoNo

Yes

Yes

No

No