DBIA_Ballpark

Design-BuildDATELINEThe Journal of the Design-Build Institute of America June 2008

gr

and slamTop Sport and Recreation Facilities Score with Design-Build

Inside: EDUCATION EXTRA! Bronx on Track

NEW MEADOWLANDSSTADIUM

NATIONALS PARK

Nationals Park, New Meadowlands Stadium, and a Family of Facilities

Score with Design-BuildBy Christopher Prawdzik

12 Design-Build DATELINE — June 2008 Design-Build DATELINE — June 2008 13

For sports facilities in particular – but also for any other such recreational venue – time is always of essence during construc-tion, so the time factor is usually noted. “Opening day” is always a xed time in space, with all team schedules always dependent upon one project in one part of the country. Cost is another item that gets a lot of att ention. On top of that usually comes the news of con ict, problems, setbacks and oft entimes legal conundrums that oft en arise in the course of construction.

As a result, delivery method is proving crucial in the arenas, stadiums, sports venues and variety of recreation projects nation-wide. Some of the biggest news surrounding these projects is that design-build is the only delivery method that can literally ensure a timely completion with litt le impact – and oft en savings – in the project’s budget. The venues come in all shapes and sizes. Barton Malow Company and HKS Architects Inc., for example, were recently selected to build the Gwinett Braves Baseball Stadium in Georgia. The $40 million stadium will open in 2009. But that’s just one example.

As these facilities rise from the rubble of their seemingly ancient predecessors, a now not-so-silent trend has taken hold. It’s design-build.

Two facilities in particular are anchoring the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The Nationals Ballpark, home to the Wash-ington Nationals ballpark, and the New Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey, which will support the New York Giants and New York Jets football teams, are turning some heads. But these de-sign-build construction projects are part of the mainstream today, and they continue to emphasize the foundation that integrated project delivery has built over the last several years.

Capital ProjectIn Washington, the Nationals Park didn’t begin as design-

build. In fact HOK Architecture, the driving force behind so many of these facilities was hired by the city before the Clark design-build team entered the picture.

“They started design directly for the city... then [the city] put out the RFP for general contractors for kind of pre-construction,” says Matt Haas, project executive for Clark. “So, we bid against two other major players.”

At the time, Major League Baseball had a deal with the city that they be out of RFK Stadium by 2008. With time such an im-portant factor, Clark received the pre-construction contract. The pre-construction was slated to last about six month, Haas says, with groundbreaking in March 2006.

Overall the project was supposed to be 25 months – a tight schedule according to Haas. “And then at some point through that pre-construction phase, they asked us to guarantee a con-tract, guarantee a price and at the same time they turned it into a design-build contract,” he says. “HOK, who we had worked with on dozens of projects and also a few sports projects ... made it kind of a natural t to make is design-build. But also the city wanted to put the risk on the contractor. That was part of this whole deal, the structure of the deal was that the city would go into this $611 million cap and then basically not have any of the

The mainstream media often

misses it. Not that they consciously

ignore certain facts about construction

projects, but the delivery method is

often hard to come by in a typical

report, whether design-build,

design-bid-build or something else.

grand slam

NEW MEADOWLANDSSTADIUM

NATIONALS PARK

Nationals Park, New Meadowlands Stadium, and a Family of Facilities

Score with Design-BuildBy Christopher Prawdzik


For sports facilities in particular – but also for any other such recreational venue – time is always of essence during construc-tion, so the time factor is usually noted. “Opening day” is always a xed time in space, with all team schedules always dependent upon one project in one part of the country. Cost is another item that gets a lot of att ention. On top of that usually comes the news of con ict, problems, setbacks and oft entimes legal conundrums that oft en arise in the course of construction.

As a result, delivery method is proving crucial in the arenas, stadiums, sports venues and variety of recreation projects nation-wide. Some of the biggest news surrounding these projects is that design-build is the only delivery method that can literally ensure a timely completion with litt le impact – and oft en savings – in the project’s budget. The venues come in all shapes and sizes. Barton Malow Company and HKS Architects Inc., for example, were recently selected to build the Gwinett Braves Baseball Stadium in Georgia. The $40 million stadium will open in 2009. But that’s just one example.

As these facilities rise from the rubble of their seemingly ancient predecessors, a now not-so-silent trend has taken hold. It’s design-build.

Two facilities in particular are anchoring the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The Nationals Ballpark, home to the Wash-ington Nationals ballpark, and the New Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey, which will support the New York Giants and New York Jets football teams, are turning some heads. But these de-sign-build construction projects are part of the mainstream today, and they continue to emphasize the foundation that integrated project delivery has built over the last several years.

Capital ProjectIn Washington, the Nationals Park didn’t begin as design-

build. In fact HOK Architecture, the driving force behind so many of these facilities was hired by the city before the Clark design-build team entered the picture.

“They started design directly for the city... then [the city] put out the RFP for general contractors for kind of pre-construction,” says Matt Haas, project executive for Clark. “So, we bid against two other major players.”

At the time, Major League Baseball had a deal with the city that they be out of RFK Stadium by 2008. With time such an im-portant factor, Clark received the pre-construction contract. The pre-construction was slated to last about six month, Haas says, with groundbreaking in March 2006.

Overall the project was supposed to be 25 months – a tight schedule according to Haas. “And then at some point through that pre-construction phase, they asked us to guarantee a con-tract, guarantee a price and at the same time they turned it into a design-build contract,” he says. “HOK, who we had worked with on dozens of projects and also a few sports projects ... made it kind of a natural t to make is design-build. But also the city wanted to put the risk on the contractor. That was part of this whole deal, the structure of the deal was that the city would go into this $611 million cap and then basically not have any of the

The mainstream media often

misses it. Not that they consciously

ignore certain facts about construction

projects, but the delivery method is

often hard to come by in a typical

report, whether design-build,

design-bid-build or something else.

gr

and slam

NATIONALS PARK


risk.” Clark’s relationship with its partners and with HOK made the project ‘a prett y good bet,” Haas says.

Relationships eliminated roadblocks throughout the project.“Another thing we did that helped us get over that initial

hurdle, or to speed things up early, we told the sports commis-sion that we needed to award some early contracts way before they would normally be bidable—subcontractors,” Haas says. “We did this kind of expedited procurement process right in the beginning, even before we had a contract, bringing in the major subcontractors in the area and engaged in this design-assist com-petition to get the work. Design-assist means that we would go through a quick pricing exercise with them and interview them on their capabilities and quali cations and … have an appetite to take on the risk that we would hire them but they would help de-velop the design to make sure it stays within the overall budget that we had set out with our contractors and the commission.”

This arrangement was with eight or 10 diff erent entities, but it became about 50 percent of the cost of the work. But this elimi-nated a lot of risk in the early part of the process. The result was an effi cient design, Haas says, because the specialty contractors were able to work through constructability issues from the stat. This also allowed for early material and equipment orders, which served as protection from escalation costs.

The project is mostly a steel structure. With many early hurdles out of the way, constructors were bett er able to deal with material lead times and get orders out for the structural steel since the project time line was so compressed. In addition, items such as the precast elements for the parking garage can take nine months, according to Haas.

“There’s a lot of pressure up front just to get the design complete and then get the orders in,” he says. “Working all those details out before you even had a full design, you had to get these components—and that’s part of design-build – you had to get them coordinated as best you could, but you couldn’t do every-thing. You couldn’t coordinate every last piece. At some point you’ve got to draw the line and say, ‘we’re placing the order and we’ll adjust around [it].’” This was extremely important with the xed end date.

“It’s just part of the nature of the beast [with] design-build is that you don’t have all the information you need when you start and you’ve got really just use your expertise and your past per-formance to get you thought it, relationships with the architect,” Haas says.

Some other onsite innovations helped the process as well. For example, they used a computer aided model to do structural design, which allowed for an early steel order. “I can’t even tell you how much coordination went into designing the groundwa-ter system beneath the playing eld,” Haas adds. “It was like a year and a half of just pulling our hair out, trying to get it perfect, so that when the cranes all got out of the in eld. When we hit that, we knew we had to plant the grass by November, so we had a short win-dow and we knew we had to get in there with the most effi cient design and construction.”

For drainage, they ended up with a two-foot layer of gravel with some piping as

well, what Haas calls a “gravel blanket,” for the ground water, which became one of the projects particular innovations. “Then we had a system right above it that takes care of the rainwater. Above that you’ve got irrigation,” Haas says. “Even if there was ooding in the area, I think you’d be able to play baseball sooner than you’d be able to drive on the street.”

One thing that we did that saved us some time in the begin-ning was we built the main concourse –there’s two there’s a base-ment level that’s called the service level – we actually poured that concrete service level aft er we poured the main concourse.

Aesthetics didn’t get short shrift either. “I think it’s most im-portant that the stadium ts into the community rst – and that’s just the exterior – what really matt ers to a lot of people is once you get inside and make sure that you’ve got good sight lines and exciting visual,” Haas says. “[For] this one the architect had the vision that it t with kind of the monuments and federal look

of the city. The openness and the wide concourses has been very important to the city, especially coming out of the

dungeons of RFK.”

Jets and GiantsUp I-95, quite a ways from the “dungeons of

RFK” the New Meadowlands Stadium project is moving forward at a rapid pace and will open in 2009. The project being built by Skanska reveals even

more design-build exibility, Jim Whitt aker, spokes-person for Skanska notes that, “It was actually two

diff erent projects for two diff erent teams on two diff erent sites. Then, two projects merged into one. Once the New York Giants and New York Jets combined forces, design-build became the delivery method of choice to guarantee schedule certainty and cost containment.

A big challenge for this project was that New York City had or has six major sports facility projects under construction at one time. “The marketplace for this level of design and construction talent was very tight,” Whitt aker says. “Plus, the site is a brown- eld redevelopment immediately adjacent the existing Giants stadium, literally but feet away. ... When completed, the stadium will be one of if not the most state-of-the-art entertainment ven-ues in the country.

The project’s technological advances to improve and bene t the fans who will att end events at the facility are perhaps the most important. “The stadium combines an interesting blend of project ownership in a hot construction market on a challenging site with high-end technologies,” Whitt aker says.

One of the biggest challenges is bringing together experiences of the fan bases for each team, “brands, cultures, design teams, and so forth has been an exciting opportunity to blend into one mammoth construction project,” Whitt aker says.

This is nothing new for Skanska. “From experience, Skanska knew that key stakeholder partnerships were critically impor-tant,” Whitt aker says. “For instance, 20,000+ tons of structural steel was required to be designed, detailed, fabricated, delivered and erected in lock-step precision and with great speed.”

Skanska USA Building joined its sister company, Skanska USA Civil, to bring top- ight structural steel experience to the proj-ect. “The positive synergies of sister companies with combined horsepower – buildings and heavy – were very advantageous,” Whitt aker says. “Secondly, Skanska immediately began close coordination with the entire design team that had been underway for months prior to Skanska’s engagement. Meetings begat more meetings so that Skanska clearly understood the owner’s objec-tives through the eyes of its designers.”

As a result, the project is months ahead of schedule. The design was coordinated with procurement and eld operations to get the most bang for the buck. The experienced teams also had great success preparing the site and with its foundation work, which allowed the steel construction to begin quickly.

The biggest technological success was Skanska using “radio frequency identi cation (RFID) tracking system to manage the production, delivery and installation of precast concrete stadia

Grand Slam

SPORT AND REC ROSTER

Grand Slam

Design-Build is beyond making inroads in sport and recreation facility construction. While we couldn’t include every facility, DATELINE presents some of the latest and most advanced such venues across the nation. This is the fi rst time, not the last, in which we hope to present an annual catalog of the ever-increasing variety of design-build venues.

Sports/activities for which the project was built: Football operations, athletics administration and an academic center.

Capacity: 96,000 SF

Teams the facility supports: Baylor Bears Football Team

Description: The Beck Group is heading up design and construction services, in conjunction with Sparks Sports, on the $25-million Alwin O.and Dorothy Highers Athletics Complex and the Simpson Athletics and Academic Center at Baylor University. The facilities will integrate the Baylor athletics department and football program into the over-all campus environment for the fi rst time in the modern era.

Located on University Parks Drive near the Baylor Marina, the Highers Athletics Complex will feature three football practice fi elds, two with natural surfaces and one with artifi cial turf. The roughly 100,000-square-foot Simpson Athletics and Academic Center brings to campus functions previously housed at Floyd Casey Stadium, such as the main athletics training room, equipment room, football team locker room and weight room, as well as administrative offi ces, the football offi ce, meeting rooms and an academic center for all student-athletes.

Construction Dates: June 2007 to December 2008

Cost: $25 million

Design-build fi rm: The Beck Group (contrac-tor) and Sparks Sports Inc. (architect)

Specialty Contractors: n/a

Project: Alwin O. and Dorothy Highers Athletic Complex and Simpson Athletics and Academic Center

NATIONALS PARK


risk.” Clark’s relationship with its partners and with HOK made the project ‘a prett y good bet,” Haas says.

Relationships eliminated roadblocks throughout the project.“Another thing we did that helped us get over that initial

hurdle, or to speed things up early, we told the sports commis-sion that we needed to award some early contracts way before they would normally be bidable—subcontractors,” Haas says. “We did this kind of expedited procurement process right in the beginning, even before we had a contract, bringing in the major subcontractors in the area and engaged in this design-assist com-petition to get the work. Design-assist means that we would go through a quick pricing exercise with them and interview them on their capabilities and quali cations and … have an appetite to take on the risk that we would hire them but they would help de-velop the design to make sure it stays within the overall budget that we had set out with our contractors and the commission.”

This arrangement was with eight or 10 diff erent entities, but it became about 50 percent of the cost of the work. But this elimi-nated a lot of risk in the early part of the process. The result was an effi cient design, Haas says, because the specialty contractors were able to work through constructability issues from the stat. This also allowed for early material and equipment orders, which served as protection from escalation costs.

The project is mostly a steel structure. With many early hurdles out of the way, constructors were bett er able to deal with material lead times and get orders out for the structural steel since the project time line was so compressed. In addition, items such as the precast elements for the parking garage can take nine months, according to Haas.

“There’s a lot of pressure up front just to get the design complete and then get the orders in,” he says. “Working all those details out before you even had a full design, you had to get these components—and that’s part of design-build – you had to get them coordinated as best you could, but you couldn’t do every-thing. You couldn’t coordinate every last piece. At some point you’ve got to draw the line and say, ‘we’re placing the order and we’ll adjust around [it].’” This was extremely important with the xed end date.

“It’s just part of the nature of the beast [with] design-build is that you don’t have all the information you need when you start and you’ve got really just use your expertise and your past per-formance to get you thought it, relationships with the architect,” Haas says.

Some other onsite innovations helped the process as well. For example, they used a computer aided model to do structural design, which allowed for an early steel order. “I can’t even tell you how much coordination went into designing the groundwa-ter system beneath the playing eld,” Haas adds. “It was like a year and a half of just pulling our hair out, trying to get it perfect, so that when the cranes all got out of the in eld. When we hit that, we knew we had to plant the grass by November, so we had a short win-dow and we knew we had to get in there with the most effi cient design and construction.”

For drainage, they ended up with a two-foot layer of gravel with some piping as

well, what Haas calls a “gravel blanket,” for the ground water, which became one of the projects particular innovations. “Then we had a system right above it that takes care of the rainwater. Above that you’ve got irrigation,” Haas says. “Even if there was ooding in the area, I think you’d be able to play baseball sooner than you’d be able to drive on the street.”

One thing that we did that saved us some time in the begin-ning was we built the main concourse –there’s two there’s a base-ment level that’s called the service level – we actually poured that concrete service level aft er we poured the main concourse.

Aesthetics didn’t get short shrift either. “I think it’s most im-portant that the stadium ts into the community rst – and that’s just the exterior – what really matt ers to a lot of people is once you get inside and make sure that you’ve got good sight lines and exciting visual,” Haas says. “[For] this one the architect had the vision that it t with kind of the monuments and federal look

of the city. The openness and the wide concourses has been very important to the city, especially coming out of the

dungeons of RFK.”

Jets and GiantsUp I-95, quite a ways from the “dungeons of

RFK” the New Meadowlands Stadium project is moving forward at a rapid pace and will open in 2009. The project being built by Skanska reveals even

more design-build exibility, Jim Whitt aker, spokes-person for Skanska notes that, “It was actually two

diff erent projects for two diff erent teams on two diff erent sites. Then, two projects merged into one. Once the New York Giants and New York Jets combined forces, design-build became the delivery method of choice to guarantee schedule certainty and cost containment.

A big challenge for this project was that New York City had or has six major sports facility projects under construction at one time. “The marketplace for this level of design and construction talent was very tight,” Whitt aker says. “Plus, the site is a brown- eld redevelopment immediately adjacent the existing Giants stadium, literally but feet away. ... When completed, the stadium will be one of if not the most state-of-the-art entertainment ven-ues in the country.

The project’s technological advances to improve and bene t the fans who will att end events at the facility are perhaps the most important. “The stadium combines an interesting blend of project ownership in a hot construction market on a challenging site with high-end technologies,” Whitt aker says.

One of the biggest challenges is bringing together experiences of the fan bases for each team, “brands, cultures, design teams, and so forth has been an exciting opportunity to blend into one mammoth construction project,” Whitt aker says.

This is nothing new for Skanska. “From experience, Skanska knew that key stakeholder partnerships were critically impor-tant,” Whitt aker says. “For instance, 20,000+ tons of structural steel was required to be designed, detailed, fabricated, delivered and erected in lock-step precision and with great speed.”

Skanska USA Building joined its sister company, Skanska USA Civil, to bring top- ight structural steel experience to the proj-ect. “The positive synergies of sister companies with combined horsepower – buildings and heavy – were very advantageous,” Whitt aker says. “Secondly, Skanska immediately began close coordination with the entire design team that had been underway for months prior to Skanska’s engagement. Meetings begat more meetings so that Skanska clearly understood the owner’s objec-tives through the eyes of its designers.”

As a result, the project is months ahead of schedule. The design was coordinated with procurement and eld operations to get the most bang for the buck. The experienced teams also had great success preparing the site and with its foundation work, which allowed the steel construction to begin quickly.

The biggest technological success was Skanska using “radio frequency identi cation (RFID) tracking system to manage the production, delivery and installation of precast concrete stadia

Grand Slam

SPORT AND REC ROSTER

Grand Slam

Design-Build is beyond making inroads in sport and recreation facility construction. While we couldn’t include every facility, DATELINE presents some of the latest and most advanced such venues across the nation. This is the fi rst time, not the last, in which we hope to present an annual catalog of the ever-increasing variety of design-build venues.

Sports/activities for which the project was built: Football operations, athletics administration and an academic center.

Capacity: 96,000 SF

Teams the facility supports: Baylor Bears Football Team

Description: The Beck Group is heading up design and construction services, in conjunction with Sparks Sports, on the $25-million Alwin O.and Dorothy Highers Athletics Complex and the Simpson Athletics and Academic Center at Baylor University. The facilities will integrate the Baylor athletics department and football program into the over-all campus environment for the fi rst time in the modern era.

Located on University Parks Drive near the Baylor Marina, the Highers Athletics Complex will feature three football practice fi elds, two with natural surfaces and one with artifi cial turf. The roughly 100,000-square-foot Simpson Athletics and Academic Center brings to campus functions previously housed at Floyd Casey Stadium, such as the main athletics training room, equipment room, football team locker room and weight room, as well as administrative offi ces, the football offi ce, meeting rooms and an academic center for all student-athletes.

Construction Dates: June 2007 to December 2008

Cost: $25 million

Design-build fi rm: The Beck Group (contrac-tor) and Sparks Sports Inc. (architect)

Specialty Contractors: n/a

Project: Alwin O. and Dorothy Highers Athletic Complex and Simpson Athletics and Academic Center


Grand SlamGrand Slam

Design-build team: PJ Dick/Barton Malow, construction managers; HOK Sport/LD Astorino, architects (HOK, design; LDA, architect of record)

Specialty contractors: M-E Engineers, MEP; Thornton Tomasetti, structural; Code Consultants Inc., codes and life safety; WJHW, au-dio/visual, acoustical

Sports for which stadium was built: Major League Baseball

Capacity: 37,900

Teams that use the facility: Pittsburgh Pirates

Description: PNC Park is one of America’s most intimate ballparks. Located at the foot of the Roberto Clemente bridge in Pittsburgh, the stadium offers spectacular views of the city. It is recognized as one of baseball’s most accessibly-friendly ballparks and received the Design-Build Award from the Master Builders Association.

architect; Michael Willis & Associates, associate architect

Specialty contractors: M-E Engineers, MEP; Thornton Tomasetti, structural; Rolf Jensen & Associates, codes/life safety; WJHW, audio/visual


Capacity: 40,700

Teams that use the facility: San Francisco Giants

Description: The site for AT&T Park has it all: San Francisco’s skyline, the hills of the East Bay and vivid ocean sunsets over the Golden Gate. Upon arrival visitors are greeted with a composition of steel, concrete and brick. Heroic in scale and proportion, the ballpark’s rugged face recaptures the spirit of the grand old game and the South of Market context. Flanked by clock towers, this face engages the city street network and the neighborhood’s scale. Recalling the language of the ubiquitous waterfront pier buildings, larger than life portals allow the public to glimpse the verdant playing fi eld without a ticket.

Construction dates: June 1999 – April 2001

Cost: $222 million

Photo

Cre

dit:

Ed M

ass

ery

Construction dates: December 1997 – April 2000

Cost: $291 million

Design-build team: Hunt Construction Group, construction manager; HOK Sport, design

Project: PNC Park Project: AT&T Park


Capacity: 47,900

Teams that use the facility: St. Louis Cardinals

Description: Only 75 percent of the ballpark was slated to open by April 2006; the design-build process elevated the construction schedule so that 85 percent of the project was done by April, which allowed the team to collect additional revenues that they hadn’t fi gured in the business plan. The St. Louis Cardinals jumped on their chance to have a new ballpark that could showcase St. Louis’ remarkable downtown skyline. However, one challenge existed – the new Busch Stadium was to overlap the old one by 25 percent – and the old Busch Stadium was not to be demolished until just six months prior to new ballpark opening. Using the design-build-bridging method on the project saved time and money to get the new ball-park opened by April 2006.

The Cardinals required a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) at the completion of design development documents. The Cardinals con-tracted with HOK Sport to be their design architect and bridge with a future design-build team. The builder also contracted with HOK’s St. Louis offi ce to provide construction documents and to complete the project. The builder assumed a single point of responsibility for all design and construction concerns once the GMP was set.


Cost: $365 million

Design/build team: Hunt, construction manager; HOK Sport, design architect, HOK, architect of record

Specialty contractors: Bliss and Nyitray, struc-tural; M-E Engineers, MEP; WJHW, audio/visual; David Mason, civil; Lerch Bates, trans-portation; Code Consultants Inc., codes.

Project: New Busch StadiumSpecialty contractors:

Temco (dome construction)

Sport(s) for which the stadium was built:

Men’s and Women’s Volleyball

Men’s and Women’s Basketball

Capacity: 10,031 seats

Team(s) the facility supports:

University of Hawaii Wahines

University of Hawaii Warriors

Description: The Special Events Arena was Hawaii’s fi rst public-sector design-build contract award. Design-build was selected only after the original design, completed in the traditional manner, signifi cantly exceeded the project budget. The competition format allowed the Pankow team to take an innovative approach to pro-ducing the seating and structural system. The method chosen proved to be much less expensive than the original design with no sacrifi ce of capacity or quality. The success of this project inspired the State of Hawaii to continue to use design-build procurement on important public projects.

The constricted site required an innovative solution for fabrication and staging. Pankow’s innovative use of “tilt-up” technology for on-site pre-cast beams instead of cast-in-place members. The project was delivered for the lump-sum guarantee price, two months ahead of schedule.

Construction dates: December 1992-August 1994

Cost: $32.24 million

Cost savings: By converting to design-build, the project met its budget goal.

Design-build fi rm/team:

Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd, Design-Builder; Heery International, Architect; Kauahikaua & Chun Architects, Architect; AM Structural Engineer, Ltd., Structural Engineer; Wil-son Okamoto & Associates, Civil Engineer; Southland Industries, HVAC Engineer; Sasco Electric, Electrical Engineer.

Project: University of Hawaii Special Events Arena

Photo

Cre

dit:

Haw

keye

Aer

ial P

hoto

gra

phy

Photo

Cre

dit:

Jim

Maguir

e



Design-build team: PJ Dick/Barton Malow, construction managers; HOK Sport/LD Astorino, architects (HOK, design; LDA, architect of record)

Specialty contractors: M-E Engineers, MEP; Thornton Tomasetti, structural; Code Consultants Inc., codes and life safety; WJHW, au-dio/visual, acoustical


Capacity: 37,900

Teams that use the facility: Pittsburgh Pirates

Description: PNC Park is one of America’s most intimate ballparks. Located at the foot of the Roberto Clemente bridge in Pittsburgh, the stadium offers spectacular views of the city. It is recognized as one of baseball’s most accessibly-friendly ballparks and received the Design-Build Award from the Master Builders Association.

architect; Michael Willis & Associates, associate architect

Specialty contractors: M-E Engineers, MEP; Thornton Tomasetti, structural; Rolf Jensen & Associates, codes/life safety; WJHW, audio/visual


Capacity: 40,700

Teams that use the facility: San Francisco Giants

Description: The site for AT&T Park has it all: San Francisco’s skyline, the hills of the East Bay and vivid ocean sunsets over the Golden Gate. Upon arrival visitors are greeted with a composition of steel, concrete and brick. Heroic in scale and proportion, the ballpark’s rugged face recaptures the spirit of the grand old game and the South of Market context. Flanked by clock towers, this face engages the city street network and the neighborhood’s scale. Recalling the language of the ubiquitous waterfront pier buildings, larger than life portals allow the public to glimpse the verdant playing fi eld without a ticket.

Construction dates: June 1999 – April 2001

Cost: $222 million

Photo

Cre

dit:

Ed M

ass

ery


Cost: $291 million

Design-build team: Hunt Construction Group, construction manager; HOK Sport, design

Project: PNC Park Project: AT&T Park


Capacity: 47,900

Teams that use the facility: St. Louis Cardinals

Description: Only 75 percent of the ballpark was slated to open by April 2006; the design-build process elevated the construction schedule so that 85 percent of the project was done by April, which allowed the team to collect additional revenues that they hadn’t fi gured in the business plan. The St. Louis Cardinals jumped on their chance to have a new ballpark that could showcase St. Louis’ remarkable downtown skyline. However, one challenge existed – the new Busch Stadium was to overlap the old one by 25 percent – and the old Busch Stadium was not to be demolished until just six months prior to new ballpark opening. Using the design-build-bridging method on the project saved time and money to get the new ball-park opened by April 2006.

The Cardinals required a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) at the completion of design development documents. The Cardinals con-tracted with HOK Sport to be their design architect and bridge with a future design-build team. The builder also contracted with HOK’s St. Louis offi ce to provide construction documents and to complete the project. The builder assumed a single point of responsibility for all design and construction concerns once the GMP was set.


Cost: $365 million

Design/build team: Hunt, construction manager; HOK Sport, design architect, HOK, architect of record

Specialty contractors: Bliss and Nyitray, struc-tural; M-E Engineers, MEP; WJHW, audio/visual; David Mason, civil; Lerch Bates, trans-portation; Code Consultants Inc., codes.

Project: New Busch StadiumSpecialty contractors:

Temco (dome construction)

Sport(s) for which the stadium was built:

Men’s and Women’s Volleyball

Men’s and Women’s Basketball


Team(s) the facility supports:

University of Hawaii Wahines

University of Hawaii Warriors

Description: The Special Events Arena was Hawaii’s fi rst public-sector design-build contract award. Design-build was selected only after the original design, completed in the traditional manner, signifi cantly exceeded the project budget. The competition format allowed the Pankow team to take an innovative approach to pro-ducing the seating and structural system. The method chosen proved to be much less expensive than the original design with no sacrifi ce of capacity or quality. The success of this project inspired the State of Hawaii to continue to use design-build procurement on important public projects.

The constricted site required an innovative solution for fabrication and staging. Pankow’s innovative use of “tilt-up” technology for on-site pre-cast beams instead of cast-in-place members. The project was delivered for the lump-sum guarantee price, two months ahead of schedule.

Construction dates: December 1992-August 1994

Cost: $32.24 million

Cost savings: By converting to design-build, the project met its budget goal.

Design-build fi rm/team:

Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd, Design-Builder; Heery International, Architect; Kauahikaua & Chun Architects, Architect; AM Structural Engineer, Ltd., Structural Engineer; Wil-son Okamoto & Associates, Civil Engineer; Southland Industries, HVAC Engineer; Sasco Electric, Electrical Engineer.

Project: University of Hawaii Special Events Arena

Photo

Cre

dit:

Haw

keye

Aer

ial P

hoto

gra

phy

Photo

Cre

dit:

Jim

Maguir

e



Sports for which the stadium was built: NFL Football

Capacity: 73,000

Teams the facility supports: Jacksonville Jaguars

Description: In 1993 THE National Football League awarded Jacksonville and expansion team franchise. Haskell was retained to provide pre-construction and construction services to demolish the old Gator Bowl facility and build a new 73,000-seat, state-of-the-art facility to serve as the Jacksonville Jaguars’ home playing fi eld and corporate headquarters. The facility had to be ready for the start of the 1995 season, leaving Haskell only 20 months to construct the new facility. In August 1995, the stadium was completed ahead of schedule, thus ensuring ample preparation time prior to the inau-gural Jaguars’ game. This was the most aggressive schedule ever achieved for an NFL stadium at the time.

The cast-in-place concrete structure with integral pre-cast/prestressed components required drilling 2,200 pilings to depths of 50 feed. Poured-in-place caps, grade beams, columns, slabs and rakers required more than 36,000 cubic yards of concrete and was following by the placing of 2,753 pre-cast concrete pieces.

Capacity: 1,870

Team(s) the facility supports: Colorado Ballet

Description: Throughout its 75-year history, the Paramount Theater has been utilized for movies and live performances. The theater came into the care of Kroenke Sports Enterprises (KSE) in 2002, at which time they began to plan innovative ways to restore the vitality of this grand old theater.

One such innovation was an opportunity with the Colorado Bal-let after the group was displaced by a massive renovation at their existing venue. This required renovation of the rigging capacity of the existing theater, lengthening of the stage and changes to ac-commodate a depressed orchestra pit. Dressing room capacity was expanded and access from the new dressing area was improved with an upgraded and fully enclosed and conditioned passage way. Existing bar facilities on the mezzanine level were in need of reno-vation as well.

The tightly knit team of designers and constructors were able to make decisions that incorporated both design issues and construc-tability issues in a manner that met the user needs that evolved throughout the project, the schedule constraints, and the budget. A more traditional construction delivery system could not have been as fl exible to the evolution of the user group needs, nor could it have accomplished this project in the time allowed.

Construction Dates: January 1994 –Septem-ber 1995

Cost: $129,081,655

Design-Build Firm: Joint venture between Haskell, HOK Sport, and Huber, Hunt & Nichols

Construction dates: June 2003-November 2003

Cost: $1.3 million.

Design-build fi rm/team: M. A. Mortenson Company with Brendle APV

Specialty contractors: BCER, electrical, mechanical, structural; MTECH, mechanical design assist; Elight, electrical; Nothhaft, fi re protection

Activity for which the facility was built: Ballet

Project: Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (formerly Alltel Stadium) Project: Paramount Theater

Specialty contractors: Walter P Moore, structural; Evans, Kuhn and Assoc., civil; M-E Engineers, MEP; Uni-Systems, roof mechanization; Urban Earth Design, landscape; PMK Associates, audio/visual

Sports for which stadium was built: Professional football

Capacity: 63,500; expandable to 72,800

Teams that use the facility: Arizona Cardinals

Description: HOK Sport, in collaboration with Eisenman Architects, created an icon in the desert of Arizona. The new multipurpose stadium, home of NFL’s Arizona Cardinals, occupies 25 acres and features a moveable stadium fl oor. When the grass slides outside the stadium, the underneath features a 152,000-square-foot concrete fl oor with an embedded utility grid that will allow the facility host various events like trade and consumer shows, conventions, con-certs, motor sports and rodeos. The facility also hosted Super Bowl XLII in 2008. Additionally, the stadium’s retractable roof creates a 100,000-square-foot opening to accommodate the desert climate. The facility is one of Business Week magazine’s 10 most impressive global sports structures and is the fi rst facility with a retractable fi eld in North America. HOK Sport contracted with owner through GMP, then contracted with owner after scope/price were set. The builder held 1/3 of all contracts

Construction dates: July 2003 – August 2006

Cost:$455 million

Design-build team: Hunt Construction Group, cm; HOK Sport and Eisenman Associates, architect

Project: University of Phoenix Stadium

Design-build fi rm: Haskell

Sports for which the stadium was built: Motor sports

Capacity: 168,000

Teams the facility supports: NASCAR

Description: In January 2004, International Speedway Corpora-tion (ISC) approached Haskell about an infi eld renovation project at Daytona International Speedway. ISC wanted to update the historic track by completely rebuilding all of the garage and infi eld structures, fi lling in a portion of Lake Lloyd to create a premium RV parking area, and adding a new access tunnel underneath the track to accommodate race-car trailers, heavy equipment, trucks and RV traffi c. Any one of the three projects would have been a challenge to design and construct during the time between the Pepsi 400 race event on July 4, 2004 and the Daytona 500 in February of 2005. Combining all three projects into a single-source design-build con-tract was the only way to accomplish this “fast-track” feat.

Construction Dates: July 2004-January 2005

Cost: $56,343,829.00

Project: Daytona International Speedway (Improvement Project)

Photo

Cre

dit:

HO

K S

port



Sports for which the stadium was built: NFL Football

Capacity: 73,000

Teams the facility supports: Jacksonville Jaguars

Description: In 1993 THE National Football League awarded Jacksonville and expansion team franchise. Haskell was retained to provide pre-construction and construction services to demolish the old Gator Bowl facility and build a new 73,000-seat, state-of-the-art facility to serve as the Jacksonville Jaguars’ home playing fi eld and corporate headquarters. The facility had to be ready for the start of the 1995 season, leaving Haskell only 20 months to construct the new facility. In August 1995, the stadium was completed ahead of schedule, thus ensuring ample preparation time prior to the inau-gural Jaguars’ game. This was the most aggressive schedule ever achieved for an NFL stadium at the time.

The cast-in-place concrete structure with integral pre-cast/prestressed components required drilling 2,200 pilings to depths of 50 feed. Poured-in-place caps, grade beams, columns, slabs and rakers required more than 36,000 cubic yards of concrete and was following by the placing of 2,753 pre-cast concrete pieces.

Capacity: 1,870

Team(s) the facility supports: Colorado Ballet

Description: Throughout its 75-year history, the Paramount Theater has been utilized for movies and live performances. The theater came into the care of Kroenke Sports Enterprises (KSE) in 2002, at which time they began to plan innovative ways to restore the vitality of this grand old theater.

One such innovation was an opportunity with the Colorado Bal-let after the group was displaced by a massive renovation at their existing venue. This required renovation of the rigging capacity of the existing theater, lengthening of the stage and changes to ac-commodate a depressed orchestra pit. Dressing room capacity was expanded and access from the new dressing area was improved with an upgraded and fully enclosed and conditioned passage way. Existing bar facilities on the mezzanine level were in need of reno-vation as well.

The tightly knit team of designers and constructors were able to make decisions that incorporated both design issues and construc-tability issues in a manner that met the user needs that evolved throughout the project, the schedule constraints, and the budget. A more traditional construction delivery system could not have been as fl exible to the evolution of the user group needs, nor could it have accomplished this project in the time allowed.

Construction Dates: January 1994 –Septem-ber 1995

Cost: $129,081,655

Design-Build Firm: Joint venture between Haskell, HOK Sport, and Huber, Hunt & Nichols

Construction dates: June 2003-November 2003

Cost: $1.3 million.

Design-build fi rm/team: M. A. Mortenson Company with Brendle APV

Specialty contractors: BCER, electrical, mechanical, structural; MTECH, mechanical design assist; Elight, electrical; Nothhaft, fi re protection

Activity for which the facility was built: Ballet

Project: Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (formerly Alltel Stadium) Project: Paramount Theater

Specialty contractors: Walter P Moore, structural; Evans, Kuhn and Assoc., civil; M-E Engineers, MEP; Uni-Systems, roof mechanization; Urban Earth Design, landscape; PMK Associates, audio/visual

Sports for which stadium was built: Professional football

Capacity: 63,500; expandable to 72,800

Teams that use the facility: Arizona Cardinals

Description: HOK Sport, in collaboration with Eisenman Architects, created an icon in the desert of Arizona. The new multipurpose stadium, home of NFL’s Arizona Cardinals, occupies 25 acres and features a moveable stadium fl oor. When the grass slides outside the stadium, the underneath features a 152,000-square-foot concrete fl oor with an embedded utility grid that will allow the facility host various events like trade and consumer shows, conventions, con-certs, motor sports and rodeos. The facility also hosted Super Bowl XLII in 2008. Additionally, the stadium’s retractable roof creates a 100,000-square-foot opening to accommodate the desert climate. The facility is one of Business Week magazine’s 10 most impressive global sports structures and is the fi rst facility with a retractable fi eld in North America. HOK Sport contracted with owner through GMP, then contracted with owner after scope/price were set. The builder held 1/3 of all contracts

Construction dates: July 2003 – August 2006

Cost:$455 million

Design-build team: Hunt Construction Group, cm; HOK Sport and Eisenman Associates, architect

Project: University of Phoenix Stadium

Design-build fi rm: Haskell

Sports for which the stadium was built: Motor sports

Capacity: 168,000

Teams the facility supports: NASCAR

Description: In January 2004, International Speedway Corpora-tion (ISC) approached Haskell about an infi eld renovation project at Daytona International Speedway. ISC wanted to update the historic track by completely rebuilding all of the garage and infi eld structures, fi lling in a portion of Lake Lloyd to create a premium RV parking area, and adding a new access tunnel underneath the track to accommodate race-car trailers, heavy equipment, trucks and RV traffi c. Any one of the three projects would have been a challenge to design and construct during the time between the Pepsi 400 race event on July 4, 2004 and the Daytona 500 in February of 2005. Combining all three projects into a single-source design-build con-tract was the only way to accomplish this “fast-track” feat.

Construction Dates: July 2004-January 2005

Cost: $56,343,829.00

Project: Daytona International Speedway (Improvement Project)

Photo

Cre

dit:

HO

K S

port

20 Design-Build DATELINE — June 2008

Grand Slam

Design-Build Team: Old Dominion University, owner; S.B. Ballard Construction Company, general contractor; Clark Nexsen and Eller-be Beckett, architect; S.B. Ballard Construction Company, concrete contractors; Metromont, pre-cast garage contractor

Description: The addition of a game day building/luxury suites and parking garage facility at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., includes a game day building with luxury suites, loge seating, press box and meeting and exam rooms. The parking garage will consist of fi ve levels, with one on grade and the other four elevated. The parking structure will total 216,361 square feet and include 724 parking spaces. Visit www.sbballard.com for live camera footage of in-progress construction and the video prepared for the project presentation.

Project: Old Dominion University Foreman Field Football Complex and Parking Garage, Norfolk, Va.

Construction Company; Empire Construction Services; Alvarado Construction. Walter P. Moore & Associates and The Shefl in Group, structural engineers; Kumar and Associates Inc., Geotechnical Engi-neering; HNTB and J.F. Sato and Associates Civil Engineering; M.E. Engineers Inc.; Western Industrial Contractors; HNTB and Compo-sitions, interior design; Pelton Marsh Kinsella, TV broadcast and acoustics; Civitas and The Offi ce of Kim Wilson, urban planning and landscape; Millennium, turf/irrigation.

Cost: $404 million


Total cost (2001): $404 million

Events/Teams hosted: Denver Broncos, Denver Outlaws (lacrosse), Colorado Rapids (soccer), high school and collegiate sporting events, concerts, special events, trade shows and civic events.

Description: INVESCO Field at Mile High was designed as a sta-dium within a park to encourage pre-game activities. Utilizing design-build, the team was able to provide the client a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the project budget. HNTB joint-ventured with contractor Turner Construction Company (Turner/HNTB joint venture) to deliver a signature stadium on a tight schedule that exceeded the expectations of the client, team owner, fans and the Denver community. Design-build assured the stadium would open in time for the 2001 NFL pre-season. Construction began during the design phase, and the project was completed in 27 months, two weeks ahead of schedule and $4.5 million under budget.

Construction dates: 4/1/1999 to 8/26/2001

Design-Build Team/Firms: Turner/HNTB Joint Venture; HNTB Architecture, design archi-tect; Fentress Architects, associate architect; Bertram A. Bruton, associate architect; Turner

Completion Date: September 2009

Project: INVESCO Field at Mile High

Design-Build forEducational Facilities

Design-BuildDATELINEThe Journal of the Design-Build Institute of America June 2007

Typical Cover Design Before Six | Half | Dozen

8 Design-Build DATELINE — June 2007

The mix is one of energy and action. Add to that mix the need to upgrade the aging

facilities, with those same students present, and you have a laboratory for the effective use of design-build project delivery. The lab has many tests; safety, security, planning, noise and dust control, maintenance of operations, and of course teach-ing and learning. This lab is one which will put the owner, the staff, and the design-builder under the microscope. However, there is much good to be discovered. We look at school renovation and expansion much like a high school lab assign-ment using Purpose, Procedure, and Results.

PurposeIn simple terms, the purpose of a renovation/expansion project might be to upgrade facilities or to add student stations. But the deeper purpose of the project is driven at the school board policy level, and more likely to be ensuring facilities

are safe, accessible, and that they promote effective learning.

According to School Planning and Management 2007 Construction Report, renovation and expansion of K-12 campuses represented 38 percent of the $20 billion school building market during 2006 nation-

Design-Build for Renovation/Expansion of School Facilities:A Laboratory ApproachBy Dave Balz

Teenagers, hundreds of them … streaming in and out of buildings with a chatty flow. They pour out of classrooms, crisscrossing courtyards, clamoring up and down the stairwells. Such is the world of high school on any busy day. }{

Typical Page Design Before Six | Half | Dozen

Design-Build DATELINE — June 2007 9

Design-Build Renovation/Expansion of School Facilities: A Laboratory Approach

wide. Such a significant volume of work on active campuses is likely to cause disruption to the educational process. This is where the speed and effectiveness of design-build come into play. The high school environment is a complicated lab and perhaps the ultimate test of design-build because so many variables are present. As a contrast, elementary students are much more closely supervised, and university students operate in campuses with more mature students. High school students, with their quasi-indepen-dence and active circulation, put the design-build team to the test. So, let’s consider the approach.

ProcedureBeginning with planning and pro-curement, the owner must make the key decision about delivery system. They must understand their own organization’s capabilities

and decide on key issues including overall project budget, program parameters, and whether they will have the requisite expertise on staff. If not, they will need an agency representative to guide the pro-cess. The agency representative, or “Owner’s Rep,” should be a knowl-edgeable individual who knows the district’s standard, the design-build process, and preferably knows the school’s on-campus staff. Due to the complexities of hidden conditions and frequently a lack of existing documentation, renovation/expan-sion work is often difficult to award on a technical and price basis. The work is much more conducive to a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) process. This awards the project to the design-builder who, by way of qualifications submittal and interview, demonstrates the greatest skills, ability, and experi-ence to successfully accomplish

the project. Typical for this type of project would be the use of DBIA’s contract and general conditions for a Guaranteed Maximum Price Con-tract between Owner and Design-Builder.

Once awarded, the design-builder and owner’s team must develop a thorough project definition and de-sired project outcomes. Particularly in renovation/expansion work, the school’s administrative and curricu-lum staff must be involved. This will add a dynamic to the process which is different than a “green field” project where the school’s staff in many cases will not be selected until the project is well underway. For purposes of our lab analogy, consider who might be involved in project definition and desired out-comes. In most districts the Facilities Director is the primary “owner” of the project process. Typically it is a member of the Facilities Depart-

Typical Page Design Before Six | Half | Dozen

Documents

DBIA_Ballpark