FOREST SERVICE CONSOLIDATION PROJECT SIDNEY YATES BUILDING,

WASHINGTON DC

March 7, 2014 Jag Bhargava

2

AGENDA

1. Overview2. Background3. Project Evolution4. Lessons Learned5. What We Would Do Again6. What We Would Not Do Again7. Conclusion8. Q & A

3

OVERVIEWGSA completed the modernization of the Sidney Yates BuildingBridging-Design Build. $30M, 210,000 GSFThis ambitious project was delivered in only 7-months, on-time and on-budget.Discuss lessons learned Discuss how leadership, team building and communication facilitated resolution of many issues.

4

BACKGROUNDProject consolidates spaces leased by FS.Increased occupancy from 420 FTE to 762 FTE.Scope includes:

Complete interior modernization.Upgrading the HVAC system from a 2-pipe to a 4-pipe hot/chill water distribution system.Open office spaces, lighting and acoustical measures.

5

FREEZE THE FOOTPRINTFOREST SERVICE COSOLIDATION

The modernization and space consolidation provided the Forest Service the opportunity to achieve the following goals:• Design an improved work environment for employees• Increase collaboration• Create the workplace and workforce of the future• Significantly limiting the number of private offices, utilizing

one workstation size, providing shared conference and common support spaces and assigning workstations for only 75 percent of the staff, are changes that bring a positive impact on reducing space.

6

PROJECT EVOLUTION1. Project Definition BDs

Program of Requirement - Studios (Bridging Architect) Concept - Studios Design Development - Studios Change Management - Studios Performance Specifications - Syska Hennessy Group Commissioning - Commissioning & Green Building

Solutions2. Design-Build Construction- Design

100 CDs - RTKL (Architect-of-the-Record)3. Design-build Contractor (DBC)

General Construction/DBC - Grunley HVAC Sub - Limbach Electrical Sub - Singleton

4. Construction Management• CM - URS

7

LESSONS LEARNED

1. Delivery Method2. Bridging Architect and Bridging

Design3. Construction Manger4. Design-Build-Contractor5. GSA6. Forest Service/Customer

8

DELIVERY METHOD (BRIDGING-DESIGN-BUILD)

Problem 1: Incomplete levels of design and conflicting requirements in the bridging documents.

Lessons Learned: Clearly and explicitly state and qualify in the RFP, and prior to DBC contract award that there are incomplete levels of design, NICs, uncoordinated historic elements and that the DBC is responsible to clarify what the design intent and requirements are.

Problem 2: Some prescriptive design requirements are not fully coordinated with the existing structure.

Lessons Learned: Ensure the DBC confirms the prescriptive requirements are viable and that design and construction can successfully be achieved.

9

DELIVERY METHOD (BRIDGING-DESIGN-BUILD) CONTINUEDProblem 3: Bridging Design-Build may not work for all

projects.Lessons Learned: Ensure bridging design-build works

for your project.Problem 4: In the kick-off meeting, a clear definition of

design delivery was not made and the bid (firm fixed price) is based on the bridging documents.

Lessons Learned: Make sure all team members understand that GC’s budget is a fixed price contract and is based on the bid provided for the bridging documents. Otherwise the deviation from the RFP documents, both the schedule and the cost will be impacted.

10

BRIDGING ARCHITECT/BRIDGING DESIGNProblem 1: The bridging design was completed without performing a

thorough site visit, as there were several issues, such as fire protection of raised floors, architectural features that the existing structure could not support.

Lessons Learned: Make sure enough site visits are conducted and uncover al the hidden elements in walls, floor, etc.

Problem: 2 Some design requirements were not cost effective. Numerous types of lighting fixtures were specified. Lighting was an option to the DBC’s contract. That was not exercised due to high cost.

Lessons Learned: Ensure the bridging documents are properly reviewed and life cycle costs are determined prior to issuing the RFP.

Problem: 3 The bridging design had in several location marked NIC. This was not discovered prior to issuing the RFP, resulting in a costly change order.

Lessons Learned: Ensure the bridging documents are well reviewed and coordinated prior to issuing the RFP.

11

DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTOR (DBC)Problem 1: The DBC not providing a resource loaded

CPM schedule until late in the project.Lesson Learned: Ensure that the DBC understands the

expectations prior to contract award that resource loaded CPM schedule to be submitted within the time prescribed in the RFP. Normally, 60 days after NTP

Problem 2: 3500 punch list items 3 weeks prior to occupancy.

Lessons Learned: Ensure that the punch list items are addressed as the floors are completed and not wait until all floors are occupied. Also have one consolidated punch list between GSA, CM & DBC.

12

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (CM)

Problem: The CM was not on board until after the DBC started design. The ongoing document and frequent lack of direct communication between DBC and CM was partially the result of CM coming on board so late.

Lesson Learned: To prevent mistakes for not coordinating and reviewing, could have been avoided , if the CM contracted for the project prior to issuing the RFP, maybe even when the BDs are done.

13

GSAProblem 1: Adversarial relationship, blame game, letter war during construction,

particularly in such a fast paced contract.Lessons Learned: Ensure communication between all parties, particularly at all

levels of the project teams. Hold partnering sessions to solve problems and work through the issues.

Problem 2: The RFP and the DBC’s contract award letter indicated performance period of 7 months, dated May 22, 2013. 7 months would have been December 22, 2013. However, NTP was issued 22 days later called for November 30, 2013, contract completion.

Lessons Learned: Never indicate in the NTP completion date, but cite the number of calendar days.

Problem 3: Several historic elements were not reviewed early on by GSA historic preservation officer, DC SHPO and CM review personnel. Numerous, historic element, solutions were discussed during the CD’s design. Had to revisit the previously approved concepts and hiccups during construction

Lessons Learned: Involve GSA historic preservation officer, DC SHPO and CM review personnel at the concept and schematic stage. Also make GSA’s historic preservation officer present in all design review meetings & partnering sessions.

14

GSA (Continued)Problem 4: The exclusion of furniture and tele/data design in

the DBC contract was a serious problem, such as the conduit for tele/data exposed on newly framed partitions.

Lessons Learned: Include furniture selection, installation and tele/data design in the DBC’s contract.

Problem 5: Insufficient time for VE workshop was a problem with cost effective solutions.

Lessons Learned: Ensure VE sessions are conducted prior to the DBC starting the design.

Problem 6: Very little design coordination/information of existing MEP infrastructure was provided in the RFP documents.

Lesson Learned: Ensure more time be allowed to coordinate existing and proposed architectural conditions with existing MEP systems prior to CDs stage to avoid unexpected costs and schedule impacts.

15

CUSTOMERS/FOREST SERVICEProblem : Tenant requirements not incorporated

into construction documents.Lessons Learned: All support and “specialty”

criteria, including, but not limited to, furniture, IT, telecommunications, security, audio visual, signage should be identified before the RFP is issued. If this cannot be done, the owner should include language, making all aspects of the activity a part of the DB contract and/or include allowances line item for a lump sum amount in the base contract to minimize the impact of future change orders and delays.

16

WHAT WOULD WE DO AGAIN1. Partnering.2. Good communication with DBC before writing letters.3. Weekly progress meeting with all parties.4. Have a strong CM, which is really vital.5. Have a well-defined change order process.6. Punch list process, GSA’s and DBC’s7. Phased turnover if expedited.8. Orderly progression of work with little stacking of

trades.9. Well coordinated furniture delivery.10.Material delivery in good condition – logistics.

17

WHAT WE WOULDN’T DO AGAIN1. Definitely have one entity do the programming, concepts and DD’s.2. More thorough research needed of the existing conditions prior to

completing BDs.3. Furniture delivery and installation not done by DBC and not coordinated

with CDs.4. Bridging A/E needs to verify design will work.5. Failure to provide cost loaded baseline and resource loaded schedule.6. Insufficient time to complete punch list items.7. Failure to provide clear definition of design-build delivery at the project

kick-off meeting.8. Excluding DC SHPO and GSA’s Historic Preservation Officer and the CM

design review personnel during concept stage.9. Failure to allow additional time for building survey prior to the start of

design.10. Very little coordination/information of existing MEP infrastructure was

provided in the RFP documents.11. Failure to include furniture selection and tele/data design in the DBC

contract12. All time for VE workshop prior to award of bid

18

Pictures after Project Completionusda fs pics.pdf

19

CONCLUSIONThe bridging-design-build delivery method of the Yates project was a tremendous success.The project required team work and dedication of everyone; Studios, URS, Grunley, RTKL, Limbach, Singleton, Syska Hennessey Group, Commissioning & Green Building Solutions, Forest Service, and GSA. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to work with such a committed group of professionals on a truly unique and interesting building!

20

GSA/NCR Projects in the President’s 2014 Budget

Project Name Delivery Method Funds ($Millions)

1. St. Elizabeth’s Phase 2a (DHS &FEMA)

Bridging Design Build

155

2. Lafayette Phase 2 DBB 54.3

3. Commerce DBB Exercise Option 77.4

4. Department of Interior

DBB Exercise Option 60.1

5. Department of State Phase 1C

DBB 58.9