DOC

Compilation of responses to

By Melissa Chavez,2014-04-21 21:44
8 views 0
Compilation of responses to

    Compilation of responses to

    Alternative Delivery Pilot Program Assessment Questions

    For

    Bangor High School Design/build Project

    Note: This includes only those questions that were answered

    Alternative Delivery Pilot Program Assessment Questions

    Bangor High School Design/Build (1st of 6 responses)

    Response from Owner’s Special Advisor

    General questions for all participants (Owner’s Team, Design Team,

    Construction Team, DOE, BGS):

    1. What TYPE OF BUILDING PROJECT did you work with? Please check to

    indicate:

     New Building Renovation Addition / Expansion

2. What TYPE OF DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION APPROACH did you use?

     Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Construction Manager at Risk

     Construction Manager Advisor

3. What was the final total project cost? Approx. $4.5 million

4. Overall, did the chosen approach best serve the interest of the public? Yes

    No

    Please explain how the chosen approach did or did not result in:

    a) project cost savings

    b) project cost control

    c) short-term or long-term value for the money spent

    d) meeting an aggressive time schedule The driving force was an aggressive time schedule to be ready for an influx of students which could not be handled in existing facility.

    e) time or schedule savings or delays Time savings were an absolute necessity.

    f) including all desired components of the building "Bridging" form of Design/Build used to assure inclusion of desired features

    g) inclusion of desired quality of building materials and equipment Performance

    specifications written in a way to assure quality materials

    h) improved warranty service Were required by Performance Specifications

    i) ease of project administration

    j) other:

5. Was the facility program identified and achieved? Yes No

    Please explain:

6. Were the design objectives maximized? Yes No

    Please comment in terms of:

    a) Aesthetics Some variation from originally planned but were acceptable to achieve

    budget and cost controls.

    b) Quality Quality materials were required and used.

    c) Function Most functional requirements were included in Performance Specifications

    and were achieved.

7. How were design decisions made? Because "Bridging" form of design/build was used

    many design decisions were made during devepolment of RFP and some design decisions

    were the result of being an addition to an existing building.

8. When in the process was the project cost identified? Total project cost identified prior to

    issuance of RFQ (and advertisment for interested firms) and this information was

    included in the RFQ.

    Was this done at the appropriate time in the process? Yes No

    Comment: The inclusion of the information in the RFQ reduced the possibility that he

    project size would result in a change in the firms that responded.

9. Was there a detailed project budget? Yes No

    At what point was this established?

    Was this done at the appropriate time in the process? Yes No

    Comment:

10. Did the project cost at completion meet expectations? Yes No

    Comment:

11. Did the project come in within the planned budget? Yes No

    Comment:

12. If the project was over budget, how were cost reductions handled?

13. When in the process was the project schedule identified? The general project schedule

    was prepared prior to the issuance of the RFQ to identify interested firms and was

    included in the RFQ documentation. Firms that could not meet the proposed schedule

    were not considered.

    Was this done at the appropriate time in the process? Yes

14. Did the final project schedule meet expectations? Yes No

    Comment:

15. Was the project completed on schedule? Yes No

    Comment: There were some problems related to delivery of material that could not have

    been anticipated and some were the result of the aggressive time schedule.

16. Was the lowest possible price paid for the project? Yes No

    Comment:

17. Was the fairest price paid for the project? Yes No

    Comment:

18. Did the Owner receive full value for its investment? Yes No

    Comment:

19. Was the process “transparent” – open to appropriate review? Yes No

    Comment: With the exception of the actual evaluation and grading of the RFQ and RFP submittals, everything was done in the open

    47. Did all three parties to the process (owner, designer, constructor) avail themselves of the

    alternative delivery system features and use them properly? Yes No

    Comment: Because this was a "Design/Build Project, there were only 2 parties but the

    features were used properly.

    48. Did all parties understand the features, advantages, and disadvantages of the systems?

     Yes No Comment: My primary function in this project was to assure the

    "Owner's Team" understood and properly used the features and advantages of the

    "Design/Build" process. This required an extensive education process as neither the

    Owner (School Superintendant) nor the Owner's "Criteria Consultant (Owner's Rep")

    had done a design/build project.

49. Were disputes minimized? Yes No

    Comment:

50. Were all appropriate State agency approvals and sign-offs obtained? Yes No

    Comment: There were some problems because this was the first (and only) design/build

    project done in the "Pilot Program" and the various State Agencies had to be educated

    on the process as well as the specific project.

    51. What was the source, i.e., AIA, BGS, of the contract and construction documents and

    supplements used? As this project was early in the process, BGS had not established any

    standards. Because of my familiarity with the standard contract and other "boiler plate

    documents" prepared by the Design/Build Institute of America, these were used and

    modified to comply with specific State of Maine requirements. Approval was obtained

    from BGS for the use of modified DBIA "boiler plate". It should also be noted that the

    software program used to develop the performance specifications had been coordinated

    with DBIA "boiler plate" in the development process.

    25. Were final construction documents prepared prior to CM selection and cost proposals?

     Yes No Comment: NO CM

    Were there changes to those final documents? Yes No If so, when?

26. How satisfied were you with the PROCESS: 5-Very Satisfied

27. How satisfied were you with the RESULTS: 5-Very Satisfied

28. Do you feel that you SAVED TIME: 5-Yes

29. Do you feel that you SAVED MONEY: select one

30. Do you feel that you gained VALUE in the school design compared to what you might

    have obtained through a traditional Design-Bid-Build process: select one

31. Do you feel that you gained VALUE in the completed school building compared to what

    you might have obtained through a traditional Design-Bid-Build process: 5-More Value

32. Was the alternative delivery process MORE DIFFICULT or EASIER to administer than

    traditional Design-Bid-Build: 5-Easier

    33. Were the state and local officials you dealt with able to appropriately assist with the

    planning and management of the chosen delivery system? Yes No

    Please explain: As indicated earlier, as this project was done in the early stages of the "Pilot Program", it was necessary to educate both state and local officials to the differences that existed in the design/build process for buildings and other traditional or alternative delivery system methods. The fact that the "bridging" form of design/build simplified some of this process but most state and local officials had unrealistic expectations based on their experience with traditional methods

34. Was your interaction with the Alternative Advisory Review Panel productive? Yes

     No

    Please comment on how the Alternative Advisory Review Panel could improve its

    support role by:

    a) Meeting with applicant teams earlier in the process Meetings with applicant teams

    does need occure as early as possible.

    b) Providing more specific information on the different options In general this might

    have been a beneficial but for this specific project the time schedule limited the

    options.

    c) Offering information sessions for Owners before they choose designer or contractor

    All of the meetings and State Agency approvals were done prior to considering the

    responses to the RFP submitted by design/build firms. In general, this would be of

    help where the Owner has not made a final decision or where there are opportunities

    for different approached.

    d) Meeting periodically with full teams as the project goes forward Probably of little

    value unless requested by Owner's Team.

    e) Other

35. Were your interactions with BGS productive? Yes No

    Please comment on how BGS could improve its performance

    a) Providing improved contract documents At the time this project was started as a

    "Design/Build Project, BGS did not have any standard contract documents for

    Design/Build.

    b) Providing a process for add alternates and value engineering Not appropriate for

    Design/Build

    c) Reviewing and commenting on the plans Probably not appropriate for Design/Build

    as design is responsibility of Design/Build entity and any changes have cost

    implications as well as liability implications.

    d) Other

36. Would you use this system again? Yes No Why? Design/build can be a

    very appropriate method where time is the controlling factor AND the Owner fully

    understands the "trade-offs" that must be made and the loss of some traditional controls

    when "Design/Build" is used

    37. Do you have other suggestions or thoughts that you would like us to consider?

    See separate report prepared by Dick Eustis dated Nov. 6, 2005.

General questions for members of the Owner’s Team:

    38. Did you understand your selected Alternative Delivery System at the start of your project?

    5-Yes

39. Do you understand it significantly better now? select one

40. What were your reasons for choosing the design/construction process you used? Critical

    time limitations

    How did these reasons relate to your particular circumstances? There was only about 9

    months from time of first meeting with school superintendant to discuss project alternatives until multi-million dollar addition/renovation project had to be completed and ready for occupancy.

    How did the chosen system not suit your purposes?

    41. Did you understand the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to your

    design/construction project at the start of your project? Yes No

    At the end of your project? Yes No

    Comment:

42. Were the Maine State Learning Results a factor in the design? Yes No

    Comment: Unknown

43. Was a life cycle cost analysis done for the project? Yes No

    At what point? A "Life Cycle cost anaylysis was not done but "Performance Standards" were establised for each element as a part of the "Performance Specifications". RFP documents required compliance with energy efficent standards for all products and construction.

44. Did the project solve all the long-term needs of the facility? Yes No

    Comment: Unknown but prbably not all "Long-term Needs" as this project was to

    address partilar "space limitations" and in the proces bring the facility into compliance

    with federal accessibility standards (ADA).

45. Were Educational Specifications done prior to the design of the project? Yes

    No

    If so, were they followed or compromised?

46. Was there a building committee for the project? Yes No

    If so, please provide the interests represented, i.e., superintendent, citizen, School Board

    member, facilities manager: Superintendent, School Board, School Business Manager,

    Facilities Manager.

47. Was technology a consideration in the design? Yes No

    Comment: Performance specifications defined basic infrastructure requirements with

    the Bangor School Department installing cable and equipment.

48. What percent of the budget was dedicated to equipment and technology?

49. What percent of the construction cost was carried in the budget for contingency?

50. Was consideration of security for the building part of the planning process? Yes

    No

    Was there consideration of security for building users? Yes No

    Comment: Security during construction and in the completed facility were included in

    the "Performance Specifications" that were apart of the RFP.

51. Was site circulation or site safety a consideration in the planning process? Yes

    No

    Comment: One of the major problems that had to be addresses was improving circulation while compling with fire codes and improving accessibility for disabled.

52. Did you have an Owner’s Representative? Yes No

    If “yes,” what were their primary responsibilities? In Design/Build, this is frequently

    called a "Criteria Consultant" and is reponsible for the preparation of the RFQ and RFP

    Documents as well as providing inspection and approvals that are appropriate for the

    "Design/Build" form of project procurement. In this specific project, I prepared the RFQ

    as well as providing the advice on the RFP because of lack of experience on this type of

    activity by the Criteria Consultant (Owner's Rep)

58. Would you use this particular Alternative Delivery System process again? 5-Yes

    59. What were the total square feet of new construction and/or renovation for the project?

    60. What was the final cost per square foot for design and construction for both new

    construction and renovation for the project:

    New construction:

    Renovation:

61. Please comment on how BGS could improve its performance:

    a) Providing guidelines on the cost of general conditions Not appropriate for

    Design/Build

    b) Educating owners on the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the project team

    members This would be a major help. In this project one of the major parts of my job

    was to educate the members of the Owner's Team on Design/Build, how it should

    function, the use of performance specifications and the evaluation of both the RFQ and

    the RFP.

    c) Other

    62. Should there be more education for the industry concerning the use of alternative delivery

    systems?

     Yes No

    If yes, who should provide it Alternative Delivery Review Panel

    Comment/Specify: This needs to be done by people who are not only knowledgeable but also who are seen as unbiased as to the various methods. Every delivery method has appropriate uses and the selection of a method should be based on what is most appropriate for a specific project.

    63. Do you have other suggestions or thoughts that you would like us to consider?

    See separate report prepared by Dick Eustis dated Nov. 6, 2005.

     (provided at the end of this compilation)

    Alternative Delivery Pilot Program Assessment Questions

    ndBangor High School Design/Build (2 of 6 responses)

    Response of Owner’s Criteria Consultant

    General questions for all participants (Owner’s Team, Design Team, Construction Team, DOE,

    BGS):

    1. What TYPE OF BUILDING PROJECT did you work with? Please check to indicate:

     New Building Renovation Addition / Expansion

2. What TYPE OF DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION APPROACH did you use?

     Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Construction Manager at Risk

     Construction Manager Advisor

3. What was the final total project cost? $4,500,000

4. Overall, did the chosen approach best serve the interest of the public? Yes No

    Please explain how the chosen approach did or did not result in:

    a) project cost savings did not

    b) project cost control final selection of materials by owner and contractor

    c) short-term or long-term value for the money spent long term value by owner input thruout the construction process

    d) meeting an aggressive time schedule It was the only way the project could be completed in the short time

    e) time or schedule savings or delays Sudden increase in tuition students required more space

    f) including all desired components of the building Bridging team identified needs

    g) inclusion of desired quality of building materials and equipment bridging documents

    h) improved warranty service

    i) ease of project administration fewer players

    j) other:

5. Was the facility program identified and achieved? Yes No

    Please explain: School representatives met with bridging team

6. Were the design objectives maximized? Yes No

    Please comment in terms of:

    a) Aesthetics existing building, not as important

    b) Quality identified materials specifications in the proposal

    c) Function bridging design established the basics, design-build team carried it on

    7. How were design decisions made? weekly meetings with Owner, Owner's Rep, and Design-

    Build firm

8. When in the process was the project cost identified? beginning

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com