Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-11-2002-5ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 11, 2002 Actlan Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: ConsWtlion Management DEPARTMENT: Pu¢hasing antl Central Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) 0 ATTACHMENT(BI: INFORMATION CONTACT: Pem Jones (919) 245-2852 Memgrentlum from June 11, 2002 Work session on the same topic TELEPHONE NUMBERS: HIIlsborougM1 ]52~81at CM1apel Hill 8681501 OuMam 688-]351 Mebane 33682]-2031 PURPOSE: To consltler wnslruction management antl how 8 may fl into projects cgnstrude0 by Orange County. BACKGROUND: The egaM has lxeviously tliawssetl the merits of retainingaconslmctlon manage for County protects. TM1e aHachetl material explores how 1n'rs might be acwmplishetl. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Finandal impact would be evaluatetl at such Bme lhatapreMretl approach rs cited. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager rewmmentls that the BgaM receive the information antl provide tlirection to stag regartl'mg now II desires to pursue proleH management. a Memorandum To. County Commissioners From: Pam Jones. Director of Purchasing antl Central Services RE: Construction Management br County-FUntletl Projects Date'. June 4, 2002 The Boats has previously requestetl that information regaNing wnatmction management options for County-fundetl projects be provided. The attachetl information is provitletl so that it may be consitlered in the mntext of projects being consitleretl as part of the 2002- 2012 Capital Investment Plan. The attachetl packet of information includes the following information fir wnsitleretion tluring the butlget work session an June 11, 2002 1. The list of potential tasks fora construction manager 2. Apoten[ial selection process fora construction manager 3. June 30, 1999 meeting documents: (Proposetl a contract with PES, a consulting him, to VE 2 schools, Smith Middle antl Pathways Elementary) a. The abstract, which inGudes a Scepe of Work statement from PES, the recommandetl value engineering firm; and b. Minutes i. Note: BOCC action wes ro nct endorse the PES contract that would have provided value engineering to Smith Mitltlle School antl Pathways Elementary Schools. The rest was $39,295 per school; antl ii. To pursue"phase two'of value engineering (the result was CEFI) 4. December ~, 1999 meeting documents: (Cost Eficient Facilities Indiatives (CEFI) report wes given at This meeting. s. The abstract, which inclutlatl the CEFI report b. Minutes I. Note: The BOCG approvetl the CEFI concept and instructed the that this discussion should be heltl with the Schaal BoaNa s[[he Joint meeting on December 13, 1999. 5. December 13, 1999 Join[ BOCCISChool Boartl meeting (CEFI tliscussetl) s. Minutes I. Note: No reference to decisions by me BpaM 3 Potential tasks of a wnsYmction manager (GM): The construction manager (GM) woultl: 1. Be retained prior to the design mnsuliant being selected. 2. Participate in the selection of the design consulfanf team. a. Coordinate with Purchasing Dlrec[orto negotiate design firm inntraa. 3. Contluc[all meetings amongthe stakeholders and the design firm during the design formulation process. 4. Review drawings preparetl bythe designers and suggest mptlificationsl alternatives that might be more economicallylfunctionay advantageous to tie County. Design modifications would be bsaetl on a life cycle cos[ analysis to the etlant practicable. 5. Prepareantl/or cooMinata wRh tlesigner to prepare information neetletl for regulatory approvals. s. Attend meetings as may be required in the regulatory approval process. 6. Review consWC[ion bitls antl wortlinates with Purchasing Director to prepare ward materials for Board approval. 7. Prepare wnstruction contracts for contractors. During constmdion Me GM will: 8. Provide intensive on-site daily observation for [he amount of time appropriate for the stage of innstmction. Far example. the GM woultl need to be on site at all times during periods when inncrete is being pouretl, stmctural steel is being set, etc., but may not need [o be on ske a hours per tlay during a period where they are painting walls or laying carpet. As a mle of thumb, they should be on ske anytime the work being accomplishetl will not ix directly observable by the next woBtley. 9. CM would observe methods and means of conatmdion antl inordinate wl[h the tlesigner to wrest any deficiencies. Nate: Itwillbeimpprtanitoensureawell- defined reporting protocol for these Instances to minimize wnFlict among [he various parties. 10. CM represents the county at all wns[mc[ion ralatetl meetings between tlesigner and wntractors. 11.GM maintains all project ralatetl recoMS; e.g. cast, schedule, etc. 12. Handles requests for change oMers. 13. Reviews and approves all shop drawings. 14. Provides "clerk of the works' function, Le. is the know all person on the project, familiar wbh all aspects. 15.Provides monthly repads to the County, identifying ell rsRical project components antl Neir status (e.g. wsVSChetlule, predicting "bumps in the road", etc). There are a lo[ of detail tasks far which the CM would also be responsible, but we can develop those when the decision is made to move PorwaN. A potential selection process for retaining the CM could ba as follows: 1. A scope of work for the CM is developed, inclutling those tasks listetl above, as wall as others that will be obtained through various comments from the Board and others. 2. An RFP is prepared and interested firms are solbited. (AS I untlerstand d, there are many firms now interested in this type of work, particulatly in view of the recent legislative changes in Purchasing Laws, eRective January 1, 2002.) 3. A saleUion team representing et least the following'mterests is formetl: a. County Commissioner b. Purchasing Director c. An architect" tl. A contractor"` "These representatives would be able to ask Questions entl pose situations that the CM woultl be expelled to deal with on site. They would be able to raise issues with which the County stag antl Commissioners have limited experience. Their expertise would also be valuable in assessing the answers given by [he potential CM cantlitlates. 4. The resulting recommendation woultl be presented to the full BOCC for consideration. 5. The CM woultl be hired on a project-by-project basis to ensure that the County hatl access to the best skill set needed for a specific job. 5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION ADENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Mee[inB Oaten June 3o, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. B-d SUBJECT: Value Enpinee0ng Consultant Selection DEPARTMENT: Purchasirg 8 Cenhal Services PUBLIC HEPRINO: (YIN) ~o__] ATTACHMENTIS): INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link, extension 2300 Swpe of work statement hom PES Paul Thames, extension 2300 Cost DroDOSaI Pem Jones, eztension 2652 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 132A181 Chapel Hill 888-0501 Ourbam 668-]331 Mebane 33822]3031 PURPOSE: To consider authorizing COUnry staff to complete negotiations on an agreement with Pacific Environmental Services (PES) to wnduct construdibiliry reviews for Nup schppls: and to endorse a sewnd phase of the seleUipn pmmae for a value engineering 5rm. BACKGROUND: The desire of the County Commissioners to gain ballet control of rewurces elated wlO wnsbuctipn of County arq school faglihe615 well tlommenled. Value Brig nearing was identified ass pplandal answer to this Issue. As dari0wtion. value engmeedng is a process whereby each and every aspect of a pmjed Is reviewed by an unbiased Mlyd pally, in wllaboretlon with the other key players, such as the designer and school andlor County personnel. In oMar [o ensure that value-engineering resoumes were available for the school projecs during the summer, the selection panel wen[ through an intensive process wuh sVident hme constraints to bringforwaNarecommentlalion for Board mnsidemtlon. The aeleclipn prowss was enlightening end bmughl new perspective about what a whole value-engineering program should be and what could be expected of a Dropedy carried out program. The interviewing wnaultante suppoded what we have heats before, value engineering Is most ehec0ve with it Is begun early in project Oevelopmenl. Since bltltling for the middle school pmjed in Chapel HIII and the elementary school in Orange County is imminent, these projects could no[ experience the lull benefit of value engineering. It the Commissioners desire to pursue any functional elements of value engineering for these two pmjacia, it Is remmmentletl that [he Board consider retaining Pacific Environmental Services (PES) to conduct mnstruc1ibility reviews for [he Orojects. Though note total value engineering process, cpnslrudlbility reviews in these two projects can yield signifcant beneh[s, amortling to PES. The scope of work for the construdibility review is attached far your informa8on. It would involve intensive review work for one week and would Pocus on items that would require minimum design change, but where signifcant cost savings could be ezpedad. Atltlilionally, the consuhant indicates that this process floe-ranee the specifications, [hereby avoitling wnflicts with contractors when consimc[ion begins. This In [urn prevents many change ortlers tluring the project. As you are well aware, change ortlere are usually costly antl can atltl significant time tp a project. The wnstmc[ibility review woultl therefore minimize the entity's exposure to law suits antl claims for atltliticnal money after [he project is comple[etl. The cast gm[etl died by PES fortMS work is $39,295 per schocl. Although the cost is signigcant PE3 Intlicates Thal each project will easily surpass the fee In the amount save0 on the project antl it will provitle a goob benchmark for us to more fully understand the benefits ci the value engineering prccess. A wmplete repcd tletailing 0a substance W Ne eaNngs will be provltletl by PEB al the antl of Uia review process. We believe that there are other firms who we may want to wnsitler In terms of the long term value engineering pmgrzm established for County antl smool Drojects. Because of Ne ambitious schatlula in which Ne selection Docess was cartied cut, it is possible that there are ether value- engineering frtnswho might respond to our request rfihe timefreme were to be eMentled. It seems prudent Merefore that a secontl assessment Danel be convened In late summerearly fall to consider the resuns of a secontl sollcitalion. Assuming that the Bpam approves this Dlan to acquire value¢ngineering services, it is fudher rewmmentletl Ihat Me Manager communicate to the SuDerintentlend the Boards tlesire to see value engineering lnmrywatetl into the earliest stages of tlevelopment for any school. TNS woultl ba particularly Imppdanl as it respects the tlesign development of the new high school for the Orange County system. FINANCIAL IMPACT' II is recammendetl that funds b cover costs for this work be eppropris[etl from $chool Capital Pmjed Fund Balance. Potential project savings will offset the cost of Mls appropriation. RECOMMENOATIDN(St: TM1e Manager recommends that the BOaN autlror've County staff to complete negotiedona on an agreement wiN Pacific Environmental Services 1p contluct mnstrudibllity reviews for two scMOls. whose rotal cost shall not exreetl $]8,59D; auMpdze the Manager to sign the resulting agree ant; to entlorse a sewntl phase of the selection prccess for a engineering firm; and m tlired the Manager to communicate to the School SupeMtentlents, iheuBOard's lntendons fcrvalue engineering on future school protects. 3COP60['WORK ORANGE COUNTY, NC CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWNALUE REVIEW A Ccnstmdability Review (GR)Nalue Review (VRj will be cpntluMetl by Pecifc Environmental Services (PES) on the Flnal tlesign antl shall consist of one team study by a multi-disciplined[eam of professionals meeting on consecutive work days. Thetaem (hereinafter referretl is as the CRT) will contluct a constmctebility review, concentrating on the apProPriateness of [he design tlocumenffi, basetl on the proposed materials, project location, antl curtent sYantlertl consimction practices, as well as an abbreviated value review where alternatives will be presented for considaretion by the design team that enhance overall vaWe cn a life cycle basis (LCC). The CRT will provitle specipc recommendations for changes to contract tlocuments to Improve wnsW c+ability, retluce cost wRhou! deteriorating quality or functicn and meet or exceed special scheduling requiremenffi. The CRT shall accomplish the following. When observed, the team will: a. identify coMlic[s and ambiguities between drawings, plans, and specihcations; b. itlentify retlundant or exceasivetechnical or atlministrative requirements; c. itlentiy specifications or details that require further clarrficatbn; d. suggest substitution Of simplibetl wnstmaion tleteils, more common construction materials cr products; e. propose value suggestions substituting equipment, materials, or tlesign modifications for consideration by [he tlesign team; antl f. identify special concerns and potential problem areas. The services shall be performed by an indepentlen[team of professionals, separate and completely intlependen[from the original tlesign team. The GRT Shall be compotey of persons having professional engineeringlarohitectural registration, antl all shell have a minimum of 5 years post registmticn experience in tlesign, constmction atlministration, or estimating. The typical team makeup will include'. a. Team LeaderlCVS-Professional Engineer b. Architect c. Struduml Engineer tl. Mechanical Engineer e. Electrical Engineer f. Construction Estimator g. Construction AtlministratoliCOnirector h. Patlicipatbn of Constluclion Manager supplied by the COUnry of Orange Once a Erul schebtde is catabGehed; a Gst oftenm members and Ineir respective tesunes represenrivg the venous disciplines to be oovcred shell be enbtsdned Por vppmvul. Prior to wtmnenoing a emdg Omuge Coovry will Porward trio fnllvwivg information to tlse teen: a. One se4 ofnalfaac deawwge for oaohteaur mevsbeq vvd hvo fill-size set for the Isom; F. One sit cf apa'incaliona for cacti temn memher, c. Derailed coet ertimme (vn cvPY)witM1 oncwst suvwary Por each team member; d. nedgn ewcwadot~ lmerf,afiraf, eleoniea4 roc) (one rep; aw c. Botiug Lags end Scil Reports (two seta). S The CAT shell meet and work in nn environment away Ram thevvormal workplace in ordu ro awid hrtecrvlslious. Tnc netting room will be provided by OranKe Cnunty. The follow room regoir entcare reyuestal lighnug and vwtilatiov suitable far Prolonged reeding writing, and nmdying - large l'eble with oushionul chairs fart oath tcaty mamba - telepM1Onein Ma meeting mom - provta,ona tarTNr and pnoroeoprng eer~mes nn the prem~cea A CRT report wdl na prepared Joeumenting the pmwsa and all mcotvmwdatimla dcvclopod bytheORT. In eddinoq one set ofylvns and spacibaations ll be'Ted-lined"wits any yualily review comments unpmvements noted by the CRT, and saMnittod as pmt o[ow ddivnebles. NI reports will ba vssembled in m orderly fashion wd will besM1art and concise, yet informative enough for decision making. Repots shall be prepared and submi¢ed on A`/"x I I" bond Faper antl bond wtler weer appropnataly idanti-ed. 5ketchas maybe 8`h" x 11"or told- ovt. Pages shall be sequsnlally nuvtbaed in thelowernayt M1and comer. In odditioq we could tie vaitable for w opdoml port study implemevtanovneetwg wdthdre design NF and M< l;owty/Chapel Hill to discvw which ideas slmuld be i~npletnwted mro We project design. 9 ORANGN'.000NTY, NC COST BREAKDOWN CONSTRUCTABILITYNALUE RE VIEW Cost for Each Project Stutly DIRBC'f LABOR Project ManagerlCV6" Structural Engineer Mechanical Engineer Electdcal Engineer Architect CiviVCOS[Engineer Senior Gontrador/COnstmc[ion Specialist Typist TOTAL DIRECT LABOR "CVS Hours Breakdown Prestudy anangements/mor. wtth subs Project sludylreview Report writinglpraoflng - CVSC1 Report etliting - CVBlK2 Post report response/(cllcw-up Total CVS Hours OTHER DIRECT COST3 Meeting room rental- provided by County Communication at study- provided by coanty Ship study materials to CRT- number of copies Copylbind CRT report- total number of reports, 111 to client, including shipping Communication-allow In-0ouse reprotluction - number of copies Travel Round-trip- Washington, OC-Releigh- Airfare Lccal Rental-days Mileage'. Norfolk to Chapel Hill 5 team members 500 miles each Hours ate Labor Cost 96 $95 $9.120 44 $80 $3,520 44 $85 $3,140 44 $85 $3]40 44 $95 $4,180 44 $80 $3,520 44 $90 $3,960 48 $45 $2,160 408 $33,949 8 44 28 12 4 96 GosV Uai[ Uai Coat s t D- -0- o- -D- 1 Sso $a5o II $50 $sw 1 $100 $100 1,00 $0.9 $80 0 8 1 $200 $2DD 5 $60 $3D0 zs9D $o.a sns 1 io Per Diem B team membersx5deys 30 $100 $3,000 Tolal Other Direct COSts $5,355 PROJECT COST SUMMARY pIRECT LABOR $33,940 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 355 TOTAI,PROJECI'COS IS $39,295 d_ Value Eno ne no Consultant Secton IDs Boats con510eretl aWnorizing Count' staff to mmpleb negolielions on an egrcemenl wan Padr envb¢nmamai sarvmaa(pes7maonean 5¢¢swnihiliry renews fur two (z7smbbls. anam entlor was phase of IM1e selection proc ae br value enginsrin9 fun. PUmnaamg Olrenor Pam d¢nessmaee me presedauon. she maimted mat me smn nas moved rather axpeailiou%ry on ma aaleabna anemaanag mnsdmm sin%e mm smo¢I snlams nave prolens teal are immmam aria meta beaefil bon be ezpM etlvk'e ¢f a value enyine ills Osslre M Ina B¢aN ro Bain betler conlml of resaurce9 BeBOtiabtl with C¢nelNdivn of count' ana achod raauitia%ia weu awumenretl. value engineering was mennnea as a pnedlal answerm mia a. is nanfimgoa, vama englreeanq la a Dmc whereby earn ana every aspen ¢f a project is .ed by an unbiasea min vain, m muabombon wne ma ¢mar key players. such as ms d~igrrer ana icnml a¢eror cau¢ry pare nat. artler boasSUre Nal value engine ring re vailable for tie school projects tluring ties e5IFe5elec4on panel untlerlovk an lntensv ebpmcessrfo btlng fanv¢Merec¢mmsntletlm at 0is time brr BOaM COraltlerallon. Tne salecaon pmceas wa%enligMenin9. antl brougManew perspenive abvul weal a wnole value engineering program snoultl ba, antl whet wultl be expedetl o! a propetly culed program. The inlerviaxing masullanis suppori~ weal pas been neartl babr¢, wnicn le met value engineering is most eHenNe wnen Nia aler180 early In IM1e pracess of prgen eevelopment slnco bbtling for IM1e miatlle a liool pmjec[ in Chapel HIII antl InP elemenmry scncol In Oange County la imminent, me%e protects w¢me abt axpatl¢nm me mu banalg ¢f vawa eagmagiag. rt me c¢mmiaamnare eeaire m pbrsbe enr runcgmal ekmank dvama aagmeennp mr mesa two (zl prolecm, lua rewmmanded mat Ma e¢am wnsmer reboring PFS m wnducl ¢wawmblllty ws fw me prgeds. Theacos[s gwl¢tl by PES br Ntis work is $39,295.CO per scnml. AIMOUgn me costs ere significant, PES intlicatetl IM1aI each pmjed will easily suryass IM1e fee In me amount rived an me pmjed antl it will provitle e gootl benenmark for tie County m more (ally untlersGM m¢ benefits d tie value engine ring proses%. A omelets r¢potl aelailibg me subslBncH of gt0 savings will be pmviEetl by PE$ al tlIB Bbd of mB review prwnas Paauming teal the Boartl approves tnls plan to acquire value engine ring ssrvicea, it Is NMertecdnmentlee met me Menegar mmmunimte m me supennlenaen6 me Boara's tlesire b aHH value enginaenng inWrpmal¢d Into Me earliest stages of tlevBlbpment olany school. ThiSw¢ultl be Datllcularly impaliaa eH to IM1e tleaign tlevelopmen[ of Ina new nlBn solaol br me Orange County ayslem. As m NnenclHl Impact it Is recommended Mal Nnds to covefine ms6 br mia waX Ce appropriated hom IM1e Scnool Capifal Pmlen Funtl 9alanm. Polsntisl prvject savings should oRSel IM1e cost of mh appropnatlon. The Manager recwnmentls Mal the Board eumonze County staff to comploR ne9otiabons n agreement wMn Pacific Emironmenbl services b coneua[ constmctiblllty reviews mr Nro (2) sdiools. wltwe IOlel cask mall nvI exrxetl $]B 59U_ogl auMOrize Ina Manager b sign me msuWng agreement; b entlorse a sernna pnase of the aeledion pmxss 6r a value englneering fvm; antl to dlrecl Ills Manager b unia[e m me srllool Supennteneents me soerPS Inlsntion br value enginrering on NNre school pmlec5. Cpmmissi¢ner Halkiotis sale mat Fe believaa IItAI NIa Lwnty is vefy late in Me pr¢cess bf both systems. IDs smxh teciliy will be going out br bitls In seplember or October 1999, antl tie elementary sshool In Orarge County Is a probrype bulMln9, writ%M1 Fas been previwsly built lnree (3) limes. Commisaloner Halkblis also eryr¢a+ed his tlisappvinlmeniwiN me rust o! hiring PES sa mnsultanls m mesa projects, vaniwlarly since me consulbds nas ineimled Mamney wade be able m train county amrt in mis prbmaa. He believaa use of Me crosulkn6ls [oo expensive antl tw tale Ib be of benefit to me scrod projeck, antl ne woule rallrer supDOrl niang efull-time County employee to serve in avalue angina ring OV capacity. Cam er carey smtetl that mis type 0l fgneulknt woultl wak Cesi NbrougM Info any Drolecl6bm i6 inceplbin IHS qumtibnetl tMemermis acll¢n would aeley Me acnobl praleal%hom going aut br bid Purcnasng Dlrecbr JOneseuplainetl me proses mat me consultantsfollowed If July 8. 1999 is me submisamn gala mr nas. mere may be some ginned opponaninaa mr samags wan me Lapel wo miaale %anwl vmlaot. CM1air Gortlon questioned why tie consultank fee was as large as quoted Pmcheairg Diratl¢NOOBe lB(Brmtl ma B¢dId to me cost break¢mvn anBBl'mdWaa in ms ageatla ab5I2Cl. c¢mmiaaimer arowa sklea mat are was very %Yrpaaae acme pmpossd coal a me cansunanm'selvnes ¢n fheae MO (P)pralvats. PurcneSinq Dlrenor Jones explain mat meteam of conaullank woultl meet for one (I) entire week b owbplet¢ IM1elr evaluation. Ourlnq mis Ilme, Day woultl meetwM me relevant aUOOI system to aeteimlos what Boas ane sties nd mnaeonally work on mal prgem. commissioner mown smlee mat mis wee not exealry now ane bauevaa me cenwllams wows mncupn, Tamar, ane eeuevee mere woma be someone asslgneamwomfvu$mamwark wlln ma Iwo lelsrnwlayslema. cdemissionarerown mnner salemnat ane beueves me co~nry..eras m pemae more inmrmalion wen reeare m mis Isaua. commm.roner Jawea slalea mac ume omega coamy acneola are going m bia wunm me touowmg week, men a is already Iw Iola to persoe mis verse ofanion. uowever, ne aoaa not ogres onarn is too Isla m wurza mia process wan me smen Mieme smool pro~ecl ens ne wows be wmfonede enamplmg mla proaaas on mal prged. ue agreea lnal anyvame eagmearmg conswtam gnome ba Involves in Ine process hom i6 inception. com er Jacebs believes tM1e County neees to eentleletkrla Ne Wo (2) scbool boaNS Invdvee sleling Inarsour Benson was based on time constralnls. Commissioner Carey stale0lnat me County neMS ro Ixcceatl wim establisning a value engineering pmpesa, even If a Is only for one (iJ pmjed. eM1air GoNOn smletl Ibat 0e County sM1OUIa fallow IM1rougn wim obtaining a value engineeeng fnm, but InaY ensNB Vdlu engllleNing goals are mef,~ ic~wwmu mpamempergr111Ng dl nece88ary Nndpna to Comm er Halhloris salE met Fe believes IM1ar Nc county neatly W ballet Ee(me ane rystiry (na cosb far IM1ese scnools antl met leis Initiative is Img ovBNUe, wim IM1e neee naving exialetl mr Several yea commissioner cerey maaa rererenceroma pogcy wneraby Ine seam orewnry Comm will ba making eeclslons al eacn slap io me pro= ane mere aw ww be maaa bash on me county commiaaioners'ryagmem only. commieei nserearey stares met ne wpum ba wnbXeble following (nis policy unless a value engineetlng process axis6 so Me eoaM qn learn wbafever inlormallon it neetls b make an Imormetl tlaciabn. Amaflan was matle by Commissioner CareAa wntlee by COmmissloner JecMela approve a maximum expentleure o! $39,IX10.gg brine SmiIM1 Mieele Scnwl proled. VOTE. AFFIRMED'. Cmmmiesioners Carey ane Jecoba OPPOSED. Commissloners GoNOn, Browo ane Helkiolia Comm net Brown slalee met one welberper cae pets wale wwk very aRedivelywM IM1e scnods ane see5s alill lnlerestNln pursuing value englre ring. SM1e believes me commiXea lM1al Ma been formetl come aaaress mia isaea. A mdion was maaa by cammmsion Brown, eawnaee by commissioner rvalwmis ro approve me secone phase onne vawe engineering vrn¢esa. VOTE. UNANIMOUS b ORANGE COUNtt BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Dah: December ].1999 Action Agentla Nam Ne. SUBJECT: Cost ERCient Facilities In eat ves (CEFp for Bu Idinos ConsVUdetl with County funds DEPARTMENT: Purcbasing&CeMrsl Servlcea PUBLIC HEARING: (VIN) Nc ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones eAension 2652 Repod TELEPHONE NUMBERS: HilNborougN 732-8181 CNepel Hill 9881581 Ourbam fi88-1331 McEene 338-]]73831 PURPOSE: To wnsider a concept for maximizing the cost effectiveness of facilities <onefructed using County rands. BACKGROUND: The attarnetl report outlines a process lorparsuing cost efficient teGllBes for Duildings built using County funds Essentially, me program would create a performance stantlartl erlay to the existing sGtool wns[mclion sNntlards. These performance stentlaMS wpultl be used as a bencbmark in the design of any county or scDOOI fecillry. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None defined. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager rewmmends iM1a[ the BoaN entlorse [be Cast Effioent Facilities Initiatives (CEFI); and request Ybal the Manager inclutle [M1e 8em br discussion at the SchooVCOmmisslonarworksess1on on December 13, 1999. Prpppsetl Cos[ Effcien[ Faollllles Initiatives (CEFQ for County antl School Capital Projects Oewmber ], 9999 A work group Involving 1wp Lounly Commissioners, Me County Manager antl several County stag members met sBVeral limes over Me past moots In an BRprt tc identity cost eRCiency InIOa[ives In the tlevelopment of County antl School ladlities. TM1e ensuing report In mead to reflect the essence of these discussions ae well es ro provitle a point of departure for tlialogue a ong the Board of Commissioners and srTwl Boats members. i~ Why Inlflafe Lost E((ician(Facilities Initiatives (CEF/J Now? Acwrtling to Me Orange Lounry Planning Olrecta, prolerAOns of xhod wns[mdion needs intllrate Mat approximately 1 B schools will to requiretl to meet the sWdent population needs over Me nex130 years. Basetl on construction estimates hom the sMwl wnstmdion stantlaNa, the present value tldlers neetled to support cpnstmdion for these educatimal IadlNes is estimated lp be $338,463,fi85. The following table reflecting Me projedlon of school neetls Is based on the assumDflon Nat growth will continue at a wndant enrollment Increase each year (i e. Omnge County ScFOOI Dlstrltl at 156 new stutlenLS Der year antl CM1apel HiIllCanboro al 300 new students par year. Ps wdher development M me School Adequate Publlc Facill8es ON'mance (SAPFO) continues, a tutlher analysLS of existing rapadry as well as proposed wpaciry will be wntluded.7 Orange County $yatem ChapellHlll Carrboro System • Elementary: Elementary 4x$12,]85.465=$51,141,940 ]x$t 2,]85,485=$89,998,395 • Mltltlle: Mitltlle: 2 x 18,504,6]0•$3],008.340 3x 18,504,6]0=$55,514,010 • Hlgh School: High SnhooY 1006 slutlent rapedry. • lsoo swdem capacity: 1x$z4)oo,oo6 =SZa,]99,990 1 x$4osoo.ooo=$aga99,999 • 1500 stutlent DaDadry: 1 x $40,800,000= f40,8o0,000 15 Total estimatetl mnslruction mats over 3D years for Orange county School District Is • therefore $128,981,280. Total estimated construction costs over 3D years for Chapel HilVCartboro School Clstricl is therefore $ $210,512.4D5. Total estimatetl cpnsVUCtipn costs over 30 years tp meal educational facility neetls Is • therefore $338,4fi3,fi88. Furtnec the County Is facing siAnificant construction neetls of its awn through its statutorily requiretl support of marl system facilities. Preliminary estimates equate the cost of the jutlicial fecllties (without tall mnslmIXlon) wtth those of a new elemenbry schml. TM1IS bongs the total potential 30-year mnsVUC[ipn outlay for edumtion antl lutlicial tacilitles tq approdmalely $ 352,249.1]0. Pro)ecteb costs of this magnXUtle create a cpnsitlereble challenge to ensure [hat mnstmelgn antl major renovation projects funtletl by [M1e County are propetly tlesignetl fo meet born County antl School neetls within available resources. In additbn, with the advent of the School Adequate Punllc Facilities ONinance (SAPFO), now in sevalopmenp the Flsral issues will demand greater allentlon. As you may know, 0e SAPFO will, among other IMngs: Define a level of service rapacity, wnicn each new school will be expected to meet For ample, If'X' number of units are approves for tlevelopment within the County. Nen 'Y'rype of school (elementary, mitltlle, M1igM1 scnoop wIN'Z" rapacity must be bWlt within Ne nex['N" number o1 years; ens The SAPFO will allow schools [o operate marginalty over-mpacTy for onlyalimitad period of lime, thereby creating the necessity for srnod constmctlon W be mnsideretl In a Vmely manner. Apoten4al solution: This look to the hoemn tells us Nat the limitetl package of funding resourwe available to suppod mnst>uctign initiatives will no[be suRCient to meet tlemantl without very rareful planning. Rather than to Immediately raise Vie tootling bat ens polentlally the tax rate, it is prutlent to mnsiaer cost eRtlency measures Oat will provitle functionally excellent facilities et a manageable cost. In the SpringlSUmmer 1999 the Boertl mnsideretl a value engineerng option for County antl achpol projects, In whicM1 eacM1 facility would be subject lc a value engineering Drocess In tandem wiN its tlesgn. TM1IS approach proves to be unsuitable, particulatly for upcoming schml consVUClion projects, from a cost and timing point dt view. Fortner tllscussipn has Dromptetl us to auggeat an anamative epproacn that functions as a stand- alone process for County projec6 but rneates a tlesign standard ovetlay Ic me existing aritml conslructlpn stansartls. me process is oullinetl as follows'. Agroup similar to the scnml mnsWtlion stantlartls mmmlVee wools ba mnvenetl tD ew infrastructure items common m all bullbings (HVAC. plumbing Onishes, window glass, etc.). Tnis group would also include a IhiM pally consultant to add evalue- engineering mmDOnent to the Development of the standaMS (amurata cost projections. life cycle cast analysis, etc.) • Functional stantlaMS wools be sevelopetl toreach MPeae mmponen5. Examples of the tundional slantlards might be: i~ The roofing smntlam for buildings will be metal (unless proM1lGl[etl ae may be the In hialOhc districts); or Aspeeific eneryy emelancy level(BN COnsumptlon per square foot)must be achieved by Ole HVAC system pmposeQ or To avoid Poture maintenance mmplimtlons, systems, such as wa[erlgas service or wiring receways, shall not be embedded in the cpncfete Ooor slab unless code restriClions prObihl cVPlheatl bsla3110ns. Upon wmpletioM1 tM1e resulting standards woultl be taken by the mmmidee members M their respecllYe governing boards far comment. ultimately, tM1e 80ard of Commissioners would adopt the stantlaN by which may would tuna capital projects. StandaMS woultl ba provided to any firm retained by IM1e county or the Btllools to design a facility. The frm would be expelled to design incompliance with the tlasign guidelines. Upon mmpletibn o(a facility design, Me designer woultl provide certifratlon tp [M1e School antl the County that the tlasign guidelines hetl been met er cite areas where deviations were mandated by a regulatory hotly. TM1e County Engineering stag would ew the blNmnsWtllon documents and the ceNfirelions and render an opinion on tbelsuficiency or mmpliance tlocumantation. In regard to seM1OOI projects, if a School Board determines that exweding a stantlaN is uitiral tO IM1e Nobility o(a given pfIX]ram, Men the ScM1OaI BoaN may submit a proposal to pay br adtlXimal costs from Olberoay-as-you-go funds available to Me School, eg. recurring cepltal. wndme: Recommendations (or tirnding ofcepilal pmjcets rettwut as endorsedby the Boerdm June 1999. 1'hc mvccpl is ae follows: While the Board will covtlnpeto epmove theprojems iv Ma COmty's tcv-year C]P, approval ofspmFficpmjml component will omur afitt costs have been firmly estabtiehed bybid, a cnntrwt, yr vtherldghly reliable cost de[ormitirtg morns for each ompweN OCprojcot develnpmrnt. Bssmlially, Ma appropnatiov world be equivnlrnt ~o Mamrornl afmowy wady ro ne snort rm anmticwar ergept mmponont mnetiop <plaaaiap, flte aaxampmmt mmworpa, Ne) Capiml Policy reWsiovs m reflect thin are irmrdrtrnt. .1s nvled w We lone action, Mis proccee will involve vdditivnal steps vs the Board is called noon tnteke artiov at nations milastonev in Mo pryce[, mtMrtban vllocvtingalump sam Loi each project whey the C~ is approved. I Ioweveq Nis moms of aPPronrie4nR Cur capital nrole¢s appcam Mprovide the Comtry mvsidenMly more flexibility iv resoomsmerta6emrnt. Sivm appmpnutions would be madc by projml component and would M1e bored uv mom accm&e cost data my surylns from the total prvjwt would rutww available for vppmpnativn w Culurc C1P projects. 6eneOls: We believe this aDproacM1 promMes greater consistency in systems and doesa better jab of analyzing systems before they are spec~ietl for use In a builEing. • Mater Ome and cpatmmmiMan6 oauronetime. As future refinements of Me standards became necessary, Mey sM1OUkI be manageable and could possibly be accomplishes Mrougn collaboration of School antl County stall. TM1is approach provides consistent guidelines for tlesignere retainetl Dy Ne County antl Schools for iaullty tleslgn. Clearly amwlatetl axpaclatione on [M1a front antl ofa pro~eM are Ilkely m yield a more acceptable result. Possibly Ne greatest berebt to Implementing cost etfldent facilities initiatives is out enhancetl ability to project acwrate wnstruclipn vests. As previously Intlicatetl, our urale projeGion of costs for the CIP will become essentlal wl0 fie atloplion of SAPFO. TM1IS bawmas apparent when one untlerstands that SAPFO is driven by a complex Inter-relationship Involving growth-geneatetl tlemantl for school capacity, wpeciry of existing school fadlilies, projected school consWGionlcapaciry, mnsVUdion costs for scM1OOI taGlNes antl CIP fundatl budgets for school wnsrmdion Untler this scenario, any tleviation from original tlala regaNing wpaoty anti subsequent construction wsta could reuse signifwnt negative ImDaG on CIP appropriations. is Minutes for December] 1999 e + R I [F II't' I't' [' ICEFlI for BUlldnas Constructetl D919U County Funds The Boats approved a cencept for maximizing the cost effectiveness of County building prolecYS. A motion was matle by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jawbs to endorse the Cost Efficient Facilities Initiatives and reQUest that Ne Manager include the item for tliswssion a[ Me SchoollCOmmissionertyork session on December 13, 1999. VOTE. UNANIMOUS Proposed Cort Efficient Faeilitlea tnitiarivev (CEFl) fsr COmty antl svhwl Gpilal l'ro)eGe December ],1999 A work group involving two County Commissioners, the County Manager antl several County staff members met several times over the past month In an effort to Itlentiry cost efficiency initiatives in the development of Couny and School facilities. The ensuing report In meant to reflect the essence of these tliscusslons as well as to provitle a point of departure for tlialogue among the Board of Commissioners antl School Boartl members. Why Initiate Cost ERcient Facilifies Inifiafivas (CEFI) Now9 Accoming to the Orange County Planning Oirecter, protections of school mnatme[ion needs indicate that approximately 19 schools will be required to meet the student population needs over the nex[30 years. Basetl on cons[motion estimates fromthe school construction stantlartls ,the present value tlollars nestled to support mnstmclion for these educalbnal facildies is estimated to be $339.483,685. The following table reflec[Ing the projection of school neetls is based on the assumption that growth will wnlinua at a wnstant enrollment increase each year (i.e. Orange County School DisVict at 150 new students per year and Chapel HiIllCarrbore at 300 new students per year. As further develepment of [he School Atlequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) wntinues, a further analysis of existing capacity as well as proposetl capacity will be conducletl.) Orange County System ChapeE1ri11 Carrboro syarcm • Elementary: Elementary: 4x $12,]85,4&5e$51,141,949 ]x$12,]85,485=$89,498,395 • Mltltlle: M/tltlle: 2 x 18,SW,fi]0=$3],909,349 3x 18,594,fi]0=$55,514,019 • Hlgh School: High School: 1000 student capacity • 1500 sNdeM capacity: 1 x $24,]09,009 = §24,]99,000 1 x$40800,000=$40,800,000 • 1500 sWtlent capacity. 1 x $40,800,000= §40,800,000 ao • Total estimated construction casts over 30 years for Orange County School Dis4ict Is therefore $128,951,280. • Total estimated construction mats over 30 years for Chapel HiIllCartboro School District is therefore $ $218512,405. • Total estimatetl construction costs over 30 years to meet etlumtional facility needs Is therefore $338,483,686. Fudher, the County is facing signifimnt mnstmcMion nestle of its own through rts stetutodly requlretl support of court system facilities. Preliminary estimates equate the cost of the judicial facilities (without tail mnsWCtion) with those of a new elementary school. This brings [he total potential3o-year consWCtign outlay for education and judicial facilities to approximately $ 352,249,1 ]0. Projectetl costs of this magnitude create a considerable challenge fo ensure that consWC[ion and major renovation projects funded by the County are properly designed to meet both County and Schml nestle within available resources. In atltlition, with the advent of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ortlinance (SAPFO), now in tlevelppment, the fiscal issues will tlemantl greater adention. As you may know, the SAPFO will, among other things: Degne a level of service capacity, which each new school will be expectetl to meet. For example, iP'X"number of units are approved for tlevelopment within the County, then "V" type of stlrool (elementary, middle, high school)whh "Z" capacity must be built wthin the next "N' number of years; antl The SAPFO will allow schmis to operate marginally over-capacity for onlya limited period of time, thereby creating the necessity for school mnstmctlon to be considered in a timely manner. Apofentlal solunon~ This look to the horizon tells us that the limited package of footling resources available [o supped construction initiatives will not be sufficient to meet tlemantl withoN very careful planning. Ratherthanto immediately raise thefuMing bar, and potentially the tax role, it is pendent [o consitler cos[ efficiency measures that will provide functionally excellent hcilities at a manageable cost. In the Spring/Summer 1999 the Bcartl mnsitleretl a value engineering option for County antl school projects, in which each faulity woultl be subject to a value engineering process in tandem whh its design. This approach proved tq be unsuitable, particularly for upcoming school constmctlon projects, from a cost antl timing point of view. al Further tliscussion has prompted us to suggest an alternative approach that functions as a stantl-alone process for County projects but creates a design standard overlay to the existing school consumpion stantlartls. The process is outlined es follows: Agmup similar to[he school construction stendaNS Committee woultl be onvenetl to review infrastmcture items common to all buidings (HVAC, plumbing, finishes, wintlow glass, etc). This group woultl also inGUtle a thiM party consultant to atltl a valueengineedng component tc the tlevelopment of the standartls (accure[e cost projections, life cycle wsf analysis, etc.) Functional stantlaNS would be tleveloped {or each of these components. Examples of the functional standaNs migh(be: The rooting standaN for buildings will be metal (unless prohibitetl as may be the case in historic tlisbcts); or A specific energy efficiency level (Btu consumption per square foot) moat be achievetl by the HVAC system proposeQ or To avoitl future maintenance complications, systems, such as waterlgas service or wiring raceways, shall not be embeddetl in the concrete floor slab unless code restrictions prohibR overheatl installations. • Upon completion, the resulting standaMS woultl be taken by the committee members to their respective governing boaNS for comment. • Ultimately,(he eoartl of Commissioners woultl atlopl the standard by whichthey would funtl capital projects. • Stantlartls woultl be provitletl to any firm retained by the County or iha Schools to tlesign a facility. The firm would be expectetl to design in compliance with the tlesign guidelines. Upon mmpletton ota facility tlesign, the tlesigner woultl provitle certifica[ionb the School antl the County [hat the tlesign guidelines hatl been met or cite areas where deviations were mantlatetl bye regulatory body. The County Engineering staff would review the bitl/constmpion tlocuments antl the certifications end rentler en opinion on the sufficiency of compliance documentation. In regaN to school pmleQS, H a School Board determines [ha[ exceetling a stantlaN is critical to the viability of a given progrem, then the School Boats may submit a proposal [o pay for atltlitional costa from other pay-as-you-go funds available to the School, e.g. recurring capital. Funtling: Recommantlations for footling of capital pmjects remain as entloreetl by the Board in June 1999. The concept is as follows: • Whilethe eoaN will continuebapprove the projects in the County's ten-year CIP, approval of specific project components will occur after costs have been flnnly es[eblishetl by biQ a wn[racq or other highly reliable cos[ tletermining means for each wmponen[of projec[develppment. Essentially, the appropriation would be equivalent tc the amount of money reatly to be spent br a particular project component function (planning, efts tlevelopment, conatmclian, etc.) Capital Policy revisions to reflect iMS are imminent. as As noted in We June anion, this process will Involve atltlitional steps as the Boats is called upon to fake action at various milestones in the project, rather than allocating a lump sum for each project when the ClP is approved. However, [his means of appropriating for capital projects appears to provitle Ne Gounty mnsitlerably more Oexibility in resource management. Since appropriations woultl be made by project component and woultl be basetl on more amurate cost tlafa, any surplus from the total protect woultl remain available far appropriation to fuWre CIP projects. benefits: • Wa believe[his approach promotes greater consistency in systems and does a bederjpb of analyzing systems before they are specifletl for use In a bulldog. Major time and cost commitments occur one time. As future refinements of the sfendaNa become necessary. they shoultl be manageable antl coultl poaeibly be accomplished through collaboration of School antl Gounty staff This approach provides consistent guidelines for designers retainetl by the County end Schools krfaciliry tlesign. Clearly adicula[etl expectations on Me front end cf a project are likely to yieltl a more acceptable result. Possibly iM1e greatest benefit to implementing cos[ effmien[ facilities Initiatives is cur enhanced ability to project accurate mnstmction costs. As previously indicated, our accurate projection of vests for the CIP will become essential with iM1e atlopfion of SAPFO. This becomes apparent when one untleratantla that SAPFO is driven by a complex inter-relationship involving growth- generetetl demantl far school capacity, capacity of existing school facilities, projectetl school constmdionlcapacity, construction mats for school facilities antl GIP funtletl budgets for school constmction ..Under this scenario, any deviation from original tlata regarding capacity and subsequent mnstmction costs could rouse significant negative impact on CIP appropriations. Minutes: Oecemher 13,1999 Joint BOCCI$chool Board Worksession ~~ a. CoslEffcient Facilities Initiative John link said that he paNCipated on a task force that included Director d Central Stares and Purchasing Pam Jones, end Commissioners Jacobs and Halkiotis In which they discussed Ne ncepts of value engineering. He said lM1at according to gmwlM1 projections, IM1ere would bee ~etl for 19 new sdtDDls overthe nexl30 years at an estimated cos[ of $340,000,000. The County s also talking about an adequate public facilities oMlnance whicF directly affects M1aw growlM1 Is addressed The focus on the wDi[al Improvement budget will be more accenNated. Pam Janes said chat by looking at Ae projections, the wnslmdion costs over IM1e next IM1ree decades is going to be slgniflcant. $he said Nat what is being proposed torngM Is a process that will Ce collaborative among the schools and the County. Page two of anachment 1b outlines the process. SM1e said IM1at pertormance standards would be developed for now conetmclion. Tha emphasis is on using the available resources Mat will last Melongest amount of time. SM1e explained fM1e prowdure Net would be followed She said that the fundng of Me new censtruGlon ould fallow along similarly wiM Me wnwp6 of value engineering. The Commissioners would approve the prolaIX up front Cut It would be funded In accordance with the various components. The major amount dgme waultl be span[upfront This process also provides some consistent guidelines for the architect. She said Mat this process lsagootl stall wiM geeng togeher and cellaboretlng on what [he acoeptable standards are id bulltlings Nat the County might bulltl. Commissioner Halkiotis said Maf the driving fo¢e behind [his Is Me fad Nat the Shaping Orange Cpuntya Future Task Force presented some mgmening agures with respect to now many schools wouM be needed by the year 2030. He said that when Planning Olmdor Craig Benedlc[ first wme to Orange County, M1e elected doing some atudiee and wnservatNely presided Nat to schools waultl be nestled by Ne year 2030. Commissioner Halkiotis said that IM1e amount of money that waultl Ce nestled m Wnd these schools Is really scary. He feels Mat the County has been very frugal in building necessary structures Nat II needs far its awn programs and Nat rf all of the expendaures for buildings Nat have Oeen built for County functions over [he last ten yeare were added together, IM1e total would not add up to IM1e cesl of one elementary school. He mentioned Mat it is projected Ma[ me County will need a now, vary large jail soon. He feels Nat it la fcol'~shfor IM1e County not fo plan for IM1e $300,000,000 Mal it Is going M co i to huiltl 19 new scM1OOls. Chair Carey clab9ed that the projected 19 schools does cwt indutle raplawmenls. Nick Oitlow shared some lM1OUgMS. He invited Ne County Commissioners to indude partdpatlon Cy Ne school board members in inltlatlves Ilke this. He Bald that Me standards Nat Pam Jones mentioned were not something new in terms of construction. If these sfaMards are a way to gain soma additional a?ciancias and to tlo an even benarjob M Ne stewaMShip of Ma funds Then he feels II Is a goad Idea. He thinks that me scM1OOI boaNS M1ave wnsidereble experience in Mls type of analysis and would be M1appy Ip share it. Susan Halkiotis made reference to Me statement Nat Ne standaNa waultl Ce revlewe0 pedodlcally. She feels that wiN the changes in tecM1nelogy and innovalionsareview is newssary. SM1e feels it Is something IM1at is already being done and tM1a[ sharing information waultl be useful. chair Garay said met he feels it woma ha heneedal mrall paniea m au mwn m diawea me alandama and Ipqk at Nam pehpmwlly m see fr cosy nose rp he reeiaea. Gloria Foley made reference to the neA item, Parks Task Forw ResolNion on Joint Acwss to ReaeaM1On Fatllilies, and said IM1aI when considering Nese faulities Me eRed of open facilites on the teacM1lrg atmosphere needs to be stuotetl. CM1eir Carey said that Nis recommendation includes a group from Ne school boaNS and me County geeing togeMer over Me neat few mgn[ha to artive a[ a plan. Pam Jones said that the standards she spoke of create an overlay to the existing standaNS. John link said that [he Dresenl standards are quaniita[ive in terms of Me amount W square footage per function in Me smmis. Keith Cook said That the aMOpls already have guidelines Mat have been Incomora[etl over tits years aria it seems ma11M1e two school boaMS are not given me credit Mey are due for already a~ doing a gootl job. He seta that the guidelines should be flexible as things charge over the years. He reguesled that the County invite Ne scM1Ool boartls to tlisass iM1ese iMngs eery In iM1e process. CM1air Carey saitl IM1aI M1e wishetl IM1is meeting coultl M1ave been eatliec He said that the County Commissioners M1ave to initiate tM1ings Inat are in the best incerest MAe public In Orange County and sometimes the scM1OOI boartls cannot be indutletl in the process early on. He saitl IM1at it was unreasonable to 0'mk IM1at iha school beaMS wou10 be brought in to discuss matters before flee County Commissioners discuss them among themselves.