Construction Progress in October 2008

Johns Hopkins Hospital New Clinical Building

Baltimore, MD

Dan WeigerArchitectural Engineering, 5th YearConstruction Management Option

Advisor: Dr. John I. Messner

April 14, 2009Construction Progress in October 2008


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus

Alternative Delivery Method

Chilled Beams Cost & Schedule Impact

Concrete Over-pour Due to Steel Deflection

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

• Project Background

• Research Focus

• Alternative Delivery Method (MAE)

• Chilled Beam Cost & Schedule Impact (Mech. Breadth)

• Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth)

• Thesis Conclusions

• Acknowledgements

• Questions???

IntroductionIntroduction


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

Project BackgroundProject BackgroundJohns Hopkins Hospital

•Ranked #1 Hospital since 1992 by U.S. News & World Report

•Annual Operating Budget = $4.1 Billion (2007)

•82,523 Admissions, 72,797 Surgeries, 205,034 ER Visits

•4.2 Million Square Feet of Building SpaceNew

Clinical Buildin

g


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

Project BackgroundProject Background

New Clinical Building

•Two Towers – Adult and Children’s with Connector

•1.6 Million SF

•$573 Million GMP

•Oct. 2006 – Dec. 2010

•Design-Bid-Build, Fast-track schedule

•Surrounded by operating hospitals throughout construction

Connector

Adult TowerChildren’s Tower

Johns Hopkins Hospital




•4.2 Million Square Feet of Building Space


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions




•1.6 Million SF

•$573 Million GMP

•Oct. 2006 – Dec. 2010









Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions




•1.6 Million SF

•$573 Million GMP

•Oct. 2006 – Dec. 2010









Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

Research FocusResearch Focus

“Explore alternatives and procedures that could have been implemented on the NCB to avoid or reduce the number of changes and constructability challenges.”

WEIGHT MATRIX

Description Research Value Engineering

Constructability Review

Schedule Reduction

Total

Alter. Delivery Method 20% 5% 10% 35%Chilled Beams 10% 10% 5% 15% 40%Conc. Over-pour on Decks 25% 25%Total 30% 15% 30% 25% 100%


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

Alternative Delivery Method (MAE)Alternative Delivery Method (MAE)Problem Statement

• Traditional Design-bid-build with Fast-track • 60 CCD’s• 2,700 RFI’s• 700 CO’s

Design Omissions/Errors Donor Enhancements Latest & Greatest Medical Technology

• Cost Increase = $250 M (44%)• 7 Month Delay (1st pass)• Bid was done with GMP Docs

CD’s Due April 2007 Issued 2 Floors per Month Final Set Arrived January 2009

Goal• Demonstrate that an alternative delivery method could have more effectively managed the changes while meeting the Owner’s goals.


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

Alternative Delivery Method (MAE)Alternative Delivery Method (MAE)

Analysis• Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool• 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes

Possible Project Delivery Outcomes

1. Traditional Design-bid-build2. Traditional with Early Procurement3. Traditional with Project Manager4. Traditional with Construction

Manager5. Traditional with Early Procurement

and CM6. CM at Risk7. Design-Build8. Multiple Design-Build9. Parallel Primes10.Traditional with Staged

Development11.Turnkey12.Fast Track


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Analysis• Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool• 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes • 20 Selection Factors

Selection Factors1. Completion within Budget2. Minimal Cost3. Cash Flow is Constrained4. Owner Requires Early Cost Figures for Planning5. Owner Assumes Minimal Financial Risk6. Completion within Schedule7. Early Completion8. Early Procurement for Long Lead Items9. Above Average Number of Changes are

Anticipated10.Below Average Number of Changes are

Anticipated11.Confidentiality of Business/Engineering Details12.Local Conditions are Favorable13.Owner Desires High Degree of Control14.Owner Desires Low Degree of Control15.Owner Desires Use of Own Resources16.Owner Desires Minimal Use of Own Resources17.Project Well Defined at Bid18.Project Not Well Defined at Bid19.Owner Prefers Minimal Number of Parties

Responsible20.Project is Complex, Innovative or Non-Standard


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Analysis• Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool• 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes • 20 Selection Factors• Surveyed Owner, A/E, and CM Principles

Selection Factors1. Completion within Budget2. Minimal Cost3. Cash Flow is Constrained4. Owner Requires Early Cost Figures for Planning5. Owner Assumes Minimal Financial Risk6. Completion within Schedule7. Early Completion8. Early Procurement for Long Lead Items9. Above Average Number of Changes are

Anticipated10.Below Average Number of Changes are

Anticipated11.Confidentiality of Business/Engineering Details12.Local Conditions are Favorable13.Owner Desires High Degree of Control14.Owner Desires Low Degree of Control15.Owner Desires Use of Own Resources16.Owner Desires Minimal Use of Own Resources17.Project Well Defined at Bid18.Project Not Well Defined at Bid19.Owner Prefers Minimal Number of Parties

Responsible20.Project is Complex, Innovative or Non-Standard


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Analysis• Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool• 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes • 20 Selection Factors• Surveyed Owner, A/E, and CM Principles• PDCS Results• Top 3 Delivery Methods

• Integrated Project Delivery • Design-Build• Traditional with Early Procurement and Project Manager

Owner’s PDCS ResultsTurkey – 81.13

Design-Build – 77.64

CM’s PDCS ResultsCM@Risk – 68.05Turkey – 64.91

A/E’s PDCS ResultsTraditional Design-Bid-Build – 76.25

Traditional with CM – 74.52


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Integrated Project Delivery• Not Included in PDCS• Critical Industry Issue• Sutter Health System – Camino Medical Center

• $98M • Saved $9M and 6 Months Over Traditional Methods


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Integrated Project Delivery• Not Included in PDCS• Critical Industry Issue• Sutter Health System – Camino Medical Center

• $98M • Saved $9M and 6 Months Over Traditional Methods

• Principles of IPD

IPD Principals

1. Mutual Respect & Trust2. Mutual Benefit and Reward3. Collaborative Innovation and

Decision Making4. Early Involvement of Key

Participants5. Early Goal Definition6. Intensified Planning7. Open Communication8. Appropriate Technology9. Organization and Leadership


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Integrated Project Delivery

Advantages• BIM• Reduce Project Disputes• Involve Specialty Contractors Early• Well Defined Scope for All Team Players• Open Communication, Pricing, Schedule, and Quality – Better CO Management

Disadvantages• Not a Familiar Delivery Method in Region• More Risk for Bidders• Not a Proven Delivery Method – Too Risky for this Project


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Design-Build

Advantages• Team Approach• Constructability Issues Addressed Early in Design• Better Control of Budget in Design and Construction Phase

Disadvantages• Would Not Accelerate Project• No Checks and Balance• Risk of Sacrificing Design Quality to Protect Design-Builder’s Profits


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Design-Build MEP• Changes have Increased MEP Trades Contracts by 17%• Severely Impacted Coordination and Prefabrication• Last-minute Drawings • Eliminated All of the Float• D/B MEP would have Cost 5% More Initially

Advantages• Involved Early in Design• V/E• Schedule Input• Early Coordination, Procurement, and Prefabrication

Disadvantages• Initial Cost


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Traditional w/Early Procurement and PM• Same Delivery Method Except for PM• KLMK Group

Advantages• PM has Extensive Experience• PM Familiar with Team Players• Checks and Balance• Assist Owner with Managing CO’s• Assist with Close-out and Occupancy• Assist with Master Planning

Disadvantages• Initial Cost of 1% of Total Project Cost• May Create Hostile Environment


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


Conclusion• PDCS Did Not Identify Best Delivery Method• Hindsight is 20/20• Best Alternative is a Mix of the Top 3

• PM • D/B MEP• IPD Principles

• Manage CO’s More Efficiently


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions

Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth)Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth)

•Common problem on steel decks

• Floor Flatness and Floor Levelness key

•Strict requirements – hospitals, warehouses, etc.

•JHH has an FF = 25 (1/4” over 10’)

•No FL but there was note CP-4

•Moving hospital beds

•Sophisticated equipment (MRI’s, ventilators, etc.)


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


•Clark Concrete poured floors to finish floor elevation

•Did not check deck thickness (wet-stick)

•Some areas had deflection of up to 2” in mid-bay

•Concrete Contractor was responsible for all over-pour per note CP-4

•Potential problems from steel deflection

•Overload the floor

•Impact MEP coordination

•Floor installation

•Door jams


Baltimore, MD



April 14, 2009

Introduction

Project Background

Research Focus




Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Questions


•Predicting Steel deflection is quite difficult because actual loads can vary from design loads

•Camber beams

•No camber on girders

• Note CP-4 is not common practice

•No constructability consulting with a contractor

•Structural Engineer allowed 7 PSF for concrete over-pour in construction load

28’-8”

28

’-8

”

W16x26 c = ¾”

EQ

. W2

1x5

7 c

=

0”

EQ

.EQ

.EQ

.

W2

1x5

7 c =

0

”

W16x26 c = ¾”

W16x26 c = ¾”

W16x26 c = ¾”

W16x26 c = ¾”

W16x26 c = ¾”

28’-8”

85 PSF

R R

Simply Supported Beam – Uniformly Distributed Load

• Max Deflection (Midspan) = 1.41”

• Up-size beam – W18x35

• Deflection = 0.83

• Difference = 0.58”

• Significant cost – most common steel member

Construction Progress in October 2008

Documents