CCFC Regional Workshops Community College Construction Delivery Methods: Options, Obligations, and Opportunities BAY AREA Friday, May 12, 2017 9:00 am to 2:30 pm XL Construction Office – Training Room 851 Buckeye Court Milpitas, CA 95035 AGENDA 9:00 am Welcome and Opening Remarks 9:15 am CCFC Update: 2017-18 State Capital Outlay Funding Rebekah Cearley, Community College Facility Coalition 9:30 am Delivery Methods Primer • The Legal Perspective: Delivery Method Authorization and Legal Issues Mark W. Kelley, Dannis Woliver Kelley • The Construction Manager’s Perspective: Delivery Method Benefits and Considerations Steve Winslow, XL Construction Monet Crowley, XL Construction Jack Herbert, Swinerton Management and Consulting • The District Perspective: Selecting the Right Delivery Method Leigh Sata, Santa Rosa Junior College • The Architect’s Perspective: Encouraging Collaborative Project Delivery Karen Kuklin, Gensler 10:15 am Break 10:30 am Delivery Methods Primer, Continued 11:30 am The Chancellor’s Office Perspective: State Funding and Delivery Methods Harold Flood, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm The Evolution Toward Progressive Design-Build at San Mateo County CCD: The Skyline Environmental Services Building Project Case Study Chris Strugar-Fritsch, San Mateo County Community College District Erin Allred, XL Construction Craig Ivancovich, DES Architects + Engineers Tay Othman, DES Architects + Engineers 2:15 pm Q&A 2:30 pm Evaluations & Adjourn
Transcript
CCFC Regional Workshops
Community College Construction Delivery Methods: Options, Obligations, and Opportunities
BAY AREA
Friday, May 12, 2017 9:00 am to 2:30 pm
XL Construction Office – Training Room 851 Buckeye Court Milpitas, CA 95035
AGENDA
9:00 am Welcome and Opening Remarks 9:15 am CCFC Update: 2017-18 State Capital Outlay Funding Rebekah Cearley, Community College Facility Coalition 9:30 am Delivery Methods Primer
• The Legal Perspective: Delivery Method Authorization and Legal Issues Mark W. Kelley, Dannis Woliver Kelley
• The Construction Manager’s Perspective: Delivery Method Benefits and Considerations Steve Winslow, XL Construction Monet Crowley, XL Construction Jack Herbert, Swinerton Management and Consulting
• The District Perspective: Selecting the Right Delivery Method Leigh Sata, Santa Rosa Junior College
10:15 am Break 10:30 am Delivery Methods Primer, Continued 11:30 am The Chancellor’s Office Perspective: State Funding and Delivery Methods Harold Flood, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm The Evolution Toward Progressive Design-Build at San Mateo County CCD: The Skyline Environmental Services Building Project Case Study
Chris Strugar-Fritsch, San Mateo County Community College District Erin Allred, XL Construction Craig Ivancovich, DES Architects + Engineers Tay Othman, DES Architects + Engineers
2:15 pm Q&A 2:30 pm Evaluations & Adjourn
CCFC Regional Workshop
Community College Construction Delivery Methods:
Options, Obligations and Opportunities
Friday, May 12, 2017 9:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Bay Area
COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITY COALITION
1303 J Street, Suite 520 ♦ Sacramento, CA 95814 ♦ Phone (916) 446-3042 ♦ Fax (916) 441-3893 ♦ www.caccfc.org
CCFC Update: 2017-18 State Capital Outlay Funding
Rebekah Cearley Community College Facility Coalition
Rebekah CearleyCommunity College Facility Coalition
Passed with 55.2% of the vote – 7.5 million “yes” votes
$10 million Yes on 51 campaign◦ Direct voter contact made a difference – mailers, social
media, television Provides:◦ $2 billion for community college facilities◦ $7 billion for K-12 facilities
Vast, bipartisan support◦ Both California Democratic & Republican parties
endorsed◦ Governor says he will “respect the will of the people” in
implementing Prop 51
5/12/2017
2
Community college capital outlay projects funded annually in state budget
For 2017-18 – Governor proposes to fund five new projects◦ Pasadena City College – Armen Sarafain Building Seismic
Replacement◦ San Francisco CCD – Alemany Center Seismic Upgrade◦ San Francisco CCD – Ocean Campus Utility Replacement◦ North Orange CCD – Fullerton College – Business and
Humanities Buildings Modernization◦ El Camino CCD – Compton Center – Instructional Building 2
Replacement All are Health & Safety – 3 Category A, 2 Category C Worth $7.4 million in 2017-18 – preliminary plans
only◦ Total funding $182 million
Contrast budget proposal to Board of Governor’s action
2017-18 Spending Plan – Approved by BOG May 2016
Spending Plan prioritization:◦ “Least Cost to State”◦ Health & Safety projects – up to 50% available funds
The need is great◦ $28 billion (state + local) – 2017-18 Five-Year
Capital Outlay Plan $10.6 B – new facilities $17.4 B – modernization
5/12/2017
3
No changes proposed by Administration for community college capital outlay program
Legislative Analyst’s Office agrees that the proposal is insufficient to meet need◦ Would take 11 years to administer funds
Chancellor’s Office asking to fund all 29 projects◦ Will defer unfunded projects to 2018-19◦ Not currently accepting FPPs for 2019-20
CCFC legislative advocacy◦ Budget subcommittee process
Department of Finance accepted additional justification for “health and safety” projects◦ Information submitted for 11 projects
Four projects added for 17-18 by April Letter:◦ Allan Hancock Fine Arts Complex◦ Long Beach Liberal Arts Campus Multi-Disciplinary
Facility Replacement◦ Santa Monica College Math/Science Addition◦ Orange Coast College Language Arts/Social
Sciences Building Worth $4.3 m planning◦ Total funding $121.4 m
5/12/2017
4
CCFC is urging funding for all 29 projects in 2017-18 budget◦ Proposal does not honor BOG process and creates
planning challenges Negotiations occurring through budget process If your district has an “unfunded project”:◦ Contact your state Senator and Assembly Member to
request funding in the 2017-18 budget Initial signaling from Legislative members is
positive but we need to build pressure! Deferral of Prop 51 implementation does not
meet the will of voters
DIR proposal to increase compliance with the public works prevailing wage monitoring program (SB 854, 2014)
SB 854 created new contractor registration and awarding body noticing requirements (PWC-100)
New budget proposal via trailer bill language ◦ Goal of increasing contractor registrations to address
program’s structural imbalance◦ Uses “carrot and stick” approach
Budget requests additional positions:◦ 6 positions to educate awarding bodies ◦ 1 attorney to pursue debarments
5/12/2017
5
Carrot (Relief):◦ Small project exemption: raise threshold of applicability
from $1,000 to $15,000 for maintenance, $25,000 for construction
◦ Notice to DIR within 30 days of award (not 5) Stick (Compliance):◦ Creates new penalty for awarding bodies $100/day, up to $10,000
◦ Increases penalties for contractors and subs◦ An awarding agency with two violations in 12 months
loses state facility funding for one year Would be effective for work performed on/after
January 1, 2018
Proposal subject to review in budget process Stakeholders concerned penalties are overly
punitive (contractors, awarding agencies) Chair of Assembly Budget Subcommittee on
State Administration asked DIR and DOF to work with stakeholders over the next few months to address concerns
Mark Kelley, Dannis Woliver KelleySteve Winslow, XL ConstructionMonet Crowley, XL ConstructionJack Herbert, Swinerton Management and ConsultingLeigh Sata, Santa Rosa Junior CollegeKaren Kuklin, Gensler
1
Legal Perspective: ◦ Mark Kelley, Dannis Woliver Kelley
The Industry GC/CM/Architect:◦ Steve Winslow, XL Construction◦ Monet Crowley, XL Construction◦ Jack Herbert, Swinerton◦ Karen Kuklin, Gensler
The District Perspective:◦ Leigh Sata, Santa Rosa Junior College
2
5/12/2017
2
District 2016Nov.Measure
Amount
LosAngelesCCD CC $3,300,000,000SanJose‐EvergreenCCD X $748,000,000DesertCCD CC $577,860,000KernCCD J $502,821,000MiraCosta CCD MM $455,000,000SouthwesternCCD Z $400,000,000AntelopeValleyCCD AV $350,000,000SantaMonicaCCD V $345,000,000GlendaleCCD GC $325,000,000Butte‐GlennCCD J $190,000,000Hartnell CCD T $167,000,000YubaCCD Q $33,565,000
TOTAL $7,394,246,000
3
4
Source: US Census Bureau 9/16, Saylor Consulting Group, Market Trends 2017 (dated March 2017)
5/12/2017
3
5
Continued low interest rates Wages up 3% two years in a row State funds and spending up State construction bond issuance up Office rents up 7.6% yoy Real estate market up 5.2% yoy Multi-year transportation bill passed in 2015 Promises of infrastructure spending boost Industry confidence
Source: Saylor Consulting Group, Market Trends 2017 (dated March 2017)
6
Source: EDD, California Labor Market Review, Saylor Consulting Group, Market Trends 2017 (dated March 2017)
5/12/2017
4
7
Source: SF Business Times Crane Watch, Saylor Consulting Group, Market Trends 2017 (dated March 2017)
8
In Design:◦ SFPUC Sewer System Improvement Program
Central Bayside--$500-800 MM BioSolids Digester--$1.2 Billion
◦ Ca. High Speed Rail--$4 Billion In Construction:◦ Bart Warm Springs/Berryessa--$2 B◦ Transbay Transit Center--$2 B◦ Folsom Dam--$500 MM◦ eBART & Highway 4 widening--$1 B◦ SF Muni Central Subway--$2.25 B
Source: Saylor Consulting Group, Market Trends 2017 (dated March 2017)
governing board of a school district, without advertising for bids, may let, for a minimum rental of one dollar ($1) a year…
CCDs (Ed. Code 81335):◦ 81335. The governing board of a community
college district may let, at a minimum rental of one dollar ($1) a year…
24
5/12/2017
13
Authorized by education code § 81335 Provides owners with flexibility and benefits that may not be possible with some of the other delivery methods.
LLB allows an owner to select a GC during the design/preconstruction phase through a “defined” qualification and fee based selection process.
All requirements for construction and/or public works are still applicable; i.e. prevailing wage, bonds, insurance, indemnification, field act compliance (seismic), and skilled workforce requirements.
25
CM
Advantages DisadvantagesA District may use Lease-Lease-Back to satisfy its need for financing the project.
Uncertainty for employing revised methodology (post Davis v. Fresno environment).
The District has flexibility on who controls the Architect.
Higher learning curve for delivery method.
The District may participate in selecting Developer-Contractor, and all the trade contractors and suppliers.
Solicitation of savings/cost can create costs savings.
5/12/2017
14
27
Legal perspective Industry – GC / CM / Architect perspective District perspective
=Owner Team
28
DistrictProgram Architect
Design-Build Entity(Architect + Contractor)
Trade contractors
5/12/2017
15
Advantages DisadvantagesMultiple packages provide greater opportunity for participation by local trade contractors.
No common standards for methodology.
Teamwork is promoted because general contractor and architect are on the same team.
Higher learning curve for delivery method.
Earlier knowledge of construction costs guaranteed during design.
Design risk shift to the Design-Build Entity (DBE).
Potential for faster delivery systems.
30
Legal perspective Industry – GC / CM / Architect perspective District perspective
5/12/2017
16
31
=Owner Team
32
ConstructionManagerArchitect Trade Contractors
District
5/12/2017
17
ConstructionManagerArchitect Trade Contractors
=Owner Team
33
District
SUB
DesignAdvantages Disadvantages
Advantages DisadvantagesPotential for faster delivery systems.
No common standards for methodology.
Mitigate material shortages and price escalation issues.
Higher learning curve for delivery method.
May bring construction input into design.
Confirm legal authorization to use this method.
May facilitate Value Engineering.
5/12/2017
18
35
Legal perspective Industry – GC / CM / Architect perspective District perspective
• Design-Bid-Build• Multi-Prime
Contracting• CM at-Risk
• Lease-Leaseback • Design-Build
36
5/12/2017
19
6
10
8
6
7
9
150 150
200
144
90
84
90
758
LLB
37
Q & A
CCFC Regional Workshop
Community College Construction Delivery Methods:
Options, Obligations and Opportunities
Friday, May 12, 2017 9:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Bay Area
COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITY COALITION
1303 J Street, Suite 520 ♦ Sacramento, CA 95814 ♦ Phone (916) 446-3042 ♦ Fax (916) 441-3893 ♦ www.caccfc.org
The Chancellor’s Office Perspective: State Funding and Delivery Methods
Chris Strugar‐Fritsch, San Mateo County Community College District
SMCCCD History with Design Build
• SMCCD first California CCD to use Design‐Build
• AB 1000: Enacted in September 2002. Allowed Design‐Build to be used by five CCDs as pilot programs until December 2007
• José Nuñez, SMCCD Vice Chancellor for Facilities and Jeff Gee, Swinerton Management Consultants lobbied legislature to approve AB 1000
• Current California Education Code 81700 – 81708 allows CCDs to use Design‐Build for project > $2.5M through 2020
• SMCCD two previous Bond Measure Programs has constructed ~$400M of capital projects using Design‐Build
• Current Bond Measure Program using Design‐Build ~$250M
5/12/2017
2
SMCCCD Practices• Past District Two Step Practice
• Architect Develops Bridging Documents
• RFSOQ and RFP Process to Select Design‐Build‐Entity
• Design Competition
• Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Established at Contract Award
• Current District Practice Migrating to Progressive Design‐Build
• RFP Qualifications/Best Value Selection Process
• No Bridging Documents
• No Design Competition – Design Completed with College/District Input
• GMP Established After Design is Fully Developed, Agencies Permit Processes and Buyout Completed
Design Build Procurement Process
• Three highest ranked Design‐Build Entities are invited to participate• Employs objective evaluation criteria as required per Education Code
81700; price, technical expertise, life cycle costs, skilled labor force availability, and acceptable safety record
• Allows for price or costs to be considered with qualifications
• Employs evaluation criteria traditionally used for qualifications‐based selection along with a prequalification questionnaire based on the Department of Industrial Relations’ guidelines
• Allows for a larger pool of qualified firms to participate
“Best Value”Qualifications + Cost
Request for Statement of Qualifications
Request for Proposals
5/12/2017
3
Reasons for Implementing Current Practice
• District Has More Influence on Design After Contract Award
• District Can Hire DBE Team that is Best Fit for College
• Improved Integrated Design Process
• Leverage IPD and Lean Construction Practices
• Improved Speed to Market
• Open Book/Transparent Cost Management
• Improved Competition
Proposal Renderings
Cañada College Building 1N Kinesiology and Wellness
Skyline College Building 12N Environmental Science
