GSA Project. Andrew Peterman Josh Odelson. - Façade Re-model of Portland Federal Building

Transcription

1 NOTE: If opened with most recent version of Powerpoint, the image in back should be transparent. If you re not seeing the semi-transparant image it s because you re using an older version. GSA Project Andrew Peterman Josh Odelson - Façade Re-model of Portland Federal Building - Visual Representation and analysis of alternative methods for multi-year re-model process

2 2. PBS, OBS, and WBS PBS WBS OBS

3 3. Level 2 - Generic POP Model Business Objectives Process for achieving objectives Methods for monitoring objectives

4 4. 3-D Model

5 4. 3-D Model Walls, windows, roof, planting Level

6 5. 3-D Model- Coordination Trees interfere directly with façade construction at levels 2-72

7 5. 3-D Model- Coordination Trees interfere directly with façade construction at levels 2-72 *Note after presenting this to GSA and Portland Architects, we discovered they have already started working with the Portland Forester to remove or tie back these trees in advance.

8 5. 3-D Model- Coordination Trees interfere directly with façade construction at levels 1-61 *Note after presenting this to GSA and Portland Architects, we discovered they have already started working with the Portland Forester to remove or tie back these trees in advance.

9 5. 3-D Model- Coordination Lessons Learned: 1) Although the trees don t present a serious threat to construction processes, the building of the 3-D 3 D model highlighted a possible concern. G.C. was able to confirm mitigation plans have begun. 2) Simple interferences should be clear in architectural plan. They ve been discussing this as a problem, but it was no where explicit.

10 5. 3-D Model- Coordination Re-location will have to be coordinated internally between floors. Lobby construction must be coordinated with demolition, move-in in- move-out, out, and façade re- model on upper levels. Upper floors construction may cause interference on lobby construction with crane placement and other equipment placement.

11 6. Process Design Alternative Design Alternative will require additional team members as well as additional procedures Although architects had already included mitigation steps for trees, a planting and landscaping team should be explicitly stated in POP Model.

12 6. Process Design Alternative Process Req. change to 3 floors at a time and earlier completion time. Design Alternative will include changes to the floor shuffling mechanism. 3 floors of construction at a time changes process form.

13 6. Process Design Alternative Baseline requires that 1 floor of impacted work space at a time. Baseline achieves the goal of 1 impacted floor at at time by following this process form.

14 6. Process Design Alternative Process Req. change to 3 floors at a time and earlier completion time. Design Alternative will include changes to the floor shuffling mechanism. 3 floors of construction at a time changes process form.

15 6. Process Design Alternative Comparison Baseline 1 floor impacted during each phase Less coordination and thus less risk for cost/schedule over-runs 3 Flr. Construction Method Completion time << Baseline 3-4 floors impacted during each phase Higher risk for re-work and hidden work.

16 6. Process Design Alternative Comparison Baseline 1 floor impacted during each phase Less coordination and thus less risk for cost/schedule over-runs 3 Flr. Construction Method Completion time << Baseline 3-4 floors impacted during each phase Higher risk for re-work and hidden work. Based on Engineering Judgement Based on SimVision Analysis

17 7. Re-work Risk in 4-D Re-work and coordination due to space-time proximity Trees interfere with façade construction on floors 2-7 *Note after presenting this to GSA and Portland Architects, we discovered they have already started working with the Portland Forester to remove or tie back these trees in advance.

18 7. Re-work Risk in 4-D of Baseline Re-work and coordination due to space-time proximity Demolition on 8th floor may interfere with construction on lobby (falling debris, crane placement, etc.)

19 7. Re-work Risk in 4-D of Process Design Alternative Re-work and coordination due to space-time proximity Construction of 3 floors and lobby concurrently may create severe space- time coordination issues.

20 7. Scheduling Error Noticed w/ 4-D Schedule calls for duplication of work on floors 11 and 10.

21 7. Scheduling Error Noticed w/ 4-D Schedule calls for duplication of work on floors 11 and 10. QuickTime and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

22 8. SimVision Process-Organization Model Rework resulting from time-space interference of trees and façade work Secondary assignments indicate the tree mitigation team assisting the façade team The coordination activities between façade construction and the lobby renovation are necessary to insure a smooth construction process with minimal interference

23 8. SimVision Process-Organization Model Rework resulting from time-space interference of multiple levels being constructed simultaneously The coordination activities between façade construction and the lobby renovation are necessary to insure a smooth construction process with minimal interference

24 9. SV Baseline vs. Coordination & Rework Large schedule differences are a result of hidden work Schedule risks due to hidden work are large and can be found in all project activities Coordination & Rework Baseline This chart shows the amount of hidden work and schedule duration to expect versus an optimistic CPM schedule

25 9. SV Tree Mitigation Alternative Schedule risks to due hidden work are large and can be found in all project activities Notice almost 1 month reduction in schedule This chart compares a baseline case versus the use of a Tree Mitigation Team to minimize risk and schedule length due to tree interference Tree Mitigation Coordination & Rework Baseline

26 9. SV Baseline vs. Coordination & Rework Large schedule differences are a result of hidden work Schedule risks due to hidden work are large and can be found in all project activities Coordination & Rework Baseline This chart shows the amount of hidden work and schedule duration to expect versus an optimistic CPM schedule

27 9. SV 1 Floor vs. 3 Floors Notice almost 23 month reduction in schedule Schedule risks due to hidden work can be reduced by producing more than one floor at a time This chart compares the renovation of one floor versus three floors at a time in terms of amount of rework and schedule impact 3 Floors 1 Floor Baseline

28 Probability 10. Product and Program Risks Greatest risks 90% S Impacts Impacts During During Construction Operations 50% S Material Personnel 30% 5% 2% Least Risks 2 weeks C F $1M F C $5M *All risks marginally higher for 3 floors at a time because of increased activity Consequence S Schedule of reoccupation and work among floors C Cladding installation and performance F Falling objects or people

29 11. Business Recommendations VDC Implementation: -VDC from the start. Project team would have more efficiently been able to implement VDC solutions had the GSA (Portland) bought-in before we started. -Improves continuity between VDC Solutions and needs of GSA. -Efficient use of student/worker time.

30 11. Business Recommendations Next Steps: -Elaborate on 4-D Models to better reflect the anticipated effects of a 3-level move. Double check assumptions with GSA. -Update SimVision analysis to better represent coordination and re-work effects of the two different models. Affirm/Negate assumptions in our SimVision model -Implement current Revit 3-D Model into all of our models.

31 12. TEI iroom hardware PC 2, ,000 Projector 3, ,000 Smart Board 2, ,000 installation 2, ,000 Software 4D 10, ,000 ADT 15, ,000 Primavera 13, ,000 Organization model 10, ,000 Training (days) 2, ,500 Internal staff development ,500 Total 100,000 Budget 100,000 iroom hardware costs remain low because all participants agree to have project teams located in the same building All necessary software for modeling the façade and lobby renovations are included Total investment cost

32 12. TEI GSA Pays all GC pays 10% Sub pays 80% GSA pays 10% Time to payback (years) AEC IT investment by GC AEC IT investment by subcontractor AEC IT investment by Owner: GSA AEC IT investment by GC Rate Baseline ($K) Change Year-1 (K$) Revenue 100, % 102,000 Cost of contracted work 85% 85, % 84,660 Cost of self-performed wo 10% 10, % 12,240 Gross Margin 5,000 5,100 Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,040 IT investment 10 Amortized costs of IT/yr 33% 3 Net income 3,000 3,057 Time to payback (years) 0.2 Net Income change (%) 1.9 AEC IT investment by subcontractor Baseline Rate ($K) Change Year-1 (K$) Revenue 25,000 2% 25,500 Cost of self-performed wo 75% 18, % 18,615 Design fees 10% 2, % 3,060 Gross Margin 3,750 3,825 Sales, G&A 4% 1,000 1,020 IT investment 80 Amortized costs of IT/yea 33% 27 Net income 2,750 2,778 Time to payback (years) 2.8 Net Income change (%) 1.0 AEC IT investment by Owner: Rate Year 1: Design- Build w/o IT (K$) Change w/it Year-2 O&M w/o IT ($K) AEC IT investment by Owner: Year 1: Design- Build w/o IT (K$) Change w/it Year-2 O&M w/o IT ($K) Rate Net revenue from new facility 0 0.0% 15,000 Annual income/initial develop cost 15% Cost of work (or O&M) 10% 100,000 10,000 Design-build savings w/it 2% 2,000 0 O&M savings w/it 0% Amortized facility costs 2.6% 2,564 IT investment Amortized costs of IT/yea 33% 0 Net income 0 2,436 Time to payback (years) Net Income change (%) Best Solution Spreading the costs around to all the major participants allows the value of the investment to be realized within the lifetime of the technology

33 14. 4-D Animation Model QuickTime and a decompressor are needed to see this picture.

34 14. Relative and Predicted costs and Benefits Costs Benefits Tree Risk without Tree Mitigation Team More time (925 days vs. 905 days) More rework (200 FTE days vs. 100 FTE days) Less product risk (60% vs. 75%) Tree Risk with Tree Mitigation Team More product risk (75% vs. 60%) Less time (905 days vs. 925 days) Less rework (100 FTE days vs. 200 FTE days) Costs and Benefits were determined by using the analysis from Sim Vision for the purpose of determining the alternative that will best allow the GSA to meet their business objectives

35 15. Measurable Process Objectives -Monitor Tenant satisfaction with construction process to ensure +/- 2% tenant occupancy after construction completion -VDC method: 3-D/4-D Model shown to stakeholders. 4-D will help mitigate conflicts with tenants on frontend. -0 RFI s on site construction as a result of clear construction schedule and 4-D model. All project team members are able to clearly measure on a weekly basis how many RFIs are recorded and compare with process objective.

36 16. Measurable Controllable Objectives -3-D Model represents 100% of objects specified in POP Model. -Monitor schedule conformance on weekly basis with respect to master schedule % of assumptions in model clearly stated by project team, GSA, and all stake holders.

37 17. Instance POP Model Product Form Organization Form Owner Organization General Contractor Design Team Demolition Team Construction Team Move Team Lobby Team Tree Mitigation Team (landscape) NOTE: Major changes between generic and instance occur in the form area. In order to display Product Forms, they are not listed by each individual wall object.

38 17. Instance POP Model Process Form 17th Flr. Move to 3rd Flr. (3 --> alt. facility) Vacate Floor 17 Flr. 17 Exterior Re-cladding 16th Flr. Move to 17th Floor Demolish 16th Floor Flr. 16 Exterior re-cladding 15th Flr. move to 16th Flr. Demolish 15th Floor Flr. 15 Exterior Re-cladding 14th Flr. Move to 15th Flr. Demolish 14th Flr. Flr. 14 Exterior Re-Cladding 13th Flr. Move to 14th Flr. Demolish 13th Flr. Flr. 13 Exterior Re-Cladding 12th Flr. Move to 13th Flr. Demolish 12th Flr. Flr. 12 Exterior Re-cladding 11th Flr. Move to 12th Flr. Demolish 11th Flr. Flr. 11 Exterior Re-Cladding 10th Flr. Move to 11th Flr. Demolish 10th Flr. Flr. 11 Exterior re-cladding (2) Re-occupy 11th Flr. (2) Demolish 10th Flr. (2) Flr. 10 Exterior re-cladding 9th Flr. Move to 10th Flr. Demolish 9th Flr. Flr. 9 Exterior Re-cladding Re-model Lobby 8th Flr. Move to 9th Flr. Demolish 8th Flr. Flr. 8 Exterior Re-cladding 7th Flr. Move to 8th Flr. Demolish 7th Flr. Flr. 7 Exterior Re-cladding 6th Flr. Move to 7th Flr. Demolish 6th Flr. Flr. 6 Exterior re-cladding 5th Flr. Move to 6th Flr. Demolish 5th Flr. Flr. 5 Exterior Re-cladding 4th Flr. Move to 5th Flr. Demolish 4th Flr. Flr. 4 Exterior Re-cladding 3rd Flr. Move to 4th Flr. Demolish 3rd Flr. Flr. 3 Exterior re-cladding 2nd Flr. Move to 3rd Flr. Demolish 2nd Flr. Flr. 2 Exterior re-cladding Re-occupy Flr. 2 Planting

39 18. Executive Summary The purpose of the GSA project was to examine the ramifications of not taking action to prevent trees from interfering with the process of renovating the façade of the Wendall Wyatt Federal Building and to prescribe a solution to this problem. To meet these objectives, Virtual Design and Construction practices were implemented including the use of 3D and 4D modeling, SimVision, Primavera, and POP models. These tools aided in determining the costs and benefits associated with having no response to the tree problem and having an active team working to mitigate the tree problem. Our analysis demonstrates clearly that creating a Tree Mitigation Team improves the schedule and rework performance of the project at negligible increases in product risk.

40 18. Executive Summary Part II After late discussions with the GSA, we found that the trees did not pose as much of a problem. The GSA Team was more interested in alternative floor shuffling methods from the proposed architectural program. We analyzed the challenges, benefits, and perceived negative impacts of a simultaneous 3-floor façade re-model. Using SimVision we analyzed hidden work, coordination, and risk. Using ADT, CommonPoint, and Primavera we were able to clearly represent visually the two different processes. Within the 3D/4D models we were able to identify possible coordination issues that may not have been apparent without a visual representation of the paper schedule.