Kaufman Lynn Construction - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RFQ No. 15-08-02 Construction Management at Risk for Government Center Annex at 18080 Collins Avenue 6 Since the site had different uses over the years, we recommend analyzing the site with ground penetrating radar (GPR). The GPR identifies any objects along with their approximate shape and size buried below ground. We compare the information gained from this investigation against as-built to create a thorough map of underground conditions. Doing so can avoid costly delays during construction later on. undErstanding thE nEEds oF multiPlE building ownErs The Annex will accommodate a variety of users: City staff, k-2 school, residents and private office owners. Taking the time to understand the needs and requirements of the different users up front promotes efficient building use once occupied. Some of the items we consider include turnover dates (for example, in our experience turnover to schools is best scheduled for the summer time), the security requirements between the various users, i.e. the need for physical separation and/or access control. dEsign rEviEw to inCorPoratE “hands-on” ExPEriEnCE As Construction Manager, our effort throughout the development of a project is as a design assist partner to the project team. We support to the design team through our “hands on” knowledge of constructability, pricing accuracy, market conditions, life cycle cost analysis, technical material and systems validation, energy efficiency vs. first cost analysis, schedule expertise, subcontractors and vendor selection, long lead and critical equipment procurement, LEED recommendations, and code experience, to name a few. Because the review process is critical in establishing the quality of the project, we involve our independent quality control consultant in this process. Together we review the drawings and specifications from all design disciplines and all consultants. These reviews focus on final code zoning solutions, appropriate systems distribution, materials selected and building envelope. COST CONTROL DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION dEvEloPing a budgEt and strEtChing thE valuE oF EaCh dollar We typically provide a first budget/estimate based on schematic plans and early specifications. Some critical subcontractor input and a complete quantitative analysis with graphical take-off would be included at this point. We perform a gap analysis to assure as best possible that no “holes” or “overlaps” are evident in the estimated amount. Based on overall cost at this point, we introduce Value Management options to assure the target budget is not exceeded. oPtions analysis: saving timE & Costs whilE maintaining high FunCtionality & Quality Similar to how we are called on for accurate and reliable cost data, we expect to provide alternative approaches or “menu’s” for different aspects of construction installations and means and methods. When on board early in the process, these options analyses can bring significant cost and time savings to the project while maintaining the high level of function and quality envisioned. We identify alternatives for systems, materials, equipment and their associated cost and time for evaluation and decision. This on-going design menu log remains in place for discussion until items are agreed to be discarded and/or implemented so as to not loose the option throughout the design process. Before final construction document pricing, the project team reviews the “Options Log” to assure that no good idea has been lost through design. Utilizing ground penetrating radar allows us to locate buried structures and utilities that may not be identified on exisiting as-built drawings. Taking the extra step during preconstruction avoids potential costly delays later on. PROS:  Matches existing structural system  No fireproofing required  No corrosion concerns  Decreased material lead time CONS:  More intrusive to campus operation  More labor and material intense  Logistically more difficult  More downtime for cafeteria  Longer structural phase PROS:  Less intrusive to campus operation  Decreases cafeteria downtime  Shorter structural phase  Less interior restoration  Offsite fabrication CONS:  Increased lead time for shop drawing s and fabrication  Larger crane required  Need fireproofing  Increased fire hazard during construction CONCRETE FRAME AND PRECAST CLADDING STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAME AND PRECAST CLADDING REINFORCED MASONRY AND STUCCO PROS:  Minimal lead times  Lower cost  Simpler logistics  Increased flexibility CONS:  Does not match existing systems  More onsite labor  Increased safety concerns  Longer structural phase  Messier Being on board early allows us to provide analysis of various building systems which can reduce costs significantly. Project Approach & Understanding Section D