CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Progressive Design‐Build An Emerging Option for Collaboration and Design Excellence

Brandon Dekker Robert Brykalski Jose Nuñez gkkworks | CannonDesign Build‐LACCD San Mateo County CCD

David S. Gehrig Corrie Messinger Yanely Pulido Hanson Bridgett LLP McCarthy Building Companies San Mateo County CCD

Progressive Design‐Build What is it?

J. Brandon Dekker, M.S., DBIA, LEED GA Principal gkkworks | CannonDesign

1 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

The Conflict in the Law

Designer is accountable to a reasonable standard STANDARD OF CARE of care, therefore Errors and Omission are The common law standard of care for performance acceptable within a limit. of design professional services is generally defined as the ordinary and reasonable care usually exercised by one in that profession, on the same type of project, at the same time and in the same place, under similar circumstances and conditions. Perfect performance is not required by the common law. CONFLICT GAME ON

SPEARIN DOCTRINE Builder can assume contract is error free with no omissions. United States v. Spearin (248 U.S. 132), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine is a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision. It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. The owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results solely from insufficiencies or Thedefects in suchOwner information, plans and specifications.

Loss of Productivity

2 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Advantages/Disadvantages

DESIGN BID BUILD (HARD BID) The traditional project delivery method, which customarily involves three OWNER sequential project phases: Design, Procurement, and Construction

A/E Advantages Disadvantages Competitive bidding, based on Quality/Qualifications GC Low Resp. price More Owner Control Change Orders/Delays Familiar & Established Adversarial

A/E of Record Services as Lump‐Sum/Closed Book, No SUBS Owner Liaison Early Involvement

Advantages/Disadvantages

CM AT RISK (CMAR)

A project delivery method in which the Construction Manager acts as a OWNER consultant to the Owner in the development and design phases, but assumes the risk for construction performance as the equivalent of a constructor.

A/E Advantages Disadvantages CMA Qualifications Based Lack of Subcontractor R/GC Transparency since Based on Lump Sum Risk is on CM, Subs Assigned to Legal Authorization for Delivery CM Method Pre‐Construction Work, Early No Common Standards for SUBS Involvement with Procurement, Methodology Schedule, Budget, etc.

3 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Advantages/Disadvantages

CM MULTI‐PRIME An important variation of Design‐Bid‐Build is multiple prime contracting, in OWNER which the Owner holds separate contracts with contractors of various construction work disciplines, such as general construction, earthwork, structural, mechanical, and electrical. In this system, the Owner, or its CM, manages the overall schedule and budget.

Advantages Disadvantages CM A/E Competitive Prime Trades, Administrative difficulty; Direct Early involvement from CM for trade and A / E conflicts cost and schedule controls

Eliminates GC premiums Lack of single risk bonded P P P price, higher risk with subs. CM is on owners side Lump Sum / Closed book, potential overlap or gaps in scope of work.

Advantages/Disadvantages

DESIGN BUILD

A project delivery method that combines architectural and engineering design OWNER services with construction performance under one contract.

PROJECT DELIVERY SPPORT

Advantages Disadvantages D/B Qualifications Based Newer Form of Delivery ENTITY Risk with Design/Builder D/B A/E Team/Integrated Potential Lack of Design SUBS Approach/Creative Solutions Control Minimal Change Orders, Early Higher Learning Curve for Budget and Design Estimates, Delivery Method Scope Controls Best Value Award

4 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Integrated & Collaborative Elements

• Integrated Project Delivery • Integrated Technology Systems • Qualification Based Selection • Lean Construction Tools

• Stakeholder Engagement Process • Structured Collaborative Partnering

Progressive Design Build Delivery Lines of Communication Contractual Relationship Design Phase Progressive Buyout to GMP

Designer Designer

Collaborate Owner and Owner Align Expectation Procurement of Packages Trade Builder Builder Builder

Risk Risk Assignment: Risk Assignment: Assignment: • Vision • Design . Vision • Construction . Designg . Construction

5 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

TradeDesign PackageProgrammingDesignBuilder Builder BuilderReservesManagementDesign Fee Services Contingency Services ServicesTrade Packages Base Work

• ProgrammingProjectAllowanceArchitecturalOverheadDirectDesign cost Managementerrors & forof Profit Design constructionVerification&undefined omissions ServicesStaff or • ProgramNegotiatedScheduleBondsProjectEngineeringunquantifiable &Engineering InsuranceVisioning Acceleration self Services scope performed work • ProgramPrepareExpressedScopeDesignCoreWork Tradeis gaps Management to BidDevelopment be as WorkDocumentsbetween includeda percent trades with • DevelopmentEquipmentFieldAppliedDesignWorkTrade Office notPackage Servicesto identified Trade ProcurementAdministration of Base BasisforPackage in Tradework of Design Bidsof • CostAppliedSubcontractedContractConstructionPackages AddedEstimating to Trade to Tradetrade Package workPackage • PullMinimumAnySupervisionBuildingBaseReserves PlanningRemaining work Information of 3of Bids Subcontractors contingency for Modeling is • DevelopTradeAppliedNegotiatedQualitysubcontractedreturned Reserve Control/Assuranceto Costto Change AfterOwner Model workwork Programming Orders is • DevelopCostItExcludesPhasenegotiated is not submitted applied Schedule Trade after withtoReservesscope Design RFQ/P is • CostdefinedServices submitted with RFQ/P • Fee submitted with RFQ/P

Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

Components of the GMP Programming Services

Builder Management Services

Design Services

Trade Package Base Work

Trade Package Reserves

Design Builder O/P Fee

Design Builder Contingency

6 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Progressive Design‐Build Amount

Contract

Progressive

Design Build Done Right

7 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Curriculum

1. Introduction to Progressive Design 4. Organization, Behavior, & Build Management • Design Build Done Right • Stakeholder Engagement • What is Progressive Design Build • Structured Collaborative Partnering • Why Choose Progressive Design Build 5. Management Tools • Obstacles to Progressive Design Build • Cost Model 2. Why Chose Progressive Design Build • Last Planner • Domains of Project Delivery 3. Procurement, Selection, & Contract • Contracting Phases • Progressive Modifications to Contract

Progressive Design-Build: An Emerging Option for Collaboration and Design Excellence

Community College Facilities Coalition 2018 Annual Conference Pre-Conference Workshop

Hyatt Regency, Sacramento, CA

September 10, 2018

David S. Gehrig, Partner 415-995-5063 (direct) [email protected] www.infrastructreblog.com

8 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Agenda

1. Summary of Community College District Design-Build Statutes (Education Code Sections 81700-81708) 2. Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build 3. How Progressive Design-Build Fits with Community College District Design-Build Authority

Community College District Design-Build Statutes (Ed. Code Sections 81700-81708) • CCD design-build statutes were adopted by the CA legislature in 2002 • The statutes were initially adopted as part of a pilot program limited to 3 specific districts: Los Angeles, San Jose- Evergreen and San Mateo • 2007 amendments expanded design-build authority to all community college districts • Additional minor amendments in 2012 and 2014

9 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Community College District Design-Build Statutes (Ed. Code sections 81700-81708) • The framework for design-build under 81700-81708 is similar to other public agency design-build statutes: – Must prequalify all DB entities first – RFP process follows prequalification – Can award to lowest bidder or on a “best value” basis – Best value award must establish objective criteria – Following factors must receive at least 10% of total weight: price, technical expertise, life cycle costs over 15 years or more, skilled labor force availability, and safety record – Design-build-operate contracts are prohibited – District may conduct discussions and negotiations

Community College District Design-Build Statutes (Ed. Code Sections 81700-81708) • Procedures for final selection “shall be based on one of the following criteria” (81703(c)): – 81703(c)(1): To the lowest bidder after lump sum bids are submitted – 81703(c)(2): A “design-build competition based upon performance and other criteria … [such as] design approach, life cycle costs, project features, and project functions” and being ranked from most advantageous to least advantageous to the district

10 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Community College District Design-Build Statutes (Ed. Code Sections 81700-81708) • Award pursuant to the “design-build competition” under 81703(c)(2) continued: – Implies that the “design competition” will involve a competition on design concepts for the particular project – Requires minimum 10% score for each of the minimum factors listed for “best value” award IF the District limits the number of “responsible bidders” at any time after the RFP is issued • Price, technical expertise, life-cycle costs over 15 years or more, skilled labor force availability, acceptable safety record – District must issue a written decision supporting award

Community College District Design-Build Statutes (Ed. Code Sections 81700-81708)

• “The total price of the project shall be determined either upon receipt of the lump-sum bids as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 81703, or by completion of the process pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 81703.” (Education Code Section 81705(b).)

11 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build • Traditional approach: – 30% to 60% bridge design included with RFP – Price proposal based on lump sum for completion of entire project – Single contract award without “off-ramps” other than termination – Design-builder takes on majority of risk in relation for delivering the project

Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build • Progressive approach: – Less than 30% design (conceptual design, design criteria) – Lump sum price proposal not possible for entire project – Price proposal based on: • Lump sum for Stage 1 design services • Agency provides construction estimate in RFP • % markup proposed for profit on construction work • % markup proposed for overhead on construction work • Optional: % proposed for contingency and bonds • Proposers tabulate price proposal, with lowest price receiving max points, and other price proposals receiving points in relation to how close they are to lowest price

12 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build • Progressive approach continued: – Contract award is for total of Price Proposal amount, referred to as initial GMP or iGMP – iGMP is not locked in; only the Stage 1 lump sum for design services is locked – GMP is developed over the course of Stage 1 design work – GMP is proposed by design-builder, negotiated, and once agreed upon finalized in a Stage 2 GMP Amendment – If parties do not come to agreement on GMP, agency may use “off ramp” and terminate the agreement – After termination, agency entitled to utilize final design and bid it out

Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build • Benefits of progressive design-build: – No bridge design required – Allows agency to issued RFP sooner – Allows design-builder maximum flexibility and efficiency to develop the project; not confined by bridge design – Allows for earliest involvement of key trade contractors in design and preconstruction – Agency has off ramp in the event that it does not want to proceed with the design-builder for the construction phase, including where: 1) can’t come to agreement on GMP; 2) design-builder’s performance not acceptable

13 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build • Benefits of progressive design-build continued: – Fastest project delivery method? – Full transparency between owner and design-builder – Agency can have more influence on the design • Agency can attend design coordination meetings • However, owner-initiated changes can be costly – Most collaborative/integrated project delivery method

Traditional v. Progressive Design-Build • Potential disadvantages of progressive design-build: – Trickier to budget overall cost of the project • Unless agency makes the iGMP a cap not to exceed – Agency needs to develop a construction estimate for RFP – Requires coordination, communication and negotiation with design-builder to agree on Stage 2 GMP – Agency takes the risk of construction cost escalation, since the actual construction costs won’t be locked in until Stage 2 – Design-builder has less incentive to control costs during Stage 1 – Development of multiple GMPs for Stage 2 requires more active management by agency

14 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

How Progressive Design-Build Can Fit Under CCD Statutes • ISSUE: CCD statutes do not expressly authorize, or even reference, “progressive design-build” • While this is true, it does not preclude the use of progressive design-build by CCDs because: – Progressive design-build is just a variation of the design-build project delivery method; the primary features and benefits are the same as with traditional design-build – Districts can implement the progressive design-build approach and comply with all requirements of the CCD statutes – Nothing in the CCD statutes expressly prohibits the use of progressive design-build

How Progressive Design-Build Can Fit Under CCD Statutes • ISSUE: Districts are obligated to allocate at least 10% of the overall score to price. (81703(c)(2)(C).) • While progressive design-build does not allow for a lump sum price at the time proposals are submitted, price can still be evaluated: – Lump sum (or not to exceed amount) for Stage 1 design services – % profit x agency construction estimate – % overhead x agency construction estimate • Total of items above is “price” for evaluation purposes • Price also serves as an initial GMP, which is refined and finalized for Stage 2

15 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

How Progressive Design-Build Can Fit Under CCD Statutes • ISSUE: Districts are obligated to award a contract on the basis of a “design- build competition based upon performance and other criteria … including proposed design approach, life cycle costs, project features, and project functions.” (81703(c).) • Some interpret “design-build competition” to require submission of actual designs for the specific project with the proposal – Districts can address this in the RFP process by requiring and scoring conceptual designs for the project – Districts can provide a stipend for losing proposers to offset cost – Reviewing conceptual designs from proposers can provide good insight into a proposer’s creativity and design skills • Alternate interpretation: “design-build competition” just requires consideration of factors listed without conceptual designs

How Progressive Design-Build Can Fit Under CCD Statutes • ISSUE: Districts must allocate at least 10% to each of the following criteria (81703(c)(2)(C)): –Price – Technical expertise – Life cycle costs over 15 years or more – Skilled labor force availability – Acceptable safety record • Each of these factors can be evaluated in progressive design- build proposals as easily as in traditional design-build proposals (except for price, discussed above)

16 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

How Progressive Design-Build Can Fit Under CCD Statutes • ISSUE: Districts must require the design-build entity to “possess or obtain sufficient bonding to cover the contract amount for non-design services, and errors and omission insurance coverage sufficient to cover all design and architectural services provided in the contract.” (81704(a).) • These requirements can be satisfied on progressive design-build projects because: – Bonds are not required until construction commences, during Stage 2, by which time the GMP will be known – The required insurance will be specified in the RFP, and the amount of the design services will be known at the time of contract award, so coverage can be obtained

How Progressive Design-Build Can Fit Under CCD Statutes • ISSUE: “The total price of the project shall be determined either upon receipt of the lump-sum bids … or by completion of the process pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 81703.” (Ed Code Section 81705(b)) • On a progressive design-build project, the award of the contract is based on the initial GMP, and the GMP is not finalized until Stage 2

17 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

DESIGN‐BUILD EVOLUTION LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (LACCD) Rob Brykalski, Program Director

September 10, 2018

www.jacobs.com | worldwide

LACCD Funding History

Proposition A & AA $2.2B

Measure J $3.5B

Measure CC $3.3B

Total Program $9.6B*

*Includes bond funding, interest & state funding

Funds Remaining: $4B

18 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

LACCD Delivery Methods Since 2003 Design‐Bid‐Build • Schedule Delays • Legal Cost Design Competition GMP Design‐Build • High Cost To Compete • Lengthy Selection Process Lease Lease‐Back –Open Book GMP w/ GC Pre‐Con Services • Fresno Case (No Longer an Option) Design‐Build • Primary Delivery Method

Owner of Choice – Competitive Market Industry Partner Meeting w/ Design‐Builders • Valuable Feedback

Primary Concerns • Partnering – Issue Resolution –Trusting Relationship • RFQ/RFP Phase –Too Slow/Stringent • Programming & Criteria Documents – Needs Improvement • Building User Groups – Challenging & Slow • DSA – Unpredictable

19 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Owner of Choice – Competitive Market (cont.) Major Concern: Estimating Costs 2+ Years Out • Cost Proposals for Lump Sum

. Cost Escalation & Inflation

. Construction Labor Shortage

• Uncertainty Risk

• Risk Higher Cost

Progressive Design‐Build (DB) & LACCD Progressive Design‐Build –How Are We Doing? • Qualifications Based Selection – Yes • Owner/DB Progress Toward Contract Price ‐ Yes & No • Negotiated Contract ‐ No

Current DB Delivery Methods at LACCD • Lump Sum . Qualifications Based – Yes . Contract Price Progression – No . Negotiated Contract – No • Open Book . Qualifications Based – Yes . Contract Price Progression – Yes . Negotiated Contract – No

20 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Open Book Design‐Build Process – LACCD Information to Bidders • District‐Established Construction Budget (Example: $43M)

• District‐Established Schedule Durations (Example:)

PHASE DURATION (in months) Pre‐Design Collaboration 4 months Design Thru Agency Approval 20 months Open Book Bidding & GMP 3 months District Accept/Reject GMP 1 month Construction 32 months Total Project Duration: 60 months (5 years)

Open Book Design‐Build Process – LACCD (cont.) RFP Cost Proposal Requirements By LACCD By Design Builder SCHEDULE PHASE FIXED COST (in months)

Pre‐Design Collaboration Phase 4 months $______

Design Thru Agency Approval 20 months $______

Open Book Bidding & GMP 3 months $______

Construction Services General Conditions, Overhead N/A $______& Profit (GC’s OH&P) Two Separate Contracts Issued #1 Pre‐Design Thru GMP • Accept GMP / Increase Budget Amount • Off Ramp #2 Construction Contract ($43M + GC’s OH&P)

21 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Lessons Learned Open Book Design‐Build Cost Estimating –Contract Requirements • CSI Format –Task Level WBS (Level 4)

• Estimates – Signed/Certified By Chief Estimator

. RFP Phase

. After Contract Award

. Design Phases: SD, DD, CD

. After DSA Approval

Lessons Learned Open Book Design‐Build (cont.) Programming & Criteria Documents • Base Requirements • Enhancement Options (Add Alternates)

Trade Package Buyout Contingency (Add Alternate) • 7.5% Construction Budget Required for Add Alternates . Individual Scope Packages – Approved by DSA . Designated by Priority (Example #1 thru #5) . Unused Budget Returned to District

22 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Conculsion

© Copyright Jacobs September 10, 2018 www.jacobs.com | worldwide

September 10, 2018

San Mateo County Community College District Migration to Progressive Design Build PRESENTERS

José D. Nuñez, LEED AP, DBIA Vice Chancellor, Facilities Planning, Maintenance & Operations Yanely Pulido, Assoc. DBIA, CSRM Construction Procurement, Risk and Contracts Manager Cañada College B1N – Kinesiology & Wellness [Blach/ELS]

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

23 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

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.

•Ron Galatolo, SMCCD Chancellor, 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.

Cañada College B1N – Kinesiology & Wellness [Blach/ELS] •SMCCD two previous Bond Measure Programs has constructed ~$350M of capital projects using Design‐Build.

•Current Bond Measure Program using Design‐Build ~$300M.

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

Experience with Design Build

COMPLETED IN PROGRESS College of San Mateo • SKY B1 Creative Arts & Social Sciences ‐ $110M • CSM 5, Health & Wellness Building ‐ $41M • SKY B12 Environmental Science ‐ $31M • CSM 10, College Center ‐ $60.5M • CAN B1 Kinesiology & Wellness Center ‐ $85M • CSM Site Work/Electrical Infrastructure/Chiller/Parking ‐ $71M • CAN B23 Science & Technology ‐ $53M • CSM 9, 15, 17 & 34, Hillsdale Parking (Hike Project) ‐ $10M • CSM 36, Science Building with Planetarium & Observatory ‐ $19.5M IN PROCUREMENT Cañada College • College Ridge 30‐Unit Faculty & Staff Housing (@ • CAN Gateways ‐ $7.6M Skyline College) ‐ $22M • CAN 1.2 Mw Solar Photovoltaic System ‐ $4.9M (4217) • CSM 20 Edison Lot ‐ $5M Skyline College • SKY 4, Cosmetology, Administration & Wellness Center ‐ $33M • SKY 11, Automotive Transmission Lab Building ‐ $6M • SKY Site Work/Electrical Infrastructure/Parking ‐ $18M • SKY 6, Student & Community Center & SKY 7, Science Building ‐ $21.5M Districtwide • DW Athletic Fields ‐ $18M • DW Energy Efficiency ‐ $18M (4217) Housing • Cañada Vista 60‐Unit Faculty & Staff Housing ‐ $13M • College Vista 44‐Unit Faculty & Staff Housing ‐ $8M Cañada College B23N – Math, Science & Technology [McCarthy/HGA]

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

24 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

SMCCCD Practices Past •Architect Develops Bridging Documents

•RFSOQ and RFP Process to Select Design‐Build‐ Entity

•Design Competition

•Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Established at Contract Award Current •RFP Qualifications/Best Value Selection Process

•No Bridging Documents

Skyline B1N –Social Sciences & Creative Arts [Turner/Snohetta/DLR Group] •No Design Competition –Design Completed with College/District Input

•GMP Established After Design is Fully Developed, Agencies Permit Processes and Buyout Completed

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

Design Build Procurement Process

“Best Value” Qualifications + Cost

•Employs evaluation criteria traditionally used for qualifications‐based selection along with a prequalification questionnaire based on the Request for Statement Department of Industrial Relations’ guidelines. of Qualifications •Allows for a larger pool of qualified firms to participate. •Three highest ranked Design‐Build Entities are invited to participate.

•Employs objective evaluation criteria as required per Education Code Request for Proposals 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.

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

25 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Design Build Procurement Process Request for Statement of Qualifications (Step One)

DBE Statement of Quals Legal Ad

2 Weeks Org Chart Key Personnel Evaluation of Qual Project Experience DSA Experience Selection Committee Project Specific • Facilities Shortlist Requirements • General Services Schedule •Const. Manager Three highest ranked DBEs DB Prequalification are invited to RFP phase Application 1 Week Other Requirements 1 Week

2 Weeks

Design Build Procurement Process Request for Proposal (Step Two)

Issue RFP to Shortlisted DBEs DBE Proposals 2 Weeks Pre‐Proposal Conference Confidential Meetings BV Selection

RFI Period Selection Committee (include College Representatives) 2 Weeks Award •Score Technical Proposal • Conduct Interviews Contract Negotiations •Score Fee Proposal Board Approval of iGMP • Request BAFOs (if needed)

2 Weeks 2 Weeks

26 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

RFP Requirements Information to DBE Proposers • Project Description • Criteria Documents (Program, Design Standards) • Design Concepts • Reference Documents (Geotechnical/Existing Conditions) • Estimated Direct Construction Costs • Scope of Design‐Build Services (Includes Classification of Project and Design Fee Allocation Matrix) o Phase 1 – Design/Preconstruction o Phase 2 –Construction • Design‐Build Contract Documents RFP Submittal Requirements: • Technical Proposal Submittal (Including sketches to reflect DBE’s understanding of the DISTRICT’S vision) • Fee Proposal Submittal • Other Proposal Requirements

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE" 53

RFP Requirements – Technical Proposal

•Introduction Best Value: Determines Proposer’s ability to successfully deliver the Project in a highly collaborative form of Design‐Build •Project Specific Requirements •Project Organization •Staffing Levels •Life Cycle Costs Analysis •Project Approach •Skilled Labor Force Availability •Project Schedule and Plan •Safety Record •Sketches •Proposal Interview

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE" 54

27 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

RFP Requirements – Fee Proposal

Best‐Value: Price Criteria (Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price)

1. Design and Pre‐Construction Services Fee (Lump Sum) 2. Estimated Direct Construction Costs (Lump Sum; provided by District for bidding purposes) 3. General Conditions / General Requirements (% of Item 2) 4. Overhead and Profit (% of Items 2 and 3) 5. DBE Payment & Performance Bonds (% of Items 2, 3 and 4) 6. Subcontractor Payment & Performance Bonds (Lump Sum; Allowance per Item 2) 7. Construction Contingency (% of Item 2) 8. TOTAL FEE PROPOSAL: iGMP (Sum of Items 1‐7) + Owner’s Allowance (Amount TBD by District) = Initial Contract Award (Sum of Items 8 and 9)

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE" 55

RFP Requirements – Proposal Form Sample

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE" 56

28 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

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 Skyline B12N – Environmental Science [XL Construction / DES Architects]

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

Lessons Learned

•Bonding requirements (single contract) •DBE team member substitution process •Compliance with district’s subcontractor procurement methodology •Open book/transparent cost management •Construction Cost Escalation •Negotiation of GMP

Skyline B12N – Environmental Science [XL Construction / DES Architects]

"FACILITIES EXCELLENCE"

29 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

Case Study

CAÑADA COLLEGE Science & Technology Building

Monday, September 10, 2018

MCCARTHY COLLABORATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY 77% 100%

96% 100% 97% 74%

30 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

THE PROJECT

31 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

© HGA Architects, Inc. 2018

32 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

© HGA Architects, Inc. 2018

PROJECT TEAM

© HGA Architects, Inc. 2018

33 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

PROJECT TEAM

PROCESS CHANGES

© HGA Architects, Inc. 2018

34 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

TRADITIONAL DSA Mar 2017 Aug 2017 Aug Jan 2017 May 2017 May Nov 2017 Nov June 2018

PROGRAMMING

SCHEMATIC

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DSA (projected)

COLLABORATIVE DSA Mar 2017 Aug 2017 Aug Jan 2017 Jan 2018 May 2017 May Aug 2017 Aug

PROGRAMMING

SCHEMATIC

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

INCREMENT 1 DSA CD’S INCREMENT 2 DSA Apr 2018 Apr Dec 2017 Dec

35 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

COLLABORATIVE DSA Mar 2017 Aug 2017 Aug Jan 2017 Jan 2018 May 2017 May Sep 2017 Sep

PROGRAMMING

SCHEMATIC

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

INCREMENT 1 DSA CD’S INCREMENT 2 DSA DSA Commitment DSA Collaborative Mtg #1 Mtg Collaborative Mtg #2 Mtg #3 Apr 2018 Apr Dec 2017 Dec

COLLABORATIVE DSA GMP iGMP Mar 2017 Aug 2017 Aug Jan 2017 Jan 2018 May 2017 May Sep 2017 Sep

PROGRAMMING

SCHEMATIC

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

INCREMENT 1 DSA CD’S INCREMENT 2 DSA DSA Commitment DSA Collaborative Mtg #1 Mtg Collaborative Mtg #2 Mtg #3 Apr 2018 Apr Dec 2017 Dec

36 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

COLLABORATIVE DSA Apr 2018 Apr Jan 2018 Sep 2017 Sep 2017 Dec Jan 2017 Aug 2019 Aug 2019 Nov

DESIGN PHASE

DSA REVIEW

CONSTRUCTION

COLLABORATIVE DSA Apr 2018 Apr Jan 2018 Sep 2017 Sep 2017 Dec Jan 2017 Aug 2019 Aug 2019 Nov

DESIGN PHASE

DSA REVIEW

(Envelope) CONSTRUCTION Bid Package #1 Package Bid (Inc 1 Site) #3 #4 Bid Package #2 Package Bid Bid Package Package Bid Package Bid (Struct. Steel) (Struct. (IT Relocation) (IT Bid Package#5 (Inc 2 Remaining) GMP iGMP

37 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

COLLABORATIVE DSA Apr 2018 Apr Jan 2018 Sep 2017 Sep 2017 Dec Jan 2017 Aug 2019 Aug 2019 Nov

DESIGN PHASE

DSA REVIEW

CONSTRUCTION GMP iGMP

COLLABORATIVE DSA Apr 2018 Apr Jan 2018 Jun 2018 Sep 2017 Sep 2017 Dec Jan 2017 Aug 2019 Aug (Target) 2019 Nov

DESIGN PHASE

DSA REVIEW

CONSTRUCTION RISK MGMT

TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION

38 CCFC 25th Annual Conference ‐ Pre‐Conference Workshop

TAKEAWAYS – PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD

• Allows the team to bid & staff for DSA, and build towards construction-side team

• Design can be developed collaboratively, in lieu of designing to the interview concept

• Easier to manage a Target Value Design approach to accommodate the District and College needs

• Agency risk can be managed throughout the process in lieu of ‘over-risking’ at Day 1

• Wider selection of bidders due to risk transference model

• Sets the tone for a collaborative team culture early in the process, and encourages the team to consider value and teamwork

DISCUSS.

© HGA Architects, Inc. 2018

39