IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12

Renovating existing science
buildings to face modern needs

A Case Study
© IKM Incorporated 2012

The Renovation of the Fisher Hall Science
Building at the University of Pittsburgh, Bradford

For more information visit: www.ikminc.com

Presenters:
Peter Buchheit Director of Facilities U Pitt Bradford
Jeff Brown Principal IKM Incorporated
Steven Watson Project Manager IKM Incorporated

Peter Mastro Chief Estimator Mascaro Construction
Matt Morris Project Manager Mascaro Construction

Challenges:
•Challenging Project from the Beginning
•All wet labs and all sciences contained in building
•Started with $1.5 Million Budget- Masterplan suggested $6 – 8
Million would be needed
•Inefficient Lighting

•High energy user- needed pneumatic controls upgraded to
DDC
•Originally a 3 Year schedule

Original Construction Timeline
GMP
Approval0
4/02 Start bidding Phase I
Completion
2010 2011 2012

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

Construction start 5/1
Phase II Phase III
GMP
Completion Completion
3/8
GMP
Documents
Complete
2/15

4


Design

University of Pittsburgh, Bradford
Fisher Hall:
• Cost of new science buildings $350 – 450 /S.F. and up

• Limited real estate available for new buildings on Campus

• In many cases Existing Science Buildings have the space to accept
updated Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems

• Outdated lab building floor plans can typically accept new teaching lab
layouts types


Timeline:

We started with a
science building that looked like this:

Our Starting Point::
Utility Infrastructure Issues:
• No Central Vacuum or Purified Water
• High Energy Use HVAC System
• Inefficient Lighting
• Deficient Lab Exhaust Systems

Code Deficiencies:
• ADA issues at Restrooms & Entry

• Elevator Code issues
• Inadequate Chemical Storage
• Asbestos

Challenges facing us:
Layout Issues:
• Line of Sight Problems
• Existing Layouts did not Accommodate New Teaching Methods
• Research Space Non-Existent- in lab only

What we wanted::
• New Layouts needed for new teaching methods

• Informal Student meeting/ study spaces

• Handle current & future technology needs

• Handle teaching laboratory infrastructure

• Be more energy efficient

• Address code & ADA deficiencies

The question is:

How do we do it for:

$190 / S.F.
?

Process:
• Studied Existing Conditions

• Reviewed Existing Masterplan: Goals vs. Budget

• Identified Priorities: Goal by goal, space by space

• Identified Phasing of Project
•most logical Construction Sequencing
•address Concurrent Academic Needs

• Developed different layout options to study cost impacts

•Cost Estimating Spreadsheet for Evaluating Options

Teamwork – Restraint – Collaboration

Space Inventory &
analysis:
•Inventoried existing Spaces- compared with
current needs

•Class size needs had changed

•Concurrently looked at different layouts

•Developed more efficient layouts in most labs

•Reused existing layouts in others

Reworked Master Plan Study:

Some new layouts required major wall moving and led to un-
useable spaces in some cases

In other case a more efficient layout led to more seating and a
better useable space for teaching

Anatomy & Physiology

Before: After:

Seats 16 Seats 24
Sinks 7 Sinks 2

Priorities:
•What were most important areas

•What areas were good enough to leave
alone

•What work had to be done- ADA, code
items

Phasing:
•Most logical Construction Phasing and
Academic Planning Phasing did not
match priorities

•Identified what things had to be done
first and grouped them into appropriate
phase

•Concurrently developed layouts

Cost Estimating:

•Developed interactive spreadsheet

•Plugged in different scenarios

•Evaluated costs in each phase

•After CM input , things changed

Where did we end up?
• Changed most of the lab layouts to be more efficient and allow
more interaction and allow more daylight in

• Made sure the spaces that needed it most got upgraded which
were the labs. All of the labs got some upgrading based on need.

• Upgraded the MEP infrastructure

• Put in point of use Water & Vacuum stations in lieu of central system

• Replaced all of the ceilings and lights

Anatomy Physiology

Before::
•Layout limited professor & student
movement

•Inadequate downdraft exhaust

•Services did not match needs

•Services take too much space up

•Awkward Circulation

Anatomy Physiology

Before: After:

Organic Chemistry

Before:
•Disastrous Line of Sight

•Layout limited professor & student
movement

•Fume Hood Exhaust Inadequate


Organic Chemistry

Before: After:

Seats 11 Seats 16
7 Fume Hoods 8 Fume Hoods

Organic Chemistry

After:

Cell Biology

Before:
•Disastrous Line of Sight

•Layout limited professor &
student movement

•Fume Hood Exhaust Inadequate


Cell Biology

Before: After:

Seats 16 Seats 16

Cell Biology

Before: After:

Freshman Chemistry

Before:
•Poor Line of Sight
•Carboy interference

•Layout OK- teaching area needed

Freshman Chemistry

Before: After:

Seats 16 Seats 16

Freshman Chemistry

Before: After:


Student Study Area:


Building Science


M.E.P Upgrades

M.E.P Upgrades
• The HVAC system was completely upgraded by installing two new 100%
outside air, air-handling units with heat recovery.

• This energy reclaiming loop kept the heating load to within the capacity of
the existing boilers. Because no additional boilers were required, the
University saved approximately $250,000.00.

• Each laboratory was fitted with VAV supply air boxes and tracking exhaust
boxes.

M.E.P Upgrades
• A sophisticated DDC control system was specified to ensure that the HVAC
system could track the pressure/volume requirements of each space while
maintaining a (thermally) comfortable environment, as well.

• All existing light fixtures (34W, T12 lamps) were replaced with more
efficient T8 fluorescent lamps. In addition to saving energy by replacing

light fixtures, each room was equipped with new dual technology
occupancy sensors.

Construction Management

Preconstruction / Pre-planning
• Milestones / Schedule Development
– DD through GMP document completion
– Estimates with phasing and option consideration
– Initial GMP submission
– Final GMP submission
– University approval

• Estimating / Project Management

• Procurement
39

Proposed Timeline
2010
GMP Documents to MCC
2/1
GMP Construction Phase I , II, & III
Approval Start 5/1 Completion
3/12 8/24
February March April May June July August September October

Complete Bidding Process Potential Swing
4/1 Space Requirement
GMP

Bid MEP and Casework 2/19

40

Preconstruction / Procurement
Bid Packages
• GMP / Early Packages (2/19)
– Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and casework
– Pre-purchase of long-lead items
– Selection of owner-furnished items

• 100% CD Bid Packages (4/1)
– Remaining packages

• Mascaro self perform capability including
demolition, concrete, drywall, acoustical, and
carpentry
41

KEY

Planned Phases Phase I

42

KEY

Planned Phases Phase I
Phase II

43

KEY Phase I
Phase II
Planned Phases Phase III

44

Site Logistics
Spring Semester (Pre-Con) ’10 Summer (Construction) ‘10
– Identify temp storage needs – University relocated users during
– Identify and perform Abatement finals to ensure demo started day
during Spring Break after graduation.
– Determined site material – Divided building into 4 quarters to
movement methods focus efforts and materials
– Protected existing to remain
finishes

45

Contractor Performance
• Spring Semester (Pre-Con) ‘10 • Summer (Construction) ‘10
– All subcontracts awarded by – Submittals were complete by
3/29/10 5/31/10
– Contracted with subs familiar – Held specific submittal review
with Campus and Bldg meetings with
– Procured all major submittals A/E, CM/Vendor/Owner for
rapid return.

46

Schedule
– Detailed schedule developed prior to bid. – Weekly updates to all parties including
– Reviewed and had buy-in from all subcontractors
subcontractors prior to work starting – Reviewed in weekly foremen meetings
– Tracked manpower/production and added
crews as necessary.
– At one point over 70 workers in 36K SF bldg.
– Overtime was worked early to minimize
crunch at the end
– CM provided LULL for all large material
movement

47

Collaboration
– Coordinate move-out schedule with – Weekly OAC meetings to discuss
University issues and keep project moving
– Perform site investigations and – Daily communication with Owner
developed detailed schedule and Arch during construction
– Discussed ways for success as – Weekly Foreman meetings
construction approached, “Checked – Discussed additional items needed
the egos at the door” by University and were able to plan
implement its completion

48

Lauren Yaich, Ph.D. Associate Dean- Biology & Health Sciences

“The labs are literally a change from darkness into
daylight. ..created a wonderfully light and airy
working space. The old labs were very crowded and
cluttered. ..Now, I can move freely and easily
amongst the work stations. I can even stand in the
middle of the room and be within a few feet of
every single student, if I want to demonstrate
something to them. ”

Lauren Yaich, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Biology
University of Pittsburgh at Bradford

“ The labs are literally a change from darkness into
daylight. ..created a wonderfully light and airy
working space..

Francis Mulcahy, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry Program

“Things are working well. The spaces are laid out
MUCH better and we seem to have more storage
space than before. You get an A for design,
especially when you consider that you were
working in a C or D building ”

Francis Mulcahy, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biology

University of Pittsburgh at Bradford

“ You get an A for design….
”

Nuwangi Dias, Student, Pitt Bradford

“I definitely remember Fisher before the renovations. They
are definitely a lot better now than they used to be.

One of the things I remember the best was the Genetics lab,
and how difficult it was to see and hear the professor
because of the high benches. Maneuvering around that lab
was a lot more difficult as well.”

Nuwangi Dias,
Student, Pitt Bradford

“ The renovations of the lab has made
the learning experience much better.
”

How was success achieved
Teamwork:
• Involved contractor early on
• Relationships were not adversarial. From the very beginning
the Contractor, Architect & Owner worked hard to maintain a
team approach to solving problems
• All worked together to minimize change orders and paperwork

• Kept the design simple- where new layouts could be utilized
they were but when space limitations dictated otherwise
existing layouts were utilized and improved on


Questions

architecture
planning
interior design

general contracting
construction management
design / build

IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (12)

Similar a IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12

Similar a IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12 (20)

Último

Último (20)

IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12

Notas del editor