Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Civic Center Project - PowerPoint (Staff)Civic Center & Park Project Review January 13, 2015 By Dave Kiff, City Manager; and Steve Badum, Assistant City Manager Project in a Nutshel Civic Center & Park - A 15 -year process Early History (1998 -20061 ® Started in 1998 with a discussion about the existing condition of the City Hall complex at 3300 Newport Boulevard • 2001 -2006 Effort to replace City Hall at the Balboa Peninsula site. • Citizen Committees determined the location and financial feasibility Project in a Nutshell Post Measure B (2007-2013) • Final location set by Measure B. • Citizen Design Committee formed • Design competition • Bohlin Cywinski Jackson retained for design • Privately managed by a well -known construction manager (CW Driver), and had the benefit of competitive bidding thru CM @R process. • Had over 700 change orders, most small in magnitude, but resulting in 6.1 % of the total project cost (about in line with industry norms). Project in a Nutshell • "All in" Cost was $141.7 million • Was funded by a combination of debt (about $1 27M) and cash (the remaining $1 8.5M) — The largest debt issuance by the City. Debt service is about 4.72% of General Fund revenues, and is declining slowly. c, Caused significant debate in the community thanks to: V Its cost a Some of its design (like the wave roof and the sail), and a Aspects like the play elements for kids (the rabbits) and the cafe for Library users. Project in a Nutshell 15 years later, the new Civic Center includes: o An expansion of the Central Library • A City Hall, with a community room, Council chambers, a "one- stop" permit counter and disaster preparedness center. A 1 5 -acre park, including a Civic Green, a dog park, and new landscaping around the Library. A pedestrian bridge to easily link two sides of the park. A 450 -space parking structure, 100 of which are for the Library. F tic Center Facilities ass Excavation and Shoring Wall rking Structure rk irary addition and repair y Hall IC mmunity Room uncil Chambers Percentage of Overall cost 7% 7% 13% 11% 51% 2% 3% 4% 2% 100% Costs (including including design & Total cost by Change Orders) I mn I FF &E OCIP I Facility $8,033,927 5 1,555,788 $ 132,229 S 9,721,945 $7,549,072 $ 1,461,895 $ 124,249 $ 9,135,216 $15,219,881 $ 2,947,365 $ 250,502 $ 18,417,748 $12,909,468 $ 2,499,948 $ 525,521 $ 212,475 $ 16,147,412 $58,251,156 $ 11,280,470 $ 2,570,000 $ 958,747 $ 73,060,374 $2,055,923 $ 398,134 $ 85,000 $ 33,838 $ 2,572,895 $3,597,8661 $ 696,735 $ 50,000 $ 59,217 $ 4,403,818 $4,625,8271 $ 895,802 5 50,000 $ 76,136 1 $ 5,647,765 $114,401,747 $ 22,154,161 $ 3,280,521 1,882,922 $ 141,719,351 Library Repairs = $ 1,504,384 *Total Cost less Library Repairs = $ 140,214,967 Lessons Learned (and Implemented) 1. Keeping our residents engaged 2. Measure B's Impressions 3. Early Days — The Design Competition 4. Moving early on bids — bid climate 5. Process Improvements during Construction b. Furnishings Lessons Learned (and Implemented) #1 - Communication Challenge — "No matter how much you have it's never enough" The City's communication strategy for the refuse privatization program is a recent success. • Keep working on leveraging technology and new ways to deliver information and create a dialog with residents and businesses. • Continued use of Mindmixer, Facebook, Twitter, and Nixie • Continued use of Insider's Guide and Community Newsletter. • Use Informal Focus groups to bring different viewpoints. • Interactive web site with additional info such as project time line, staff reports, meeting minutes, and change order documents Lessons Learned #2 - The Citizen Driven Initiative Challenge ® City doesn't control the dialog Can't advocate, but can provide facts • Facts versus sound bites is a difficult task. • If we face a similar event, we will be ready to engage the community and provide basic facts and analytical information. Lessons Learned #3 - Design Process • Add a stronger budget element into the Design competition and third party cost analysis. • Stay with conservative project estimates (plan for the worse, work harder to get the best) #4 — Moving early with the Bids — Bid Climate If at all possible, go to bid with fully complete plans, but be cognizant of the market place and consider alternative strategies to achieve cost and schedule savings. Lessons Learned #5 — Construction Process • Any projects that have a design- construction relationship of a similar nature and suggest concern over RFI turnaround time will express recommended times in the contracts (LL6 -IA1 2) • We have more reasonable schedules for the projects ongoing today (LL7 -IA13) • We have normal levels of contingencies in the projects ongoing today (LL8, LL10 -IA14) • We have normal insurance provisions in the projects ongoing today (LL9 -IA15) Lessons Learned • #6 — Furnishings • Be strongly analytical in comparing lifecycle costs in our purchasing, acknowledge that there are both costs and benefits in doing so and communicate those options to the decision makers (LL10). ,' Implemented now with the Marina Park project. "How Did We Get Here" • Original effort started in 1998 at old site • Needs Assessment was prepared that identified current and future space needs in 2002 • After 20 public meetings (3 Study sessions, 4 public workshops, 13 Council meeting) a concept and schematic plan was developed (2005). • Public consensus: City Hall needed replacement although many questioned where it should be and can we afford it. • The Conceptual plan : 72,000 SF with expansion to 80,000 SF, "tilt up" construction, included replacement fire station #2 and a 350 space parking garage; est. $50 million (2005) "How Did We Get Here" • Starting in 2006 two resident committees were formed to determine the location and the financial viability. • The Site Review Committee determined that the existing site was the most viable due to widespread opposition of utilizing the Avocado site which was slated to be "Newport Center Park ". • The Facilities Finance Review Committee, along with staff, created the award winning 20 year facilities financing program that showed that the City could meet its future infrastructure replacement obligations including a replacement City Hall. Staff continues to use this tool. "How Did We Get Here" • 2008 Citizen driven initiative, Measure B to require the new city hall in Newport Center passes: 16,938 yes; 15,092 no. • In an effort to heal the community after a divisive vote, Council initiates the "City Hall in the Park" concept. • A Design Committee consisting of four local architects, one local landscape architect, and a non - voting chair is created to solicit public input, develop design parameters, and guide the design competition process. General Design Parameters (Approved 4/22/08) Access to site and Circulation — Access from Avocado, no access from MacArthur. • City Hall location — South of Farrallon Dr. (now Civic Center Drive) preserving north parcels for park. • Building Height — No higher than limits imposed by adjacent Newport Village PC Text View Plane. • Library Access — Maximize the library's relationship to City Hall including a second entry. • Natural Park — Adopt the previous design considerations and amenities from the "Newport Center Park" concept. • Landscaping — Water conserving "California Friendly" • Parking — 350 spaces with 100 additional for the Library • Space Allocation and Needs Assessment — Update 2002 Needs Assessment with an open floor concept for flexibility; design for 268 employees max with 200 -250 SF per employee not including public spaces; 72- 79,000 SF total square feet including public areas; "One Stop Shop" permit counter; and Council Chamber with minimum 175 seats. • LEED certification — Silver level minimum ® The City will develop a direct entrance to the Central Library's existing parking lot. This entrance may or may not be signalized. No further improvements to CdM Plaza's access are envisioned at this time. View Considerations — Preserve public views and take adjacent neighborhood views into consideration Building Design — Timeless design; reflect character of Newport Beach; harmonious with adjacent structures, recognized as a significant public building Budgetary constraints — budgetary goals 1) Approx. $400 -450 per square foot for City Hall (not including FF &E) 2) Approx. 20- 25,000 per space for the parking structure 3) Approx. $15 -20 per square foot for the park, landscaping, & site improvements Design Competition • Design Committee established the competition process • Over 50 firms submitted qualifications • Design committee recommended 5 finalists ® Five finalists presented their concepts over two public meetings (presentations replayed on NBTV) • Design committee had three public meetings to discuss the concepts and ultimately recommended Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) as the top finalist • City Council retains BCJ in January 2009 Program Management • C.W. Driver retained as program manager after a QBS process with 7 other firms in January 2009 • Design team (BCJ, C.W. Driver, staff) met every two weeks for 3 to 4 days • Building Committee reorganized, 3 Council & 3 Design Committee members.(meetings every 2- 4weeks) • Design focus on balancing cost, quality, sustainability, & green building with value engineering and lifecycle analysis. • Design, Conceptual refinement to Bidding, Jan 2009 —Sept 2010 • April 2010, City approves Construction Manager at Risk contract with C.W. Driver "CM at Risk ": How it works Construction manager (CM) is selected using quality based selection. CM acts as the City's agent and is paid a fixed fee to manage the design At the completion of design, CM prepares bid packages for trades (sub contractors) Bid packages are competitively bid by City Lowest responsible bid contracts are assigned to the CM CM develops a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that includes: Basic Services /General Condition; fixed costs for field office, equipment, staff including a superintendent, inspectors & construction trade managers, & support staff Actual cost of construction; Subcontractor bids and internal contingency for miscellaneous items not covered by bid packages Direct Expenses; Bond premiums and general liability Management fee; markup, overhead, & profit; 3.25% The City accepts the GMP and enters into a contract with CM CM manages construction Any costs over the GMP are absorbed by the CM Any Savings under the GMP go to the City and can be shared with the CM as an incentive to hold down costs. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Concept Design Refinement Schematic Design & Design Development, SD & DD Construction Documents (CD) Construction Support (CS) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION & MONITORING Environmental Impact Report Geotechnical Environmental Mitigation Monitoring TOTAL DESIGN PROJECT MANAGEMENT /CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT Project Management: SD & DD Project Management : CD & CS Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) SCE - SAVINGS BY DESIGN TOTAL SOFT COSTS 647,675 4,998,677 5,588,154 4,514,782 Total Design= 15,749,288 618,049 253,421 68,186 Total Environmental = 686,235 TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT 647,018 2,305,933 170,250 - 261,150 CONSTRUCTION 12,269 Basic Services /General conditions 7,169,255 • GMP Phase 1 -Mass Excavation &Shoring Wall 7,336,439 • GMP Phase 2- Design Assist /Bui I Parking Structure 7,426,853 * GMP Phase 3 -City Hall, Library&Park 82,374,384 * GMP Phase 4 -San Miguel Pedestrian Bridge 1,000,000 * GMP Phase 5- Signage &deferred Electrical Utilities 476,281 ` GMP Phase 6- Library Clererstory Window Replacement 720,913 CCO #1 -ADA Ramp Modifications 12,269 CCO 42 - Revised DG surface for Dog Park 10,964 CCO #3 - AV Modifications & shelving 35,001 CCO 44 - Window Shade and Lighting Controls 134,618 CCO #5 -Storm Damage,( Reimbursed by FEMA, $65,005) 0 CCO #6- Structural elements, electrical & Lighting 250,493 CCO #7- Landscaping and Site modifications 271,666 CCO #8- Architectural and Structural revisions 611,842 CCO #9 - Various 561,912 CCO #10 - Various 367,835 CCO #11- Various 215,376 CCO #12- Various 394,627 CCO #13 - Various 475,665 CCO #14- Various 586,085 CCO #15 - Various 348,538 CCO #16- Various 1,412,717 CCO #17 - Various 808,014 EXTENDED GENERAL CONDITIONS (Ian -May) 1,400,000 CONTRACT BUILDING OFFICIAL - PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION MATERIALTESTING & SPECIAL INSPECTION FIXTURES, FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT CityHall FF &E Library FFE OCIP INSURANCE TOTALFF &E = TOTAL ANCILLARY COST = 1,426,285 1,309,608 2,755,000 525,521 3,280,521 1,882,922 Clerestory Window Repair Floor leveling Additional Carpeting due to floor leveling Existing Library Foundation Waterproofing Refurbishment of existing roller shades Additional power and data at self checkout Upgrade existing Electrical Remove and replace 48 diseased Olive Trees Upgrade Library book Security System to RFID Existing Stairway rebuild due to alignment problem TOTAL LIBRARY REPAIR Share of Soft costs Share of insurance Share of General conditions 11191 F_ 14 4 1 :3 : MIlya :7 a 9-A 111 720,913 50,514 13,773 47,799 5,000 7,499 22,983 52,500 33,621 250,000 1,204,602 204,466 19,826 75,489 1.504.384 Architectural Design (less SCE Savings by Design, $261,150) Environmental Documentation & Monitoring Project Management Total Soft costs = Construction Contract $ 1514881138 $ 686,235 $ 3,243,895 $ 19,418,268 $ 106,504,125 Project Change orders (estimated, less FEMA grant, $65,005) $ Extended General Conditions Total Construction Costs = Contract Plan Checking & Building Inspection Contract Material Inspection & Special inspection FF &E (does not include deferred replacements) OCIP Insurance Program Total Ancillary Costs = Project Costs Subtotal= Less Library Repair costs = Total "All in" Cost = 6,434,995 $ 1,400,000 $ 114,401,747 $ 11426,285 $ 11309,608 $ 31280,521 $ 1,882,922 $ 7,899,336 $141,7191351 - $1,504,384 140,214,967 Building Code /City requirements Unforeseen conditions Design Enhancement Design Omission Total = $ 11.2% 0.68% 730,000 $ 7.2% 0.44% 470,000 $1,000,000 15.4% 0.94% $41300,000 66.2% 4.04% $6,500,000 6.00% Revise configuration of Electrical service per SCE Revisions to fire rated assemblies Additional perimeter ceiling bracing Low Fuel Alarm for emergency generators Library Skylight fire protection pipe routing Relocate Council Chambers fire extinguishers Revise egress lighting at Library stair Add GFCI receptacles, lighting and switches at City Hall Elevator shafts $83,276 $33,292 $ 5,575 $ 2,977 $ 3,186 $ 1,164 $ 4,500 $ 5,860 Repair rain damage to project site (reimbursed by FEMA) Revise storm drain connections to existing Revise San Miguel Bridge foundation design due to utility conflicts Revise water line connections due to water pressure problems Level existing Library floor at join point Revise park tree subdrain connections to meet existing system � E a $ 65,005 $ 4,992 $ 93,147 $ 46,500 $ 50,514 $ 28,459 0 Zinc cladding on San Miguel Bridge Elevator Tower $ 61,843 Dacromet Coating on exposed Parking Structure hardware $ 2,435 Added power outlets to Library reading areas $ 12,344 Add framing to accommodate expanded Command Center $ 37,200 communications equipment Revise roof edge material to eliminate potential glare for adjacent $ 35,899 neighborhoods Upgrade library book security gates to Radio Frequency $ 33,621 Identification system Added motion sensors for Parking Structure rooftop lighting to $ 41689 minimize glare issues for neighborhood Add touch screen for agenda postings in Council Chambers vestibule $ 12,795 Revised ceiling structure design $ 28,522 Infill detail missing at roof corner $ 81396 Added support frame for mechanical unit $ 21722 Structural revisions to presentation wall in Community Room $ 41344 HVAC duct conflicts $ 81686 Missing waterproofing detail at corner of wave roofs $ 28,186 Missing circuit for power and lighting $ 31354 Library floor plates and grill detail revisions $ 91438 Added irrigation controller at North Park $ 11768 More About Design Omission • "No such thing as a perfect set of plans" (design changes typically run 5% per AIA) ® The City pushed the project to meet favorable market costs for construction and financing. (However, ENR Index rose 3.6% from Sept -May, $3.8 million) • A complex and one of a kind design • Overall, project changes are approximately 6% which is actually very good and typical for a project of this complexity. (Industry Std., 5 -10 %) More about Furniture • Furniture purchases were limited or deferred since 2002 • Balance between cost, quality, durability sustainability, ergonomics, & warranty * Cheap isn't always economical - Face value, some pieces appeared extravagant, however, life cycle costs were lower. ® Furniture partitions made from veneered plywood rather then expensive prefab units More about the Size The plan at the old site including a Council Chambers and Community room proposed a floor plan of about 72,000 SF with consideration for future expansion to 80,000 SF. Our new site including the Council Chamber, Community room, an EOC is about 100,000 SF. Here are the reasons for the differences: • The design at the old site had all of the mechanical equipment (heating & AC) on the roof. A combination of the General Design Parameters height limitation and the chosen wave roof design, it was necessary to put an additional 6,000SF of mechanical space in the new building. • The former design envisioned more external circulation and less direct public access to the various City Departments (the plan called for walking through some departments to get to others). The current design has internal public walkways directly to each department and adds another 6000 SF. Our new building has more vertical circulation or stairwells than what was proposed in the old plan ( +1000 SF) • We also added a 3,000 SF EOC to our current facility. • The former plan had 10 conference rooms. Our design team did an assessment based upon the annual meetings scheduled (from our reservation system) and determined that we would need about 15 conference rooms and a hearing room. Although by personal observation we don't seem to have any scheduling problems, so we could have lived with a few less. This added approximately 5,000 SF more. • Another factor that added space was the narrowness of our site. Our new building is long and not deep, which helps at natural light, but is not the most efficient shape for office space. Square floor plans are generally the most efficient shape as it balances the circulation space required for a given work space. The former site was closer to that ideal. More about Cost Estimating Before the start of the design process in March 2009, an independent construction estimator, C.P. O'Halloran Associates, prepared a Preliminary Concept Cost Estimate. • The estimated cost of Project construction at that time was $107,633,286 without contingencies. With the addition of estimated design, project management, environmental documentation, ancillary costs including furniture, the preliminary budget was $140 million. • During the subsequent design process, the design team, staff, and the Building Committee meet regularly to guide the project. A significant part of those meetings explored ways to reduce potential costs through value engineering and phasing. • At the November 10, 2009 Council meeting, staff shared the current costs. At that meeting staff shared the possible scenarios from conservative to very optimistic. The very optimistic estimates envisioned: • Being able to sell or give away the dirt from the excavation at a savings of $4 million; • An additional 10% reduction for a better bid environment of $9 million; • Additional value engineering at $5 million; and • Phasing the bridge and North Park parcels for a later project at $7 million. • Additional cost estimates were run at each stage of the project design. At the conclusion of the Design Development phase (April 2010) another estimate by the same firm showed the construction cost to be $102,779,710. An estimate in October 2010 by C. P. O'Halloran showed the cost to be $103,816,895. C.W. Driver also ran an independent estimate in October 2010 and their projected cost was $106,796,863. • Despite our hopeful thinking, the final bid totaled $106,504,125 which was very close to the preliminary estimate in 2009. More about COPs & Bonded Debt • In 2010, the City had about $80 million in reserves, • Per Facilities Finance Review Committee and the approved Facilities Financing Plan, it was determined that the City had sufficient debt capacity to finance the remaining portion of the Civic Center Project without effecting ongoing services or reserves. • All three bond rating agencies, Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Fitch, awarded AAA underlying bond ratings (one of only five California cities) The bond ratings confirmed the ability of the City to undertake the financing without a tax increase. • The City chose to use Certificates of Participation (COPs) as the financing vehicle for the Civic Center. General Obligation (GO) Bonds, the other alternative, requires voter approval because the issuance includes an authorization to add a levy on the property tax to pay for the debt. This was not necessary in the case of the Civic Center. COPs utilize a lease structure, and have been the most commonly used technique in California to finance municipal improvements since 1978, following court validating decisions. More about COPs & Bonded Debt cont. • Congress had authorized Build America Bonds (BABs) as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). • BABs are taxable bonds. However, the Federal Government agrees to pay 35% of the interest cost for the life of the bond issue. In our case, this amounts to a subsidy of $2.35 million annually. The City, like all municipal issuers at the time, conducted a cost - benefit analysis during the bond pricing process and determined that for the great majority of the debt issued, BABS would be less costly (by approximately $750,000 annually in debt service), than traditional tax exempt bonds. • Because of near record low interest rates, we determined that the outstanding debt related to the (1992) library COPS in the amount of ($10 million) could be refunded for savings of $120,000 annually. This component was added to the transaction. • The total par size of the transaction was $127 million, of which $116,515,000 remains outstanding. The net debt service payment to the city is $8.32 million or 4.7% of general fund revenues. More about furnishings • The City has a history of making smart purchases in the furniture department • The City held back any new furniture purchases (and many facility repairs) for several years (approx. 10 yrs). That action allowed the City to bank repair and replacement funds — into the hundreds of thousands of dollars - to be used in the new Civic Center. • Furniture in the public areas of the city hall and library needs to be durable and have some modest level of aesthetics. It was into these public areas — public meeting rooms and waiting areas as well as the new children's room and study areas at the Central Library — that the most expensive furniture went. • Furniture in the employee areas needs to last long and be functional. Additionally, furniture in work areas need to be ergonomically correct to prevent workplace injuries and associated costs under workers compensation and loss of productivity. A cheap "Under $100" desk chair can quickly become very expensive due to workplace medical claims, time off, and a loss of productivity. • All furniture purchases were by govt. bid process that allowed us to take advantage of competitive pricing. More about furnishings Cont. Systems Furniture (cabinets, files, desks, study carrels) • Simple partition system made of "Apple Ply ", multilayered plywood with veneer surfaces. The City's partition system is designed to accept various components of standard system furniture (cabinet, file, desk, and credenza units). The design is easily reconfigured and costs much less than manufactured partition systems. • Furniture lines from Haworth, Herman Miller, Teknion, Steelcase, and Allsteel were considered because of cost to quality balance. (Middle grade) Chairs & Tables • Chairs and tables in the public areas needed to be durable and of quality construction and have some modest level of aesthetics. The waiting areas have commercial grade seating with strong metal frames and stain - resistant surfaces. • Chairs and Tables in the employee area needed to be durable and of quality construction and have ergonomonic features to allow heavy use while preventing medical claims and loss of productivity. • Many of the furniture pieces purchased have a 10- to 1 2 -year full warranty. They are also renewable in that they can be reupholstered. • Purchases focused on lifecycle costs (1 chair @ 12 yr vs 4 chairs @ 3yr) "What are our Lessons Learned ?" Public Process • A portion of the population never got the message that this was no longer just a city hall. 1.. ".. w • Because of the tight contingency amounts, the impression at the end was that the change orders were unreasonably high for a project of this scope (only 6 %). Yet at the same time, we wanted folks not to think that a fat contingency was there for the using /asking • We could have briefed the Council and community more frequently on construction updates, including change orders and hurdles crossed — this could have added to the public's understanding of Project Scope. • While we attended and made presentations at many HOAs, service groups, and business association gatherings, we could have had a more active Speaker's Bureau about the design parameters, the project and its scope change, and expected expense. The campaign in support of Measure B (Feb 2008) — done without City input or support — left the project with an unrealistic and ill- defined cost perception in the community — were the dollars quoted by the proponents at the time the "all in" cost? No one knows today. No matter what it included, was the cost even based on construction reality? The City itself was not behind Measure B, but we're not sure how many people know that. d you "What are our Lessons Learned ?" Public Impressions • We did not have a message that explained how the scope of the project changed after the Design Parameters were adopted in mid -2008. • We were tone -deaf about aspects of the project that would become lightning rods — the kids' elements, the cafe • We should have strategized these issues more as a project team — what are we doing that could become a lightning rod issue? Does it matter to us that it could? f our Early Design Period ® C.W. Driver provided us realistic estimates, however, we continually looked at optimistic scenarios to provide a range of possibilities. cost • The design competition set up expectations for an amazing project, and we got one. But much of the public was not as engaged in the competition as it could have been, and never followed with the project scope changes following the Measure B election. That noted, it is understandable and appropriate that the public could have stepped back from following this project, trusting that their city staff would apply reason and efficiency to the effort. While it may surprise some for us to say this, we think we did. We can, however, understand and respect how residents might feel otherwise C "What are our Lessons Learned ?" Early Design Period (Cont.) While the design competition gave us an iconic facility, it was also problematic as it set the look and associated construction type without a clear, fixed eye to the potential costs. Once the Design Committee, Council and those community members following the Project embraced the proposed concept, it was difficult to predict the "All -In" cost until we were much further into the project design • To say it another way, the project itself grew significantly between the Measure B election and the adoption of the Design Parameters. The approach for the project was "this is the one time in multiple generations that several needed concerns (larger library, an EOC, more parking, etc) can be addressed at once, in a down economy when labor and materials are cheap" versus "this is how much money we have for this project and that's all we'll spend." (ENR Building Cost Index: April 2010. 5068.58; Today, 5688.50; 12.2% increase) There could have been more of a balance between these two approaches. • Size of the City Hall. The City Hall was designed in 2008 -09 for a number of employees that is higher than we have today, though not much higher (there are about 5 -8 unused workstations). There was a sea change in our approach to the size of our local government in the middle of the Project's phasing. As the design was completed, it was quite late to trim things back without significant expense to reflect this new smaller government. Additionally, we needed space for outsourced staff to work in a central location to serve the customers. We also suffered in the old City Hall from an embarrassing lack of conference and meeting space for the public as well as staff. Space per employee is in line with or less than industry standards, but that doesn't mean it's not worth reviewing in future buildings 11, „ ,a , ., could possibly to be a "What are our Lessons Learned ?" Construction Process Did the CM at Risk method with a separate contract with the architect (BCJ ) as well as with the construction company (CW Driver) result in no one entity (except the City) "owning" the product, the schedule, and budget? Our research, which was presented to Council in 2005, showed that CM @Risk project delivery method was superior in holding costs down and keeping schedule over design build and traditional design- bid -build • Timing of the bid preparation, bid award — was this part of the schedule rushed? In order to take advantage of what we thought was a bottom of the construction trades market as well as a very low interest rate environment for the COPS, we went out to bid with construction specifications not yet in final form. This was an accurate assumption as to the market, but it had a cost as well as a benefit. The ENR Cost index increased 3.6% from September 2010 (bidding period) to May 201 1, or approx. $3.8 million savings. Our Change orders were 6% or $6.5 million. While our change orders were within industry standard, 5 -10 %, its doubtful that we would have exceeded $3.8 million savings by not waiting an additional six months to refine the plans ,! • We shot for a December 2012 first meeting date in the new CC chambers, and that impacted the project schedule and project costs adversely. Construction management costs were higher (about six months at $250,000/month) in part because of it — especially managing staff, officials, and visitors on a regular basis in an active construction site. The rush to be present at the facility in December `1 2 may have caused CW Driver to re -order some processes that were not as cost - effective as following a less rushed plan "What are our Lessons Learned ?" • Requests for Information (RFIs) The architect's contract did not specify a turnaround time for RFIs. While most RFIs were processed in accordance with industry standards, a defined turnaround time may have led to better communication and expectations on that time. 1: • Insurance. We provided insurance at both the contractor's level and the project owner's level. This added to the cost, and while it was very conservative in protecting us against claims (they were minimal), it was probably too conservative and costly ® Change Orders Were we able to minimize the change orders that would have occurred because of incomplete designs? 66% or approx. $4.3 million of the change orders were attributable to errors and missing information in the plans. Most changes were minor but many in number. In the construction industry "there's no such thing as a perfect set of plans." Even if we could have reduced that number by half, we were still ahead due to construction cost inflation. Did the City itself contribute to the problem by making changes /improvements mid - stream, such as design enhancements? Yes, the design enhancements represented 15.4% or $1 million. However, many of the changes were smarter long -term moves such as revising the roof edge paint finish to minimize glare to the adjacent neighbors or upgrading materials to increase the life cycle and lower maintenance costs. The remaining $1.2 million was attributable to Building code requirements and unforeseen problems. Sometimes these changes are inevitable, and it can be foolhardy to ignore good improvements with a flat rule against change orders. "What are our Lessons Learned ?" • Furnishings. Even as the City stopped making major investments in purchasing chairs, desks, tables, and related furnishings about five years before the move to the new facility, we didn't estimate these savings as an offset to new purchases for the new City Hall. We also would have had to pay the expense of moving the old furniture over — this was avoided, too. And while quality furnishings pay for themselves in avoided repair costs for equipment with poorer warrantees, the chair pricing was viewed as an example of government excess, and we don't blame people for thinking that r )ose Project Completion • At the end of the project, a number of contractors were in the wings complaining about delay costs they had allegedly incurred because of the project's carefully orchestrated schedule. We thought most — if not all — of these delay claims were not supported by the record, especially given the recession (i.e., even if there were delays, there was no other work out there for these contractors to pursue). We could have litigated and fought back. While we fought the claims hard administratively, and the work done to minimize end -of- project claims was admirable, how could that process have been improved? We could have aggressively entertained a legal strategy on the claims, but sometimes the risk of losing the judgment outweighs the defense costs. Overall Analysis — The Not So Good The "lessons learned" as previously listed. • The Measure B Feb 2008 campaign may not have had strong cost analyses — especially for the soft costs, the EIR, the Park, and more. As a result, it offered an undefinable cost for a vague project. The public understandably expected this cost at the end. • The public was not brought along with the changes in the Project scope as it grew and changed from the "just a City Hall" at 3300 Newport Boulevard, from as early as 2008. • We should have revised the design competition to include a very preliminary cost estimate from the designers - even if it would have increased the stipends. The design completion led many to want to achieve the Project's look before firmly knowing the cost. When the cost became more finalized, we were well down the road to undo things without considerable redesign cost. • The architect was creative and innovative, but designed a project plan that some in our community see as overly grand. We acknowledge that many Newport Beach residents enjoy seeing grand buildings, but might wish something more austere for their public halls of government. • The rabbits were included in the landscape package and we were not aware of the line item cost. Looking back, we should have requested a more detailed breakdown. If we had known the line item cost, we probably would have deleted or replaced them with something more modest. However, in the project team's defense, there were literally thousands of moving parts to this project and it was moving very quickly. More of our focus was on the bigger ticket items that could prove disastrous if mishandled. We should have spent more time providing Council and the public with the lifecycle costs for furnishings. Perhaps there was a better balance between short term and long term costs, but the decision should have been more transparent. • The contingency percentage amounts were too tight for a project of this complexity. We should have been more realistic and set the overall contingency between 5 and 10 %, probably 8 %. However, we didn't want to encourage the contractor and sub - contractors that there was more money to be made. Overall Analysis — The Good This project accomplished five separate projects (City Hall, 15 -acre Park, Library Expansion, Parking Structure, Pedestrian Bridge) which, if constructed separately at separate times, are likely to have cost significantly more as stand -alone projects. Some of them, such as the library expansion, may have been physically impossible at another time because of the site constraints. There was a cost savings in going to the bond market when we did, as well as being able to take advantage of the BABs subsidy. There was a cost savings in constructing (labor and materials) the project during the downturn in the economy, although one aspect (the dirt removal — at about $7 million in cost) was not any cheaper because no one else was out there building things and needing the dirt "for free." The CM @R delivery method created a strong and open partnership that worked together with a common goal. The design group — architect, construction manager, and City — worked together well and did not have any disputes at the end of the Project. Had we utilized traditional design bid build approach we would have potentially had an adversarial relationship between the contractor, City and architect that could have resulted in substantial costs, overruns, delays, and claims. There appears to be great use by the Newport Beach community and satisfaction of the five Project elements following completion of the Project.