Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12


Published on

Presentation by IKM architects to HigherEd Facilities Officers at KAPPA Fall 2012 Conference

Published in: Design
  • If we are speaking about saving time and money this site ⇒ ⇐ is going to be the best option!! I personally used lots of times and remain highly satisfied.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

IKM_KAPPA Presentation- Pitt Bradford 10 17-12

  1. 1. 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:
  2. 2. Presenters: Peter Buchheit Director of Facilities U Pitt Bradford Jeff Brown Principal IKM Incorporated Steven Watson Project Manager IKM Incorporated© IKM Incorporated 2012 Peter Mastro Chief Estimator Mascaro Construction Matt Morris Project Manager Mascaro Construction
  3. 3. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 •High energy user- needed pneumatic controls upgraded to DDC •Originally a 3 Year schedule
  4. 4. Original Construction TimelineGMPApproval04/02 Start bidding Phase I Completion 2010 2011 2012F 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 3/8GMPDocumentsComplete2/15 4
  5. 5. © IKM Incorporated 2012 Design
  6. 6. 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Science Buildings have the space to accept updated Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Outdated lab building floor plans can typically accept new teaching lab layouts types
  7. 7. © IKM Incorporated 2012 Timeline:
  8. 8. We started with a science building that looked like this:© IKM Incorporated 2012
  9. 9. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Elevator Code issues • Inadequate Chemical Storage • Asbestos
  10. 10. Challenges facing us: Layout Issues: • Line of Sight Problems • Existing Layouts did not Accommodate New Teaching Methods • Research Space Non-Existent- in lab only© IKM Incorporated 2012
  11. 11. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Address code & ADA deficiencies The question is:
  12. 12. How do we do it for: $190 / S.F. ?© IKM Incorporated 2012
  13. 13. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Developed different layout options to study cost impacts •Cost Estimating Spreadsheet for Evaluating Options Teamwork – Restraint – Collaboration
  14. 14. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012
  15. 15. Reworked Master Plan Study:© IKM Incorporated 2012 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
  16. 16. Anatomy & Physiology Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012 Seats 16 Seats 24 Sinks 7 Sinks 2
  17. 17. Priorities: •What were most important areas •What areas were good enough to leave alone •What work had to be done- ADA, code items© IKM Incorporated 2012
  18. 18. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012
  19. 19. Cost Estimating: •Developed interactive spreadsheet •Plugged in different scenarios •Evaluated costs in each phase •After CM input , things changed© IKM Incorporated 2012
  20. 20. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Replaced all of the ceilings and lights
  21. 21. Anatomy Physiology Before:: •Layout limited professor & student movement •Inadequate downdraft exhaust •Services did not match needs •Services take too much space up© IKM Incorporated 2012 •Awkward Circulation
  22. 22. Anatomy & Physiology Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012 Seats 16 Seats 24 Sinks 7 Sinks 2
  23. 23. Anatomy Physiology Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012
  24. 24. Organic Chemistry Before: •Disastrous Line of Sight •Layout limited professor & student movement •Fume Hood Exhaust Inadequate •Awkward Circulation© IKM Incorporated 2012
  25. 25. Organic Chemistry Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012 Seats 11 Seats 16 7 Fume Hoods 8 Fume Hoods
  26. 26. Organic Chemistry After:© IKM Incorporated 2012
  27. 27. Cell Biology Before: •Disastrous Line of Sight •Layout limited professor & student movement •Fume Hood Exhaust Inadequate •Awkward Circulation© IKM Incorporated 2012
  28. 28. Cell Biology Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012 Seats 16 Seats 16
  29. 29. Cell Biology Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012
  30. 30. Freshman Chemistry Before: •Poor Line of Sight •Carboy interference •Layout OK- teaching area needed© IKM Incorporated 2012
  31. 31. Freshman Chemistry Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012 Seats 16 Seats 16
  32. 32. Freshman Chemistry Before: After:© IKM Incorporated 2012
  33. 33. © IKM Incorporated 2012 Student Study Area:
  34. 34. © IKM Incorporated 2012 Building Science
  35. 35. © IKM Incorporated 2012 M.E.P Upgrades
  36. 36. 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.© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Each laboratory was fitted with VAV supply air boxes and tracking exhaust boxes.
  37. 37. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 light fixtures, each room was equipped with new dual technology occupancy sensors.
  38. 38. Construction Management© IKM Incorporated 2012
  39. 39. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Estimating / Project Management • Procurement 39
  40. 40. Proposed Timeline 2010GMP Documents to MCC2/1 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 Bid MEP and Casework 2/19 40
  41. 41. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • Mascaro self perform capability including demolition, concrete, drywall, acoustical, and carpentry 41
  42. 42. KEY Planned Phases Phase I© IKM Incorporated 2012 42
  43. 43. KEY Planned Phases Phase I Phase II© IKM Incorporated 2012 43
  44. 44. KEY Phase I Phase II Planned Phases Phase III© IKM Incorporated 2012 44
  45. 45. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 45
  46. 46. 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.© IKM Incorporated 2012 46
  47. 47. Schedule • Spring Semester (Pre-Con) ‘10 • Summer (Construction) ‘10 – 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 47
  48. 48. Collaboration • Spring Semester (Pre-Con) ‘10 • Summer (Construction) ‘10 – 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 48
  49. 49. 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.© IKM Incorporated 2012 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..
  50. 50. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 University of Pittsburgh at Bradford “ You get an A for design…. ”
  51. 51. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 “ The renovations of the lab has made the learning experience much better. ”
  52. 52. 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© IKM Incorporated 2012 • 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
  53. 53. © IKM Incorporated 2012 Questions
  54. 54. architecture planning interior design© IKM Incorporated 2012 general contracting construction management design / build