Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS <br />Scheduling <br /> <br />Because the CDM/AWC team were working under a design/build contract, the opinion was that design <br />could be expedited for several reasons: <br /> <br />1. Because the contractor was intimately involved in the design, construction drawings and <br />specifications did not have to be as detailed as when formal bidding and contract award are <br />conducted. <br /> <br />2. The contractor could provide continuous input regarding constructibility and cost of proposed <br />improvements. This ongoing quality control procedure eliminated the need for time-consuming <br />addendums and renegotiations regarding price. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />In all, these assumptions proved to be correct and greatly enhanced the efficiency of the design team. <br />However, other factors outside the control of the design/build team resulted in a significantly shorter <br />design period than originally anticipated. The most critical of these factors was a delay in the award of <br />contract. Originally anticipating a contract in late April or early May, notice to proceed was not received <br />until October. This resulted in a delay in the design schedule of four months. This delay was mitigated by <br />working without a contract through the summer, although this work was not at the full level of effort <br />originally budgeted, as staff was used on other contracted projects as needed. Still, it was recognized that <br />work in progress was needed to minimize impacts of the delay and a contract was verbally assured. <br />However, had this not been a design/build project, this delay would have resulted in a delay in <br />construction of at least one season. <br /> <br />The builders of the project, with agreement from the designers, wanted to mobilize in late August with the <br />construction period extending through the winter to the early spring. However, with the notice to proceed <br />not being given a full level of effort until October, a late summer mobilization was out of the question. <br />Mobilization was moved to early January and three months allowed for design. Although short for a <br />traditional design/bid/construct, three months allowed enough time to prepare, but not necessarily <br />complete, construction documents. As the design period proceeded, it became apparent that plans would <br />not be completed by the beginning of January. However, a strategy was established that would prioritize <br />design aspects and issues that would be addressed early in the construction, and effort was made to <br />complete these aspects and address issues first. Issues that had to be addressed were permit <br />applications and aspects of the design included rough grading and wetlands mitigation. If the contractor <br />could begin construction with rough grading plans, details could follow in a "just in time" mode. This was <br />the approach taken. <br /> <br />Two problems are associated with providing plans just in time on an as-needed basis: <br /> <br />. Developing an accurate estimate of quantities and final cost. Usually during a design/build <br />project, the total cost including design, administration, and construction gets established very <br />early in the project and often is contained in the contract based on conceptual level cost <br />estimates. This budget then is intended to be carried through the entire project. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. Ordering materials and services that have a long turnaround or delivery time. Some materials to <br />be used towards the end of the construction may have to be ordered near the beginning while <br />plans for those materials are not yet complete. Addressing this situation requires anticipating the <br />type of material and quantity. A conservative approach needs to be taken both in terms of design <br />and quantity: better to have too much of an overdesigned material that may take months to deliver <br />than to be short and delay the work. <br />