flexiblefullpage
billboard
interstitial1
catfish1
Currently Reading

'A Model for the Entire Industry'

'A Model for the Entire Industry'

How a university and its Building Team forged a relationship with 'the toughest building authority in the country' to bring a replacement hospital in early and under budget.


By Robert Cassidy, Editorial Director | September 13, 2010
This article first appeared in the September 2010 issue of BD+C.

Ten years ago, the Regents of the University of California allocated $235 million in bonds (later widened in scope and bumped up to $285 million) to build a replacement hospital on its Irvine campus. The Regents had taken over an existing hospital from Orange County, one that could not be reconstructed to meet California's rigorous SB 1953 seismic requirements. In early 2004, when the bids were opened, the lowest came in a staggering $59 million over budget. This was at a time when prices for steel, concrete, and gypsum board were soaring, MEP engineering firms capable of handling a complex hospital project were not available, and some specialty trades were reporting bid increases of 10-20% a week.

By that summer, the old hospital was being torn down and the site was being cleared, and still no contractor had been hired. At last, in October 2004, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. was awarded the job and given 48 months to deliver a completed building. No matter that the local office of Hensel Phelps had never built a ground-up new hospital (nor, for that matter, had UC Irvine), nor that it intended to do so under design-build—a delivery method that the oversight agency, the Office of State Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), had zero experience with.

Building a relationship with OSHPD

OSHPD has a reputation for being arguably the toughest building authority in the country. The Building Team — Hensel Phelps (GC), HOK (architect), Nabih Youssef Associates (structural engineer), and TMAD-Taylor & Gaines (MEP engineer) — knew that it would have to earn OSHPD's respect and confidence, especially given the agency's trepidation about its first design-build project. At the same time, OSHPD recognized that it had to be open to the concept of design-build or it might not be able to deliver the $41 billion in SB 1953 projects for which it was responsible.

UCI and Hensel Phelps staff started off by holding the fairly customary array of ad hoc field meetings, monthly management meetings, and quarterly executive meetings with OSHPD to review upcoming work and establish priorities.

But the team went much further than that. UCI created the position of "OSHPD Expeditor" to coordinate all OSHPD-related activities—change orders, site visits, etc. The team also pledged to submit only detailed, complete designs with all required backup to OSHPD, provided the agency would reciprocate by meeting review deadlines in timely fashion. To their mutual credit, neither party missed a single deadline over the course of the nearly four-year project.

The university also promised OSHPD that all design packages would be meticulously reviewed by UCI staff before submitting them to OSHPD; to accomplish this, UCI allocated professional architects and engineers to staff the review team. Hensel Phelps appointed a QC manager to make sure submittals were complete and ready prior to inspection requests, and all RFIs were processed by UCI's quality assurance team. UCI found that this "shoulder-to-shoulder QA review" between its professionals and OSHPD staff helped to remove anxieties on OSHPD's part about the accelerated pace of review under design-build.

In yet another effort, UCI paid for extra training for its in-house inspectors of record to become OSHPD-certified Class A inspectors and hired a veteran lead IOR to head its team of five OSHPD-approved inspectors. UCI devised a Web-based inspection request system to enable the Building Team to submit and track inspections online. To maintain continuity and consistency, IOR responsibilities were designated by scope of work, not by location in the building.

For its part, OSHPD made critically important concessions. The agency relaxed pre-qualification requirements for 10 subcontractor trades. Bid documents were streamlined from 58 alternatives to three. Technical submittal requirements were reduced by 70%. The field information and decision-making process with OSHPD was streamlined to reduce risks.

How the Building Team cut $63 million in costs

Hensel Phelps and its partners in the Building Team worked under a "best and final offer" process, which capped the first phase of the hospital and the central plant at a maximum acceptance cost of $250 million. Later, additional scope, including get-ready work for phase two of the hospital, was added to the project, bringing the total acceptance cost to $285 million. In the end, the Building Team brought the job in for $283 million.

Value engineering saved $35 million without jeopardizing the building program. This was accomplished by reducing floor heights from 18 feet to 15 feet and overall building height by seven feet, "diminishing" an iconic tower, and using precast building skin in lieu of stone. Changing the structural system from moment connection to brace frame with gusset plates and exposed braces saved 1,600 tons of steel.

Roof-mounted cooling towers were deleted in favor of air-cooled towers on the ground. Operating room air handlers were placed in the basement instead of in mechanical space on the third floor

Another $28 million was saved through scope reductions (such as eliminating a proposed campus circulation arcade) and deferring certain items — rooftop gardens, an outdoor dining area — to a later phase.

Checks and balances were instituted to make sure the public good was protected. Two independent cost estimators were hired, one to price bid documents and advise if changes were needed in program scope, another to prepare sealed cost estimates to be opened at the time of bid. A third-party general contractor was brought in to review subcontractor bids and provide advice during bid negotiations.

Early in the planning, UCI instituted an integrated project delivery program (now known as "Align 2 Redefine") that led to two significant improvements: the foundation was reconfigured to allow for a basement across the full building footprint; and a 27,000-sf bonus shell space was created for a new radiology department in Phase two.

The project closeout also demonstrated excellent team effort. From the outset, UCI planned for an at-once construction final and certificate of occupancy for the entire hospital—partial occupancy or "staff and stock" approval would not be acceptable.

To meet this requirement, the Building Team, UCI's inspectors, and OSHPD staff sequenced all the inspection activities to a rigorous timetable. OSHPD dispatched six Fire Marshal Academy staff to conduct fire alarm, door contact hardware, stair pressurization, and above-ceiling fire-stopping inspections. A team of 15 was assigned to conduct fire alarm testing over several days.

UC Irvine Douglas Hospital became the first large-scale OSHPD project to finish on time and within budget, in fact, four months early and $2 million below the $285 construction budget. In evaluating this achievement, Rebeka G. Gladson, FAIA, UCI's associate vice chancellor and campus architect, praised Hensel Phelps's "unparalleled ability in the management and delivery of this complex project" and suggested that the relationship between the university and its Building Team be viewed as "a model for the entire industry to replicate." In bestowing Platinum honors on this project, the Building Team Awards jury concurred with this assessment.

PROJECT SUMMARY

Platinum Award

UC Irvine Douglas Hospital at the University of California Irvine Medical Center

Orange, Calif.

Building Team

Submitting entity: University of California, Irvine (owner/developer)
Architect: HOK
Interior architect: Dave Keaggy & Associates
Structural engineer: Nabih Youssef Associates
MEP engineer: TMAD–Taylor & Gaines
General contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
 

General Information

Project size: 474,353 sf
Construction cost: $283 million
Construction time: December 2004 to September 2008
Delivery method: Design-build

Related Stories

Giants 400 | Oct 30, 2023

Top 170 K-12 School Architecture Firms for 2023

PBK Architects, Huckabee, DLR Group, VLK Architects, and Stantec top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest K-12 school building architecture and architecture/engineering (AE) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report.

Giants 400 | Oct 30, 2023

Top 100 K-12 School Construction Firms for 2023

CORE Construction, Gilbane, Balfour Beatty, Skanska USA, and Adolfson & Peterson top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest K-12 school building contractors and construction management (CM) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report.

Giants 400 | Oct 30, 2023

Top 80 K-12 School Engineering Firms for 2023

AECOM, CMTA, Jacobs, WSP, and IMEG head BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest K-12 school building engineering and engineering/architecture (EA) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report. 

MFPRO+ Special Reports | Oct 27, 2023

Download the 2023 Multifamily Annual Report

Welcome to Building Design+Construction and Multifamily Pro+’s first Multifamily Annual Report. This 76-page special report is our first-ever “state of the state” update on the $110 billion multifamily housing construction sector.

Giants 400 | Oct 23, 2023

Top 190 Multifamily Architecture Firms for 2023

Humphreys and Partners, Gensler, Solomon Cordwell Buenz, Niles Bolton Associates, and AO top the ranking of the nation's largest multifamily housing sector architecture and architecture/engineering (AE) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report. Note: This ranking factors revenue for all multifamily buildings work, including apartments, condominiums, student housing facilities, and senior living facilities. 

Affordable Housing | Oct 20, 2023

Cracking the code of affordable housing

Perkins Eastman's affordable housing projects show how designers can help to advance the conversation of affordable housing.

Senior Living Design | Oct 19, 2023

Senior living construction poised for steady recovery

Senior housing demand, as measured by the change in occupied units, continued to outpace new supply in the third quarter, according to NIC MAP Vision. It was the ninth consecutive quarter of growth with a net absorption gain. On the supply side, construction starts continued to be limited compared with pre-pandemic levels. 

Warehouses | Oct 19, 2023

JLL report outlines 'tremendous potential' for multi-story warehouses

A new category of buildings, multi-story warehouses, is beginning to take hold in the U.S. and their potential is strong. A handful of such facilities, also called “urban logistics buildings” have been built over the past five years, notes a new report by JLL.

Building Materials | Oct 19, 2023

New white papers offer best choices in drywall, flooring, and insulation for embodied carbon and health impacts

“Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Insulation” and “Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Gypsum Drywall and Flooring,” by architecture and design firm Perkins&Will in partnership with the Healthy Building Network, advise on how to select the best low-carbon products with the least impact on human health.

Contractors | Oct 19, 2023

Crane Index indicates slowing private-sector construction

Private-sector construction in major North American cities is slowing, according to the latest RLB Crane Index. The number of tower cranes in use declined 10% since the first quarter of 2023. The index, compiled by consulting firm Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), found that only two of 14 cities—Boston and Toronto—saw increased crane counts.

boombox1
boombox2
native1

More In Category

Healthcare Facilities

Watch on-demand: Key Trends in the Healthcare Facilities Market for 2024-2025

Join the Building Design+Construction editorial team for this on-demand webinar on key trends, innovations, and opportunities in the $65 billion U.S. healthcare buildings market. A panel of healthcare design and construction experts present their latest projects, trends, innovations, opportunities, and data/research on key healthcare facilities sub-sectors. A 2024-2025 U.S. healthcare facilities market outlook is also presented.




halfpage1

Most Popular Content

  1. 2021 Giants 400 Report
  2. Top 150 Architecture Firms for 2019
  3. 13 projects that represent the future of affordable housing
  4. Sagrada Familia completion date pushed back due to coronavirus
  5. Top 160 Architecture Firms 2021