USFWS Value Study

 

 

Final Report

Issued: March 19, 2004

 

                                                                                      

PROJECT:

 

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

 

 

 

STUDY COMPLETED: March 5, 2004

 

Conducted Under Cooperative Agreement with:

Greenfield Architects

 

 

 

 

Facilitated by:

SAMI VE LLC

PO Box 1115, Evergreen CO 80437

303-674-6900

SAVE 950501-VESI 01101401

(original shows seal)

 

Technical Services by:

Merrick & Company

2450 S Peoria Street, Aurora CO 80014

303-751-0741

 

 

 

VALUE STUDY TEAM ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ACTIVITY TEAM AND CONSULTANTS

 

The value study team wishes to express thanks and appreciation to the activities team who were always professional, readily available, and unfailingly helpful.  The success of the study team effort could not have been possible without the assistance of the project members.

 

The team wishes also to express thanks and appreciation to those listed on the Consultation Record of this report. The cooperation and helpfulness of those consulted contributed greatly to the technical foundation and support of the team's deliberations and proposals.

 

The aim of using the Value Method is to achieve the best worth for the cost (value) for the project.  It is only with the full team effort, as shown by all involved, that this goal can be achieved.  This study represents the product of such an effort and complies with PL 104-106, OMB A-131, DM 369-1, and other guidelines and executive orders.

 

 

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE VALUE METHOD PROCESS, ITS PURPOSE, AND THIS VALUE STUDY

 

The Value Method is a highly effective decision-making process. It consists of a series of procedures that occur in a preplanned sequence. Larry Miles originally developed it in 1943. In general, it is a Asystematic and organized process to creatively develop alternatives that secure essential functions at the greatest worth as opposed to their life-cycle cost (highest value). It has many applications but is most often used as a management and problem-solving tool.

 

A job plan is used throughout the value study activity. In brief, the component features from a process, program, project, process, or activity are examined to determine pertinent functions, governing criteria, and associated costs. Next, using creativity techniques; ideas, concepts, and potential proposals are generated. Then through an analysis process, priorities for due diligence activities are identified and put forward for development of the remaining best ideas. Those alternative methods that fully meet necessary requirements at a lower cost, or with an increase in the long-term values, are proposed for adoption by the parties responsible for the project.

 

This report is the result of a "formal" Value Study Team effort. A formal value study team is comprised of people with the desired expertise and independence. They have an understanding of the needs of the organization they represent, and can take an open and independent view of the project being studied. Ideally, they have not been notably involved in the project prior to the value study. Using the Value Method applied to the current collected data, the study team takes a "fresh look" at the project to create alternatives that fulfill the client needs at the greatest recognized attainable value.

 

The Value Method has many common names. These mainly relate to the historical features, the timing of its application, or type of process, program, project, or activity studied. It is often referred to as Value Analysis (VA), Value Management (VM), Value Engineering (VE), and Value Planning (VP).

 

The application of the process has been highly successful for more than 60 years for both private and governmental entities. As a result, the Federal government has mandated its use in all Federally funded operations. This value study report demonstrates the required substance that quality Value Method procedures were used throughout this value study, as stipulated under the mandated governmental Value Program oversight authorities and the recommendations of the Value Method profession.


[COMMENT1] 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                                                                       1

VALUE STUDY TEAM MEMBERS                                                                                                       3

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 1                                                                                   4

Figure 1. Proposal 1 – Building Rotation 30 degrees                                                            5

Figure 2.  Proposal 1 – Building Rotation 45 degrees                                                           6

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1                                                                          7

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL NO. 1                                                                                        7

PROPOSAL NO. 2.                                                                                                                                      8

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2                                                                                   8

Figure 3.  Proposal 2 – Site Paving                                                                                        10

PROPOSAL NO. 3                                                                                                                                     13

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 3                                                                                 13

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 3                                                                        14

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL NO. 3                                                                                      15

PROPOSAL NO. 4.                                                                                                                                    16

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 4                                                                                 16

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 4                                                                        17

PROPOSAL NO. 5.                                                                                                                                    18

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 5                                                                                 18

Figure 4. Proposal 5 - Building Section                                                                                 19

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 5                                                                        20

PROPOSAL NO. 6.                                                                                                                                    21

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 6                                                                                 21

Figure 6.  Proposal 6 - Insulation and Ceiling in Breeding Rooms                                   22

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 6                                                                        22

PROPOSAL NO. 7.                                                                                                                                    24

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 7                                                                                 24

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 7                                                                        25

PROPOSAL NO. 8.                                                                                                                                    28

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 8                                                                                 28

Figure 7.  Proposal 8 - Translucent Roof Panel Layout                                                     30

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 8                                                                        31

PROPOSAL NO. 9.                                                                                                                                    34

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9                                                                                 34

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 9                                                                        35

PROPOSAL NO. 10.                                                                                                                                  36

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 10                                                                               36

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 10                                                                      37

PROPOSAL NO. 11.                                                                                                                                  40

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 11                                                                               40

Figure 8.  Proposal 11 - Light Gage Framing Details                                                          41

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 11                                                                      42

PROPOSAL NO. 12.                                                                                                                                  43

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12                                                                               43

Figure 9. Joist Girder Detail                                                                                                     44

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 12                                                                      45

PROPOSAL NO. 13.                                                                                                                                  46

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 13                                                                               47

Figure 10.  Proposal 13 - Rectangular Floor Plan                                                                48

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 13                                                                      49

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL NO. 13                                                                                    50

PROPOSAL NO. 14a.                                                                                                                                 51

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 14a                                                                             51

Figure 11.  Proposal 14a -                                                                                                        52

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 14a                                                                     53

PROPOSAL NO. 14b                                                                                                                                  54

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 14b                                                                             54

Figure 12.  Proposal 14b -                                                                                                        55

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 14b                                                                    56

PROPOSAL NO. 15.                                                                                                                                  60

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 15                                                                               60

Figure 13.  Proposal 15 -                                                                                                          61

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 15                                                                      62

PROPOSAL NO. 16.                                                                                                                                  65

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 16                                                                               65

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 16                                                                      66

PROPOSAL NO. 17.                                                                                                                                  69

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 17                                                                               69

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 17                                                                      74

PROPOSAL NO. 18.                                                                                                                                  75

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 18                                                                               75

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 18                                                                      76

ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER STUDY                                                                         77

DISPOSITION OF CONCEPTS/IDEAS                                                                                               79

CONSULTATION RECORD                                                                                                                84

INFORMATION/DATA DOCUMENTS CONSULTED                                                                      84

Begin Supporting Documentation Section                                                                          1

Figure 1.  Value Method Decision Process                                                                                         3

GENERAL DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                     4

Figure 2.  Location Map                                                                                                                    5

DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT ACTIVITY PLAN                                                                                 6

Figure 3.  Plat                                                                                                                                    6

Figure 4. Floor Plan Breeding Building                                                                                               7

Figure 5. Elevation Breeding Building                                                                                                 7

DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA AND LIMITS ANALYSIS                                                                     8

SPECIAL CRITERIA SUMMARY                                                                                                          8

PROBABILITY MATRIX DISCUSSION                                                                                               9

Figure 6.  Probability Matrix                                                                                        10

COST MODEL AND ESTIMATE INFORMATION                                                                            10

FUNCTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM TECHNIQUE (FAST) DIAGRAM                                               12

LOG OF TEAM ACTIVITY                                                                                                                           15

ORAL PRESENTATION MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST                                                                21

INITIAL BRIEFING MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST                                                                        23

GLOSSARY OF PERTINENT STANDARD VALUE METHOD TERMS                                           24

GLOSSARY OF OTHER TERMS AND ACROYNYMS                                                                     25

STATEMENT OF INITIAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS                                                                                  26

 


page is blank


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT:   USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

General:

 

The value study team consisted of expertise from various professions. These professions included architecture, structural engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, value engineering, and project management and design/build specialization’s. The team had their first group meeting for the value study on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 at the Fish and Wildlife Service offices.  The study team concluded their full formal team efforts on Friday March 5, 2004.  A presentation to management of the value study results took place at the conclusion of the 4-day study on March 5, 2004 at the offices of Merrick in Aurora, CO.

 

Summary of Proposals:

 

The value study team made 18 proposals. These are alternative methods that were developed during the value study to the point that they were complete enough for decision-making and comprehensive presentation.

 

Through traditional Value Method procedures, the team evaluated the activities and available resources (time, money, equipment, etc.).  In addition to the concepts established before the value study, the study team generated over 100 additional ideas.  In accordance with the relative ranking, the study team developed and evaluated 18 specific proposals that were determined to have a high enough potential to meet the needs for the planned activity.  The total estimated initial expenditure savings of the evaluations completed during the value study, if all independent monetary savings proposals are accepted, are estimated at about $288,000. The team also made suggestions that would add value to the project (reduce risk, improve performance, etc.), totalling an added cost of $60,700.

 

The process also generated a large number of value-added features for all proposals.  (Value added features are defined as attributes that the study team believes will improve the final product in non-monetary or hard to quantify ways, e.g., time, quality, and safety.  Increased initial or Life-Cycle Costs (LCC), if any, are expected to be more than offset by the apparent added non-monetary value, and/or have undetermined cost savings that will exceed the projected increased proposal cost.)

 

A very brief description and an estimate of the minimum potential value of the proposals are as follows:

 

Proposal No. 1.  Examine rotating the building.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce desired value added features such as potential lighting issues for the critical time involved, improved site visibility, and entry issues, with no significant cost effects.

 

Proposal No. 2.  Improve traffic access around building.   These are recommendations to improve the access around the building and would cost approximately $23,500.

 

Proposal No. 3.  Elevate the building.   The potential savings of $17,360 attained by this concept would also produce desired value added features such as improved accessibility, visibility, reduced chance of water infiltration, and other benefits.

 

Proposal No. 4.  Examine reducing the size of the building.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce approximately $163,107 in potential cost savings and could be used as a fall back position in the event of funding issues.

 

Proposal No. 5.  Equipment platform options.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would save approximately $4,300 and produce desired value added features such as more natural light and potential prevention of overloading the platform.

 

Proposal No. 6. Ceiling options.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would cost $11,300 but would produce desired value added features such as more uniform lighting and a more finished appearance.

 

Proposal No. 7. Wall options.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would cost $3,500 but produce desired value added features benefits with better wall durability and improved acoustics.

 

Proposal No. 8. Natural light options.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would save $18,465 and should have life cycle cost improvements as well.

 

Proposal No. 9. Natural light options.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would save $14,250, and should have life cycle cost improvements as well.

 

Proposal No. 10. Add exterior windows to Hamster room.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would initially cost $1,280 but would produce desired value added features to improve the environment.

 

Proposal No. 11. Making use of light gage steel bracing.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce a net savings of $7,010 and make for ease of constructibility and reduction of construction schedule.

 

Proposal No. 12. Replace Clerestory beam with single joist girder.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce a potential savings of $13,300 and produce desired value added features of design benefits and construction efficiencies.

 

Proposal No. 13. Examine making the building more rectangular.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce approximately $110,740 in potential cost savings and could be used as a fall back position in the event that funding levels did not meet the authorized levels.

 

Proposal No. 14A.  Heat recovery systems.   The study team determined that use of ground water source heat pumps would produce about $41,500 in potential cost savings and produce desired value added features of energy conservation and reduced noise.

 

Proposal No. 14B. Heat recovery systems.  The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce about $50,200 in potential cost savings.

 

Proposal No. 15. Water conservation options.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would produce savings with an initial cost of approximately $8,100 but would have desired value added features of conserving water.

 

Proposal No. 16. Control of lighting and consistency using controller.   The study team determined

that the initial cost of $3,100, using this approach would provide modest life cycle cost savings.

 

Proposal No. 17. Protection of systems from lighting strikes.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would cost $11,000 but produce desired value added features of asset protection..

 

Proposal No. 18. Protection of systems from surge and electrical trips.   The study team determined that the use of this approach would cost $2,000 but produce desired value added features of asset protection

Summary of Additional Items for Further Study.

 

About ten additional items for further study were also recommended.  These are items that, due to time constraints, the lack of apparent large significant savings or value added during initial idea evaluations, complexity of idea, or scope of the idea (as compared to the study scope), make further investigation by the study team, within their limited time constraints, inadvisable.  They are respectfully submitted for further consideration and development to add value for the project.


 

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

VALUE STUDY TEAM MEMBERS

NAME

TITLE/DISCIPLINE

CONTACT INFORMATION

Sam Martin, PE, CVC, CVS

Value study team leader, Certified Value Specialist (CVS), Certified Value Consultant (CVC)

SAMI VE LLC

PO Box 1115, Evergreen, CO 80437

303-674-6900, FAX 720-554-7678

smartin@samive.com

Carol M Landau

Assistant value study team leader

AcumenVE

PO Box 1312, Evergreen, CO 80437

303-517-9392

cmlandau@acumenve.com

 

 

 

George Newland

Architect / Project Manager, part time team member

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

134 Union Boulevard

Denver, CO 80225-0486

303-236-4479

george_newland@fws.gov

Jon DeLay, P.E.

Project Manager

Merrick & Company

2450 S Peoria Street, Aurora, CO 80014

303-751-0741

FAX  303-751-2581

jon.delay@merrick.com

Steve Grueber, RA

Architect

Merrick & Company

2450 S Peoria Street, Aurora, CO 80014

303-751-0741

steve.grueber@merrick.com

Doug Elledge, P.E.

Structural Engineer

Merrick & Company

3505 Koger Boulevard Suite 160

Duluth, GA 30096-7671

770-923-6670

douglas.elledge@merrick.com

Hank Battjes, P.E.

Civil Engineer

Merrick & Company

2450 S Peoria Street, Aurora, CO 80014

303-751-0741

hank.battjes@merrick.com

Kevin Breslin, P.E.

Mechanical Engineer

Merrick & Company

2450 S Peoria Street, Aurora, CO 80014

303-751-0741

kevin.breslin@merrick.com

Russ Odum, P.E.

Electrical Engineer

Merrick & Company

2450 S Peoria Street, Aurora, CO 80014

303-751-0741

russ.odum@merrick.com

 

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 1

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Building Rotation

FUNCTION:

Sun Angles and To-FromView Angles

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 1.  ROTATE BUILDING AXIS 15-45 DEGREES COUNTER-CLOCKWISE

 Rotation of the building layout in a counter-clockwise direction at somewhere between 15 degrees and 45 degrees would improve the visibility from the administrative offices toward the access road, would help with vehicle access around the building, and may optimize light into all breeding rooms.

Concept R

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

·         Optimize Jan-May sun angles into breeding rooms.

·         Improve managers view of access road.

·         Improve visibility of main entrance from access road

·         Minimize north side icing potential.

 

·         May add to cost of HVAC systems.

·         May complicate orientation of users to site.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

·         None identified.

 

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 1

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Building axis north-south.

 

 Rotate building from 15 to 45 degrees.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

 

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

 

 

 SAVINGS

 

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

 

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

No significant cost effects

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

 

 

NET INCREASE

 

 

Notes: 

 

class=Section5>

Figure 1.  Proposal 1 – Building Rotation 30 degrees

Figure 2.  Proposal 1 – Building Rotation 45 degrees

 

class=Section6>

 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

The current site design has all facilities oriented true north-south. An important design criteria is that the Managers office should have a good view of the entrance road, and that the main building entry be easily identifiable for visitors.

 

Proposal: 

 

Rotate the building counter-clockwise at an angle between 15 degrees and 45 degrees. Optimize the morning sun azimuth angle during the breeding cycle (January – May). Provide an improved view from the managers office to the entry road and from the entry road to the building entrance. Provide some site interest by having this staggered footprint building not square with the existing facilities and roadways.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Winter solstice (Dec. 21) sunrise azimuth  is about 30 degrees south from due East. US Naval Observatory data.

Spring equinox (Mar. 20), sunrise azimuth is about due East.

Summer solstice (June 21) sunrise azimuth is about 30 degrees north from due East.

 

 

 

 

 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL NO. 1

PROJECT:  USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

CRITICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL:

·         Designer determines optimum angle of rotation.

 

 

IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND METHODS TO OVERCOME:

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES: (WHO DOES WHAT)

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 2

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Site Paving

FUNCTION:

Traffic flow and pedestrian access

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSAL NO. 2.  PROVIDE PAVED ACCESS ROAD, PARKING, DELIVERY ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN FLOW

 Construct access driveway parallel to the long axis of building with parking and delivery access to the north, and pedestrian walkways connecting the breeding room doors to the Holding Building and Rearing Pens.

Concept S

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

·         Reduce tracked-in mud and dirt.

·         Improve site maintainability.

·         Travel way for moving cages on wheeled transport.

·         Direct visitors to the entrance.

·         Improved site appearance and professionalism.

·         Additional first cost.

·         Reflected heat from hard surface along south side of building during summer.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

·         None identified.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Flatwork slab off entry road and no identified sidewalks.

 

 Loop drive along north to provide parking, delivery location and one-way traffic flow.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$3,000 paving + $6,000 walks

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$32,500 pave + walks

 

 SAVINGS

($23,500)

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

($23,500)

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

$0

 

NET SAVINGS

 

 

NET INCREASE

($23,500)

 

Notes:

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

1200 SF gravel paving @ $2.50/SF = $3,000

1200 SF Sidewalk @ $5.00 = $6,000

TOTAL ORIGINAL = $ 9,000

VALUE ENGINEERING CONCEPT

Paved drive and parking 5,000 SF @ $5.00/SF = $ 25,000

Concrete sidewalks 2500 SF @ $3.00/SF = $ 7,500

TOTAL VALUE CONCEPT = $ 32,500

 

 Potential reduced maintence to clean muddied floors not fully analyzed. but may result in recovery of initial costs over life of project.

Figure 3.  Proposal 2 – Site Paving

FPAG.VER




PROPOSAL NO. 3

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Site Grading

FUNCTION:

Drainage and Building Access

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

DELETED BY TEAM DUE TO DETERMINATION OF ASSUMPTION VIOLATION

(presentation proposal information retained for fallback reference)

 

PROPOSAL NO. 3.  RAISE BUILDING ELEVATION 2 FT. ABOVE CURRENT GRADE

 Construct the building at a higher elevation to increase surface pitch away from foundation, improve drainage, and reuse existing soil stockpiled on the site.

(Concept T)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

·         Reduce potential water damage to foundation.

·         Reduce potential for slab heaving.

·         Reduce ice buildup near building access points.

·         Reduce cost of handling soil materials.

·         Improved sewage pipe slopes to leach field.

·         May add to cost if stockpile is not useable.

·         May complicate surface drainage around building.

·         No site grading completed at this design stage, so no designs to revise.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

·         Onsite soil may not be suitable.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 3

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Construct building on grade.

 

 Construct building above grade using existing fill.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$22,320

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$4,960

 

 SAVINGS

$17,360

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$17,360

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

$0

 

NET SAVINGS

$ 17,360

 

Notes:

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

Over-ex and replace 2 feet of building subgrade (2’x11,000SF/27= 815 CY) @ $14.40/CY = $ 11,820

Load and Haul existing stockpile (est. 1500 CY) @ $7.00/CY = $ 10,500

TOTAL ORIGINAL = $ 22,320

VALUE ENGINEERING CONCEPT

Place and compact stockpile in building 815 CY x $ 3.40/CY = $2,770

Place and compact wedge outside building – 685 CY x $3.20/CY = $2,190

TOTAL VALUE CONCEPT = $ 4,960

 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 3

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

The current site design has no information on building finish floor elevation or site grading. General practice is to minimize site grading by placing floor near (but above) existing levels to help balance earthwork. This site has a stockpile of existing soil in the immediate area of the proposed building.

 

Proposal: 

 

Raise the building finish floor elevation at least two feet to help pitch roof drainage more rapidly away from the building foundations. The higher elevation will improve drainage and will protect the foundation/floor slab from heaving when the moisture-susceptible clay soils are subject to wetting and drying cycles. This would allow the more reasonable foundation system to be used for this project. 

 

A smaller amount of subgrade below the building would be required to be over-excavated and recompacted to achieve the Geotech recommended soil support improvements. Some of the existing stockpile could be used on-site rather than being loaded and hauled off-site.

 

Raising the floor level will also improve the sewage flow from the building plumbing into the nearby septic tank and leach field.

 

Assumptions: 

 

1.        The existing soil stockpile materials are acceptable for use.  (DETERMINED AT PRESENTATION MEETING TO BE VIOLATED. ACCORDINGLY, PROPOSAL WAS DELETED BY TEAM IN THIS FINAL REPORT.)

2.        There is at least 1500 cubic yards of acceptable soil in the stockpile.

 

 


 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL NO. 3

PROJECT:  USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

CRITICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL:

·         Verify that the existing soil materials are acceptable for building subgrade when properly compacted.

·         Verify actual quantity of existing soil in stockpile.

 

 

IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND METHODS TO OVERCOME:

 

 

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES: (WHO DOES WHAT)

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 4

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Size of building

FUNCTION:

House activities and functions

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 4.  DECREASE SIZE OF BUILDING FROM 11,914 GSF TO APPROX 11,000 GSF PER PROGRAM STATEMENT.

(Concept AI)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        Less floor area = less cost.

o        None identified.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        None identified.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 4

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Building size (scope) of 11,914 gsf.

Building size (scope) of 11,000 gsf.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$2,126,387

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$1,963,280

 

 SAVINGS

$163,107

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$163,107

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

$163,107

 

Notes:

Original concept.

Deduct site costs from overall project costs. Site costs are 8% of total.

Therefore $2,311,290 x .92 = $2,126,387 for building cost.

Or about $178.48/gsf.

 

Value concept:

Reduce building size (scope) from 11,914 gsf to 11,000 gsf.

Therefore, 11,000 gsf x $178.48 = $1,963,280


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 4

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Original statement of work from USFWS indicated a desired building size (scope) of approximately 11,000 gsf, which would assume a range of about 10% either way, or from 9,900 gsf to 12,100 gsf. Current design indicates a building size of 11,914 gsf, or about 8.3% over the desired size.

 

Proposal: 

 

Building cost is directly related to scope. If the scope can be decreased, then costs come down. The building is worth about $178.48 per gsf..

 

The building reduction can occur in a number of ways, or in any combination. A few of these are:

(1)     Reduce the circulation space between the breeding rooms and support spaces. Establish a minimum corridor and make it consistent.

(2)     The building footprint is not dependent on modular construction such as CMU. There are approximately 540 linear feet of exterior wall. The scope reduction could be achieved if these walls were brought inward less than 2 feet.

(3)     There appears to be excess floor space in several rooms. Consolidate and tighten wherever possible. Maintain building module, however.

 

Assumptions: 

 

None noted.

 

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 5

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Equipment platform

FUNCTION:

Accommodates HVAC equipment

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 5.  DECREASE SIZE OF MECHANICAL PLATFORM TO ACCOMMODATE 3 CLUSTERS OF TWO UNITS EACH.

(Concept C)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        Less floor area = less cost.

o        Eliminates likelihood of using area for dead file storage and overload collapse.

o        Consolidates Breeding Room and Admin HVAC locations.

o        Requires two additional ladder access points.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        None identified.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 5

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Single large mechanical platform.

Three smaller mechanical platforms.

 

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$ 9,450

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$ 5,130

 

 SAVINGS

$ 4,320

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$ 4,320

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

$ 4,320

 

Notes:

Original concept.

Area of mech platform approx  1,600 sf per GC.

Cost of platform per GC = $ 9,000 total.

One floor hatch and ladder per GC = $450

Total original concept = $9,000 + $450 = $9,450.

 

Value concept:

Area of three smaller mechanical platforms approx 660 sf, or about 42% of original design.

Therefore, $9,000 x .42 = $3,780 total.

Three floor hatches and ladders = $1,350.

Total value concept = $3,780 + $1,350 = $5,130.

 

Figure 4.  Proposal 5 - Building Section

FPAG.VER


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 5

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Proposed mechanical platform covers majority of circulation and work space below, with relatively small portion devoted to actual mechanical equipment. Accessed via one ladder from below. This “free space” would be tempting to use as miscellaneous storage space, possibly causing an overload situation and subsequent collapse.

 

Proposal: 

 

Provide three small mechanical platforms. Access each via ladder from below. Provide sufficient clearance to service equipment.

 

Assumptions: 

 

None noted.

 

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 6

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Roof / ceiling in Breeding Rooms

FUNCTION:

Enclose space / weatherproof

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 6.  IN BREEDING ROOMS, UTILIZE VINYL-FACED BATT INSULATION AT ROOF DECK WITH GYPSUM BOARD CEILING.

(Concept D)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        Gypsum board provides protection for insulation with increased light reflectivity and uniformity.

o        More finished appearance.

o        Details around potential roof skylights or translucent panels.

o        Gypsum board requires taping, finishing, painting.

o        Increased dead load on joists.

o        Livelier acoustics in rooms.

o        Higher initial cost.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        Ceiling could be stained when Breeding Rooms hosed down.

o        Ceiling will stain if/when roof leaks.

o        Joist deflection could cause cracking.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 6

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Rigid insulation attached to underside of metal roof deck in Breeding Rooms.

 

Use vinyl-faced batt insulation below deck with gypsum board ceiling.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$9,660

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$21,000

 

 SAVINGS

($11,340)

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

($11,340)

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

($11,340)

 

Notes:

Original concept:

Total area of Breeding Rooms = 7,000 sf

Cost of R-38 polyiso insulation, 2 inches R-14.29 = $0.69 x 2 = $1.38 total bare cost

7,000 sf x $1.38 = $9,660

 

Value concept:

Cost of vinyl-face batts approx $1.00 / sf x 7,000 sf = $7,000

Per GC, gyp bd ceilings are $2.00 / sf x 7,000 sf = $14,000

 

 

Figure 6.  Proposal 6 - Insulation and Ceiling in Breeding Rooms

FPAG.VER


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 6

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Current design indicates rigid insulation glued/attached to underside of metal deck in Breeding Rooms.

 

Proposal: 

 

Utilize vinyl-faced batt/blanket insulation, typically found in pre-engineered metal buildings, directly underneath the metal deck. Attach gypsum board to bottom chord of joists (with thermal spacers), creating a dead-air space, protection for the vinyl facing, light reflecting surface, and appearance that is more finished.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Assume that joist capacity can accommodate weight of gypsum board.

Assume that penetrations (such as possible translucent roof panels) can be adequately detailed.

Assume that joist deflection is sufficiently rigid to protect gypsum board from cracking. If this may pose a problem, use more rigid joists or provide an independent gypsum board suspension system.

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 7

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Interior walls

FUNCTION:

Space definitions

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 7.  SUBSTITUTE HI-ABUSE GYPSUM BOARD IN LIEU OF STANDARD GYPSUM BOARD FOR WALLS ONLY, NOT CEILINGS. ELIMINATE MOST INTERIOR ACOUSTIC BATTS. ALSO UTILIZE “TAPE-FRIENDLY” PAINT.

(Concept B)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        Increased wall durability.

o        Less frequent maintenance.

o        Better acoustic characteristics. Can eliminate most interior acoustic batts.

o        Better long-term appearance.

o        Higher initial cost.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        Installer familiarity with installation means and methods for hi-abuse gypsum board.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 7

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

o        Utilize standard gypsum board for walls.

o        Utilize standard paint for walls.

o        Acoustic batts in all interior walls.

o        Utilize hi-abuse gypsum board for walls.

o        Utilize “tape friendly” paint for walls.

o        Eliminate acoustic batts in all walls except for restrooms and manager’s office.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$28,295

$29,500

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$31,782

$31,600

 SAVINGS

($3,487)

($3,100)

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

1

 TOTAL SAVINGS

($3,487)

($3,100)

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

0

NET SAVINGS

($3,487)

($3,100)

Notes:

 

Original concept:

5/8” standard gyp bd  on walls, taped and finished to Level 4 = $0.81/sf bare cost x 21,660 sf = $17,545

Standard paint, material cost only = $0.06 x 21,660 sf = $ 1,300

GC indicates 10,500 sf of sound batts at a total cost of $9,450

Total original concept = $28,295

 

Value concept:

5/8” hi-abuse gyp bd on walls,  taped and finished to Level 4 = $1.26/sf bare cost x 21,660 sf = $27,292

Tape-friendly paint is acrylic emulsion enamel and costs approximately double standard latex semi-gloss paint.

Tape-friendly paint, material cost only = $0.12 x 21,660 sf = $ 2,600

Eliminate 80% of sound batts - retain for restrooms and manager’s office.

Therefore $9,450 x .2 = $1,890

Total value concept = $31,782

 

 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 7

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

In a semi-industrial facility, durability of gypsum board is a recurring theme. Material is subject to dings and dents from equipment and goods handling. Many notes and notices are also taped to walls, and when removed, scar paint. Durable CMU interior walls are generally cost-prohibitive.

 

Proposal: 

 

Change wall material to hi-abuse gypsum board (ceilings can remain standard gypsum board). Due to superior acoustic performance for hi-abuse gypsum board, sound batts can be eliminated for all areas except for restrooms and manager’s office. Change standard paint to “tape friendly” paint. No changes to drawings; specification modifications only.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Assume hi-abuse material is locally available.

Assume craftsmen are familiar with hi-abuse installation - methods are slightly different and slightly more difficult.

 

 

 

 




 

PROPOSAL NO. 8

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Breeding Rooms

FUNCTION:

Enhanced natural light

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 8.  ADD TRANSLUCENT ROOF PANELS IN BREEDING ROOMS, AND DELETE WINDOWS IN BREEDING ROOMS.

(Concept F)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        More uniform diffused natural light distribution in Breeding Rooms.

o        Will likely enhance breeding cycles.

o        Will decrease long-term need for artificial light. Can also be tied to light sensors.

o        More pleasant environment for caretakers.

o        Sufficient roof panels will eliminate need for exterior windows.

o        Less resultant cost.

o        Resultant light levels unpredictable.

o        Light difficult/impossible to control.

o        Potential source of roof leakage.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        Quantity and quality of light may not be ideal.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 8

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Solid and opaque roof in Breeding Rooms.

Windows on south and east walls.

Add translucent roof panels in Breeding Rooms.

Delete windows in Breeding Rooms.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$31,437

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$12,972

 

 SAVINGS

$18,465

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$18,465

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

$18,465

 

Notes:

Original concept:

No translucent panels. Per GC, roofing costs are approx $14.30 / sf (roof panel, deck, sheathing, insulation).

Roofing area this proposal = 576 sf x $14.30 = $8,237

Windows in Breeding Rooms approx 580 sf x $40 = $23,200.

Total original concept = $8,237 + $23,200 = $31,437

 

Value concept:

For each breeding room, add three rows of translucent panels directly above the three rows of cages.

Each row composed of (4) panels approx 2 feet wide x 6 feet long. Twelve panels per breeding room. Forty-eight panels total.

12 sf each x 48 = 576 sf total

Cost of skylight panels (interpolated from Means) is approx $5 / sf

Therefore, $5 x 576 = $2,880

Add exterior wall assembly in lieu of windows = 580 sf x $17.40 = $10,092 (wall panels, insul, ext wall assembly)

Total value concept = $2,880 + $10,092 = $12,972

 

Alternate value concept:

If windows are still desirable, net savings would be $8,237 - $2,880 = $5,357


 

class=Section7>

Figure 7. Translucent Roof Panel Layout

 

 

FPAG.VER


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 8

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Current design indicates solid and opaque roof panels in Breeding Rooms, with vision windows at south and east walls for natural light.

 

Proposal: 

 

Enhance the light quantity and quality by adding translucent roof panels in all Breeding Rooms. Most metal roofing manufacturers offer a “rolled-in” type of flat panel insulated skylight.

 

A significant side benefit to this proposal is that the windows in the south and east walls of the breeding rooms could be eliminated altogether - the roof skylights should admit sufficient natural light by themselves.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Assume resultant light levels and quality will be acceptable to caretakers.

Assume translucent roof panels are available with roofing manufacturer.

 

If this proposal is accepted, the gypsum board ceiling in Breeding Rooms would be discouraged due to added expense of  detailing and framing around these openings.

 

 

 




 

PROPOSAL NO. 9

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Breeding Rooms

FUNCTION:

Enhanced natural light

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 9.  CHANGE BREEDING ROOM CLEAR VISION GLASS AT CLERESTORY AND WINDOWS TO TRANSLUCENT PANELS.

(Concept F)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        More uniform diffused natural light distribution in Breeding Rooms.

o        Less cost.

o        Enhanced maintainability due to less frequent cleaning and less likelihood of breakage.

o        No direct sunlight available.

 

 

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        Quantity and quality of light may not be ideal.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Clear vision glass in Breeding Rooms.

 

 Change to translucent panels in Breeding Rooms.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$38,000

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$23,750

 

 SAVINGS

$14,250

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$14,250

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

$14,250

 

Notes:

 

Original concept:

GC indicates an allowance for glazing at $40.00/sf

Design indicates approx area for clerestory and Breeding Room windows at 950 sf

Therefore approx cost is $40 x 950 = $38,000

 

Value concept:

Means indicates cost of insulated translucent panels at approx $25 / sf

Therefore approx cost is $25 x 950 = $23,750

 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 9

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Current design indicates clear vision windows at south and east walls for natural light.

 

Proposal: 

 

Enhance the light quantity and quality by changing glass to translucent panels in all Breeding Rooms. Translucent panels will gather more sunlight and diffuse it over a broader area. Translucent panels also eliminate sometimes annoying direct sunlight.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Assume resultant light levels and quality will be acceptable to caretakers.

 

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 10

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Hamster Room

FUNCTION:

Hamster breeding room / ferret food source

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 10. ADD TWO OPERABLE WINDOWS TO HAMSTER ROOM - MAY BE VISION GLASS OR TRANSLUCENT PANELS.

(Concept F)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

o        Enhhanced natural air circulation for odor control.

o        Less need for artificial light.

o        Better environment for caretakers.

o        More cost.

 

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

o        None noted.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 10

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

No windows in Hamster Room.

 

 Add windows to Hamster Room.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$0

$0

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$1,280

$730

 SAVINGS

($1,280)

($730)

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

1

 TOTAL SAVINGS

($1,280)

($730)

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

$0

$0

NET SAVINGS

($1,280)

($730)

Notes:

 

Original concept:

No windows in hamster room. No associated cost

Typical exterior wall construction in original concept applied to extra labor and framing to install windows in value concept. Approximate equal trade-off

 

Value concept:

Add two windows, each approx 16 sf, for 32 sf x $40 = $1,280  (assume glass vision units - translucent will be less)


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 10

PROJECT:

USFW Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Current design indicates no windows in Hamster Room.

 

Proposal: 

 

Add two operable windows to Hamster Room. Windows may be vision glass or translucent panels. Estimate is based on glass vision units.

 

Assumptions: 

 

None noted.

 

 

 




 

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION FOR PROPOSAL NO. 11

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Building framing

FUNCTION:

Maintain Environment

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSAL NO. 11: REPLACE STRUCTURAL STEEL BRACING WITH LIGHT GAGE STEEL BRACING

The structural steel lateral bracing may be replaced with light gage steel lateral bracing, when the steel framing is in line with light gage framed walls. 

(Concept AB)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

· Less structural steel framing to erect/Less erection cost

· Easier and faster to construct in field/Less construction cost

· Wall framing construction is not made more difficult with steel tubes interrupting vertical studs members/Less wall framing construction time and cost.

 

· Increased number of wall sections require bracing

· Separate trades would be involved in lateral bracing construction/erection, requiring coordination and quality control. 

· Light gage lateral bracing would need to be constructed while steel is being erected to stabilize superstructure during steel erection.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

· Separate trades would be involved in lateral bracing construction/erection, requiring coordination and quality control.  The risk exists if proper coordination and quality control is not present.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 11

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Structural steel cross bracing

 

Utilize light gage steel lateral bracing when steel framing coincides with light gage wall locations.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$8,710

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$1,700

 

 SAVINGS

$7,010

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1 lateral bracing system

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$7,010

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

 

 

NET SAVINGS

$7,010

 

Notes:

Tube x-braces: 14 braces x 17’x2=476 LF x 12.2#/LF=5.81 kips x $1500/kip=$8,710

Flat strap bracing:  24 braces x 17’x2= 850 LF x $2.00/LF=$1,700


 

class=Section8>

Figure 8  Light Gage Framing Details

 

 

 


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 11

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Steel framing design drawings and framing details.

 

Proposal: 

 

The structural steel lateral bracing may be replaced with light gage steel lateral bracing when the steel framing is in line with light gage framed walls.  This will reduce the conflict between the lateral structural steel cross-bracing and the wall framing construction.  Since multiple wall locations can be found to brace with light gage flat strap bracing it is feasible to do for this type of structure.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Conservatively assumed lateral loads were easily handled with the light gage bracing.


 

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Building framing

FUNCTION:

Maintain Environment

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 12: REPLACE CLERESTORY BEAMS WITH SINGLE JOIST GIRDER

The clerestory high and low beams can be replaced with a single joist girder.  The joist girder will support the high roof at the top chord of the joist and the low roof at the bottom chord of the joist.  It could provide a rigid frame at the center of the building where the flexible roof diaphragm is discontinuous.  It might also serve to transfer diaphragm loads from the high roof to the low roof more effectively than two beams could.

(Concept AD)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

· Could help transfer diaphragm load from high roof to low roof better than two steel beams.

· Would eliminate two steel beams that adversely affect amount of light coming through clerestory

· Could provide rigid moment frame at building center

· Less steel framing to erect

· Easier and faster to erect in field/Less erection cost

· Less steel material

 

· Increased fabrication costs

· Web members would block some light at clerestory

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

· None identified

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 12

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

High and low steel beams supporting roof at clerestory.

 

Single truss supporting roof at clerestory.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$18,647

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$5,418

 

 SAVINGS

$13,299

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

 

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$13,299

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

 

 

NET SAVINGS

$13,299

 

Notes: 

Steel Beams:  150’x 81#/ft x $1.50/lb = $18,225

Steel Posts: 8x4’x8.8#/ft x $1.5 = $422.4

Joist Girder: 150’ x 28 lbs/ft x (1.05 + 0.24) = $5,418

Girder Steel material cost = $0.50/lb x 1.40 (small project) x 1.5 (inflation) = $1.05/lb  

Labor/Equip cost = $0.20/lb x 1.17 (small project) = $0.24/lb

 

 

Figure 9  Joist Girder Detail

 

 

 

 


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 12

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Steel framing design drawings and framing details.

 

Proposal: 

 

The high and low steel beams would be replaced with a steel joist girder that supports the high and low roof at the clerestory.

 

 

 

Assumptions: 

 

The loading on the joist girder was assumed to be approximately 4 kips per panel point.  The depth of the girder was assumed to be 4 feet.  A joist girder weight was determined to be 28 lbs/ft.  The local Vulcraft representative provided a material, fabrication, and delivery cost of 50 cents per pound.  That materials value was marked up to account for inflation and small project.  Labor and equipment values were obtained from 2004 Means.

 

Assumed that steel will be $3,000 per tone by June 2004.

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 13

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Building Footprint

FUNCTION:

Maintain Environment

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 13: REPLACE STAGGERED FLOOR PLAN FOOTPRINT WITH RECTANGULAR FOOTPRINT.

A rectangular building floor plan will offer significant savings primarily in total materials , however, the tradeoff will be general building aesthetics.

 

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

· Possible “fall back” option to free funding for other facility priorities

· Less steel framing to erect/Less erection cost

· Easier and faster to erect in field/Less erection cost

· Less steel material/Less steel cost

· Less building envelope/Less cost

· Simpler building construction and erection/Less cost

· Decreases overall lateral forces on the building by decreasing exterior surface area resulting in less extensive lateral resisting system.

· Decreases total number of required columns, drilled piers, steel beams, lateral bracing, and total grade beam length.

· Able to decrease overall building size because of reduced corridor square footage.

·  Reduced overall corridor length would reduce travel times.

 

 

· Not the client’s preferred footprint from a standpoint of aesthetics.

· Could adversely affect future benefits from having aesthetically pleasing structure. 

· Less natural light from eastern exposure caused by staggered footprint.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

· Possible risk of reduced future funding for not having aesthetically pleasing structure. 


 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 13

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Staggered building floor plan footprint

 

Rectangular building floor plan footprint

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

n/a

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

n/a

 

 SAVINGS

$130,739

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$130,739

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

$20,000

 

NET SAVINGS

$110,739

 

Notes:

 

Structural Savings:

Drilled Piers: 6/54 x $24,975 = $2,775 (eliminate 6 of 54 piers)

Grade Beams: 80’/740’ x  $42,500 = $4,597 (eliminate 80 feet of exterior grade beam)

Steel Columns: 6 x 12’ x 15.6 lbs/ft x $1.50/lb = $1,685 (eliminate 6 columns)

Steel Beams: 240’ x 13 lbs/ft x $1.50 = $4,680 (eliminate 240 feet of north/south steel beams)

Lateral bracing:  4 braces x 17’x2=476 LF x 12.2#/LF=1.66 kips x $1500/kip=$2,489 (eliminate 4 braces)

Total original= 24,975 + 42,500 + 13,759 + 12,480 + 8,710 = $102,424

Total structural savings: 2,775 + 4,597 + 1,685 + 4,680 + 2,489 = $16,226

 

Architectural Savings:

Exterior wall: 1692 sf x $17.40 (see Proposal No. 8) = $29,441

Soffits and roof overhangs: 342 lf x $40 (approx estimated) = $13,680

Floor area in corridor: 400 sf x $178.48 (see Proposal No. 4) = $71,392

Total architectural savings: 29,441 + 6,840 + 71,392 = $114,513

 

Total Proposal Savings: 16,226 + 114,513 = $130,739

 

 


 

Figure 10  Proposal 13 - Rectangular Floor Plan

FPAG.VER


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 13

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

 

Background: 

 

Steel framing design drawings and framing details. Architectural plans and elevations.

 

Proposal: 

 

Replace staggered floor plan footprint with a rectangular footprint.  The rectangular building floor plan will offer significant savings, however, the tradeoff will be general building aesthetics.  Cost savings include less steel framing to erect and less concrete foundations to construct.  The number of steel columns, north/south steel beams, and lateral bracing will decrease.  In addition, the overall length of concrete grade beams and number of concrete drilled piers will decrease.  Time savings will be realized due to easier and faster erection.

 

Other potential cost savings include a reduction of the corridor square footage, due to the decreased travel length of a straight corridor as opposed to a jogging corridor.  Other cost savings could include easier wall framing by eliminating interior bay short walls between the high and low beams running the north/south direction. 

 

Assumptions: 

 

Assuming rectangular floor plan is viable footprint option.

 

 

 


 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL NO. 13

PROJECT:   USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

CRITICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSAL:

Redesign of building footprint and structural frame.

 

 

 

IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND METHODS TO OVERCOME:

Time extensions for design team.

More design fee. Estimated 80 hrs x 5 persons x $50/hr = $20,000.

Resultant building aesthetics.

 

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES: (WHO DOES WHAT)

USFWS PM decision if savings are worth time and fee extensions, and aesthetic compromises.

 

 


 


PROPOSAL NO. 14a

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Use Ground-Water Source Heat Pumps

FUNCTION:

HVAC System

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSAL NO. 14a.  HVAC ALTERNATIVES

(CONCEPT M1a)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

·    Reduce building HVAC energy consumption through the use of alternative technologies (ground-water source heat pump).

·    Eliminate ground-mounted condensing units (noise).

·    Walk-in cooler refrigeration units will run more efficiently.

·    Walk-in cooler refrigeration units will provide heat reclaim savings for water-source loop.

· Additional first costs.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

· Potential loss of cooling if well pump fails.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 14a

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

Use standard air-cooled DX cooling with high-efficiency furnaces.

Use ground-water source heat pumps. A new well will be provided to furnish the heat sink.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$213,100

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$171,600

 

 SAVINGS

$41,500

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$41,500

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

$41,500

 

Notes:

 

Figure 11.  Proposal 14a - USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

 

FPAG.VER


 

 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 14a

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

Background: 

 

The site currently uses a well-water system for the domestic and fire protection systems. This proposal describes a concept to use the cool (60 F) well water for the heat pump source.

 

Proposal: 

 

Two new wells will be drilled to provide cool water for the heat pump source. See Figure 12.

 

Assumptions: 

 

· Appropriate site location for new well

· Ground water temperature is 56 degrees

· See tables below for more operating assumptions details

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

PROPOSAL NO. 14b

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Ground-Water Source Heat Pumps

FUNCTION:

HVAC System

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

PROPOSAL NO. 14b.  HVAC ALTERNATIVES

(CONCEPT M1b)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

·    Reduce building HVAC energy consumption through the use of alternative technologies (ground-water source heat pump).

·    Eliminate ground-mounted condensing units (noise).

·    Walk-in cooler refrigeration units will run more efficiently.

·    Walk-in cooler refrigeration units will provide heat reclaim savings for water-source loop.

· Additional first costs.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

· Potential loss of cooling if well pump fails.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 14b

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

· Use standard air-cooled DX cooling with high-efficiency furnaces.

 

Use ground-water source heat pumps. A combination of the existing well and a new well will be provided to furnish the heat sink.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

$213,100

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

$162,900

 

 SAVINGS

$50,200

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

 

 TOTAL SAVINGS

$50,200

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

$50,200

 

Notes:


 

Figure 12.  Proposal 14b - USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

 


 

 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 14b

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

Background: 

 

The site currently uses a well-water system for the domestic and fire protection systems. This proposal describes a concept to use the current well water for the heat pump source.

 

Proposal: 

 

One new well will be drilled to recharge well water for the heat pump source. Water will only be recharged if the water storage tank reaches a maximum or minimum temperature. See Figure 13.

 

Assumptions: 

 

· Appropriate site location for new well

· Ground water temperature is 56 degrees

· See tables below for more operating assumptions details

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





PROPOSAL NO. 15

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

COMPONENT:

Reduce Water Use

FUNCTION:

Reuse wastewater for cleaning

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION

 

PROPOSAL NO. 15.  PROVIDE A GREY WATER COLLECTION AND REUSE SYSTEM

(Concept P)

ADVANTAGES / BENEFITS

DISADVANTAGES

· Reduce water use.

· Save pump energy/maint for well-water system.

· Reduced load on septic system.

 

·  Additional initial/maintenance cost.

IDENTIFIED RISKS:

· If the cleaning needs exceed the grey water output, domestic water will be required.

 

COST COMPARISON FOR PROPOSAL NO. 15

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

ORIGINAL CONCEPT

VALUE STUDY CONCEPT

· No water reclamation.

· Reclaim grey water for use in cleaning cages.

COST ITEMS

NONRECURRING

LIFE CYCLE

 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

46

 

 VALUE CONCEPT (-)

8,118

 

 SAVINGS

(8,072)

 

 NUMBER OF UNITS (X)

1

1

 TOTAL SAVINGS

(8,072)

 

 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS(-)

0

 

NET SAVINGS

(8,072)

 

Notes:


 

class=Section9>

Figure 13.  Proposal 15 – Water Reclamation

FPAG.VER


 

DESCRIPTION- VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 15

PROJECT:

USFWS Black-Footed Ferret Breeding Building

Background: 

 

Currently, the site is fed from a well-water system and is limited to one acrefoot/year usage. Additionally, the site sewer system relies on a septic system for discharge. This proposal studies the impact of reclaiming grey water from lavatories and sinks for use in cleaning the ferret and gerbil cages.

 

Proposal: 

 

Provide a 500 gal greywater holding tank, filtration and pressurization system to reclaim the grey water. Refer to Figure13.

 

Assumptions: 

 

Little potable water augmentation will be require.

See the table below for water flow assumptions: