|
5. Plan Review/Value Engineering
a. Coordination with Cities and Counties
A good working relationship with municipalities is ever more critical in today's political and economical environment. It would behoove school districts and charter schools to educate city and county leaders and staff that educational facilities are municipal infrastructures just like streets, parks, police and fire stations. Good schools are important to municipalities. City and county governments, more often than not, create the need for a new school by approving commercial and housing developments; yet many times give little assistance to school districts to provide that infrastructure. School districts and charter schools should communicate with cities and counties about upcoming planning and zoning issues and major private development approvals.
Prior to property acquisition, school districts and charter schools should contact the municipality or county and research growth trends and possible zoning changes that could affect the site in question.
During the site planning and design, the school district or charter school should approach the planning commission for their input, as well as the municipal or county engineering staff, for information concerning roads, pedestrian ways, utilities and adjoining property usage.
When new educational facilities require off-site street improvements and/or utility connections, the municipality or county will require construction to be done to their standards and inspections. Storm drainage detention requirements will also have to be met. Often fire suppression water lines built on school property will be constructed to city or county standards as well.
School districts and charter schools are required to report inspections to the municipality as spelled out in 7. Inspection Process of this reference manual. School construction inspection must meet the requirements of R277-471 “Oversight of School Inspections”. See the School District Building Official Charter School Building Officer section of this reference manual.
b. Value Engineering and Life-Cycle Costing at Design Development Completion
The obligation to conserve energy and the need to reduce long-term operational costs require school districts and charter schools to use planning techniques that will contribute to the design and construction of energy-saving, cost-effective educational facilities. Two closely related management tools are available to school districts that have the potential to do just that: value engineering and life-cycle costing.
(1) Value Engineering
Value engineering or value analysis is a systematic approach to obtaining the greatest value for each dollar spent in building construction. It is concerned with a cost versus worth evaluation to give a broad information base from which decisions are made to produce cost effectiveness. The process should take place at the completion of design development. This allows for enough detail of building design, materials and systems that they may be evaluated, but the design and drawings have not progressed so far that the school district/charter school and architect are reluctant to make suggested improvements.
Value engineering is required to assure that the project is completed in such a way to give the most long term value to the community and quality to the school building. Life cycle costing should be used to determine material and system choices. In value engineering such questions as the following are asked:
What is it?
What does it do?
What should it do?
What does it cost?
What other materials or methods could do the same job?
What would alternative materials or methods cost?
Value engineering should not be considered a cost cutting exercise. No value is gained by using roof-top mechanical units that wear out in twenty years or a cheaper floor carpet that must be replaced in five years. True value engineering suggestions often add cost to a project. If the project is over budget at the design development phase, the program and schematic design should be revisited to cut building area or the budget should be increased. Construction materials should not be cheapened and compromised to become an ongoing maintenance budget burden for the next 50 to 75 years.
Value engineering can be accomplished in many ways. The design committee architect and engineers will hopefully be practicing it throughout the design process. Several formal methods can be used. One way is to have district or charter staff, if enough qualified personnel exist, formally review the plans with the architect and engineers. District or charter school plumbers, electricians, maintenance personnel, custodians, other administrators and staff sit down and discuss the design with the architect and engineers. Another method involves a "cold team" of design professionals. The "hot team" is the contract architect and consulting engineers. The "cold team" consists of an architect, structural, mechanical and electrical engineers commissioned independently. The "hot team" presents the project design to the "cold team" and school district or charter school staff. The "cold team" then brainstorms with the district or charter staff, coming up with a list of suggested improvements.
The purpose of value engineering is to validate the design direction of the project and to step back and look at the total picture. No suggestions or comments should be held back during the design development value engineering review.
With either method, the design committee, district/charter staff, architect and engineers then prioritize the suggestions and make the decision whether to implement them based on program criteria and the budget.
In recent years value engineering has also taken into account life-time costs as opposed to just initial costs. Life-cycle costing has become a part of the value engineering process.
(2) Life-Cycle Costing
Life-cycle costing is the determination of the total cost of a building or an element within a building over the assumed life of the facility. The principal components of life-cycle costing are:
► The initial capital costs, including actual construction, architectural and engineering fees, furniture, equipment, land, site work, and landscaping;
► Annual costs, which includes renovation, alteration and replacement costs, maintenance and custodial costs, utility and fuel expense, as well as grounds maintenance costs;
► Finance, interest, and bond sale charges related to initial construction.
It may be less costly over the life of the building, for example, to purchase Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system "A" at an initial higher cost than HVAC system "C" at an initial lower cost because HVAC system "A" will last longer with less maintenance costs over the life of the building.
c. Structural Peer Review of Plans at Ninety Percent Completion
As part of the plan review by the School District Building Official (SDBO) and the Charter School Building Officer (CSBO), an additional structural state-adopted building code review of the building shall be done at the ninety percent completion phase of design. A licensed Structural Engineer must perform this code review. The review will focus primarily on the lateral load resisting systems and details. At this time such systems should be clearly identified, and sufficient detailing should be present within the contract documents. The basis for the review is the current seismic loads generated in relationship to the most recent adopted building code.
As a means of reducing the costs and the time involvement for this second structural review, it is suggested that the same structural engineer that took part in the value engineering process review perform this task. Unless major deficiencies are discovered, sufficient time should be left within the design period to implement any corrections necessary. If major problems are discovered, there should be sufficient time to complete the corrections without delaying the project.
All new school construction and major additions to existing facilities located in regions of moderate to high seismic risk must be subject to this procedure—basically schools in the area from the Idaho border to the Nevada border along the Interstate15 corridor and approximately 35 miles each side of the Interstate. The latest version of the building code provides seismic ground acceleration data for architects/engineers to use as facilities are designed throughout the state.
d. USOE Role in the Review Process
The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) has the role of tracking projects costing more than $100,000 and assuring that buildings are designed and constructed to the latest version of the building code. The process begins with the receipt of preliminary drawings or schematics and two forms, completed by the project architect:
Preliminary Information on Proposed School Facilities Construction: Preliminary Information on Proposed School Facilities Construction - Form SP-4 (Microsoft Word). The information contained on this form identifies what the project is, where it is, who the owner is, who the project architect is, and what the preliminary cost estimate is. When this form is completed and transmitted to the State Office of Education, it opens the project file at USOE. The form can be mailed, transmitted by facsimile, e-mailed or delivered directly to the School Facilities Specialist at USOE. The completed SP-4, with preliminary drawings or schematics, is the first step in the approval process.
Final Plans Data on Proposed School Plant Construction, Final Plans Data on Proposed School Plant Construction - Form SP-5 (Microsoft Word). The information contained on this form identifies the total area, number of stories, type of structure, estimated month and year of completion, the number of instructional rooms and other types of support spaces. The form can be mailed, transmitted by facsimile, e-mailed or delivered directly to the School Facilities Specialist at the State Office of Education. The completed SP-5 must be returned before the final plans are approved.
The School Facilities Specialist, along with the School District Building Official (SDBO) and the Charter School Building Officer (CSBO), monitor and ensure all building and inspection codes, rules and regulations are complied with as the project progresses to completion.
e. Energy Code Plan Review
Energy conservation should be a major factor in the design of every new school building. The federal Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 required states to adopt ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2004, or an equivalent, to assure a basic degree of energy design. The 90.1-2004 Code is intended to promote the application of cost-effective design practices and technologies that minimize energy consumption without sacrificing either the comfort or productivity of the occupants. In response, the State of Utah adopted the 2003 Energy Code for Commercial and High-rise Buildings (the "Energy Code"). In Utah each new school facility or addition/remodel project costing in excess of $100,000 must comply with the 2003 Energy Code. The requirements apply to the building envelope, distribution of energy, systems and equipment for auxiliaries, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, service water heating, lighting, and energy management. A complete set of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 compliance forms can be obtained by submitting a request form to the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Code. In July 2001 the Utah State Building Board set a standard which is twenty-five percent higher for all new state-owned buildings than the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Code. School districts and charter schools are also encouraged to meet this higher standard for energy code compliance as new school facilities are designed and constructed.
In April 1997, the state approved use of a simpler-to-use energy code compliance measurement method, known as COMcheck; to measure a building's design compliance with ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. This was designed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to achieve building energy efficiency "generally equivalent" to that obtained through compliance with ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1. COMcheck's Mechanical Section is limited to simple heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and is not applicable to build-up systems. In larger buildings, the designer will still need to use the Energy Code Mechanical Section. But the Electrical (lighting) and Envelope Sections of COMcheck may be applied even though the Mechanical Section isn't providing a simpler compliance regimen.
Both methods allow use of either fill-in-the-blanks compliance forms or personal computer-generated compliance forms. COMcheck compliance forms, software disk, and instructions for using COMcheck may also be obtained from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Educational programs dealing with energy conservation can help make conservation a way of life. Schools can directly attack the problem of increased energy use in their own operations. New schools carefully designed to conserve energy in the total school operation and over the life of the building should be an important part of a school district's overall conservation program. The State Office of Education encourages school districts and charter schools to meet or exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s goals for Energy Star, a national performance energy rating system, and earn the Energy Star designation on their buildings. An Energy Star rating and recognition can be obtained for school buildings where the building is rated at 75 or greater—where the industry average for all schools in the nation is set at 50. The EPA local Region VIII contact is Patty Crow; the national New Building Design contact is Karen Butler.
Each project architect is responsible to ensure that the plans, specifications and proper energy analysis data are provided to the State Office of Education energy consultants prior to authorizing the beginning of construction. The project architect, School District Building Official, Charter School Building Officer and USOE School Facilities Specialist are provided a written energy code compliance report in a timely manner so any needed corrections can be made prior to construction. Following construction, an energy code field inspection is made to ensure the facility is actually constructed in compliance with the Energy Code.
Note: Relationship between ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004, the Model Energy Code, and the IECC
Since the early 1970s, ASHRAE has developed standards for commercial building energy use. Model code organizations have incorporated these standards into the Model Energy Code (MEC) and the IECC. The MEC codes were developed and maintained by the Council of American Building Officials (CABO). With the advent of the International Code Council (ICC), the task of maintaining the MEC codes was passed to the ICC and resulted in the release of the two IECC codes. The first edition was released in 1998 and updated in 2000 and 2001.
f. Certified Plans Examiner Review
Prior to bidding a project, the School District Building Official (SDBO) or Charter School Building Official (CSBO) must arrange for a certified plans examiner to review the plans for compliance with the state adopted building codes and have corrections implemented into the plans and approved by the plans examiner. Correcting errors prior to construction may reduce the need for expensive change orders later in the process.
g. School District Building Official/Charter School Building Officer and State Fire Marshal Plan Review
All plan review submittals—whether they are for the final plan review, a fire sprinkler plan review, or for the fire alarm plan review—must be accompanied by a completed "Fire and Life Safety Plan Review Submittal Form" with the architect's code analysis for the project. No incomplete plans will be accepted for review by the State Fire Marshal's office. All items called for on the "Fire and Life Safety Plan Review Submittal Form" must be supplied at the time of submittal—for example: cut sheets on the hardware; the engineer water supply analysis; architectural, electrical, fire protection and mechanical plans; building specifications; finish schedules; as well as door and window schedules.
The final plan review must be completed by the School District Building Official (SDBO) or Charter School Building Officer (CSBO) and the State Fire Marshal's office prior to bidding the project. It is important that architects plan for appropriate review time within the project schedule. All plans and specifications must be complete when they are submitted for review. The plans must also show all buildings and roadways within 150 feet of the proposed building for exposure determination.
Remodel or addition project plans and specifications must also show enough of the existing building(s) to determine proper fire protection and personnel exiting as well as whether or not the project causes or compounds any problems with existing buildings. This includes any relocatable buildings near the potential project.
In addition to general, rather generic comments that may be noted in the review response letter back to the architect; a specific review is completed noting where the plan and/or specifications documents are deficient. The review will include an in-depth evaluation of all items on the preliminary schematic list (see Section 4. Subsection f, the Architect’s Ongoing Role. of this reference manual), plus all of—but not limited to—the following:
Corridor construction
Fire proofing of structural members (spray or encasement)
Stairs and ramps
Exit enclosures, including passageways
Shafts
Fire extinguisher locations and types
Open areas, such as commons areas or cafeterias
Pass-through passageways
Intervening rooms
Special doors (overhead, sliding or folding)
Dead ends and obstructions
Hazardous areas (science labs, boiler rooms, shops, etc.)
Attic smoke and draft stops
Insulations
Wood usage in connection with construction types
Door and window schedules, along with hardware
Finish schedule
Special architectural appliqués
Fire and smoke dampers
Plenums
Emergency lighting
Exit signs
Fire alarm systems, including placement of horn/strobe, pull stations, heat and smoke detectors, and fan shut down.
Sprinkler and alarm plan and specification submittals must be reviewed by the project engineer of record and then submitted along with a copy of the engineer's review comments.
A plan review letter is generated by the School District Building Official (SDBO) or the Charter School Building Officer (CSBO), together with personnel at the State Fire Marshal's office, and sent to the project architect. The plans and specifications are not returned to the architect. The architect must respond to the School District Building Official (SDBO) or Charter School Building Officer (CSBO) and the State Fire Marshal's plan review letter in writing prior to the commencement of any construction.
h. State Fire Marshal Inspections
Due to the large volume of projects being constructed throughout the state and the limited staff at the State Fire Marshal's office, for the most part, State Fire Marshal inspections are limited to a 70% Completion inspection and a final inspection. However, State Fire Marshal personnel do conduct additional "construction-in-progress" inspections, and it is rare that a final inspection consists of only one visit to the project. It is most important that the architect, contractor, a representative from the school district or charter school, and the local fire department be present for the 70% Completion inspection. To this is added all appropriate sub-contractors for the final inspection.
At the 70% inspection the State Fire Marshal's office will check all of, but not limited to, the following:
Fire department access
Fire hydrant placement and operation
Fire walls (area separation; complete to the deck; penetrations; dampers; etc.)
Exiting (any obstructions?)
Sprinkler piping, stand pipes and hydrostatic tests
Certificates of underground piping tests
Door and window frames
Insulation and coverings
Wood usage in structure (non-combustible)
Fireproofing
Penetrations of structural members
Embedment’s
Heating procedure (fuel location and piping)
Welding and cutting procedures
Roofing pots and procedures; roofing materials
Prior to the final inspection, the architect must assure that the project is complete and ready for inspection. Thus, the architect should be the only one who sets up the final inspection, arranging for all the participants to be there . Those who must be in attendance at the final inspection are:
Architect
General contractor
Project engineers
School district or charter school representative(s)
Fire sprinkler system contractor
Electrical contractor
Mechanical contractor
Fire alarm system contractor
School District Building Official (SDBO) or Charter School Building Officer (CSBO)
Representative from the State Fire Marshal's office
Representative from the local fire department
Building Inspector
A complete walk-through of the entire project is conducted again, checking all items listed for the 70% Completion inspection. An inspection of the fire sprinkler system is conducted noting coverage, and completeness of the riser. Testing is also conducted to insure its function. The fire alarm system is completely checked for operation and adequate coverage. This also includes the twenty-four hour battery test. Emergency lighting and exit signs as well as door operation and hardware are also checked. The mechanical systems are inspected and tested for shut down, exhaust or special function, including fire/smoke dampers. The kitchen hood fire suppression system is also inspected and tested, including the fire alarm tie-in and fuel shut-offs. All special doors—such as roll-up doors or horizontal folding doors are inspected and tested. Inspectors also check to be sure appropriate certificates—where applicable—have also been obtained.
It is also important that a Key Plan—a flow plan showing the fire zones and the fire sprinkler plan—is installed next to the fire alarm control panel to aid the local fire department if there is a fire in the building.
The State Fire Marshal's office will generate a written final inspection report and send it to the project architect. Fire clearance is only issued after all fire and life safety items previously listed as deficient are resolved appropriately.
The school district or charter school must understand that no occupancy is permitted without fire clearance and an appropriate certificate of occupancy issued
i. State Risk Management Plan Reviews
Utah State Risk Management provides school construction plan reviews for:
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility
Playground equipment safety
You may contact Risk Management at:
Utah State Risk Management
5120 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
(801) 538-9597
Utah State Risk Management Web Page
j. Local Health Department Plan Review
Your local health department provides plan reviews to ensure the new school complies with Administrative Rule R392-200, "Design, Construction, Operation, Sanitation, and Safety of Schools." The State Health Department is also a resource:
Utah State Health Department
Division of Epidemiology & Laboratory Services
Food Safety and Environmental Health
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2103
(801) 538-6750
State Health Department A to Z Listing - Programs & Services
|
