User:Aic2009/Constructability Review/PDRI-Reiter

A Constructability Review is a pre-planning process for the engineer, architect and general contractor. Sub-contractors work in a similar way with a different document. The PDRI, Project Definition Rating Index, is used to help sub-contractors evaluate the job before they accept the project and begin work.

CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS THE PDRI?

The PDRI is a simple and easy-to-use tool for measuring the degree of scope development on building projects.

The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Building Projects is a powerful and simple tool that helps meet this need by offering a method to measure project scope definition for completeness. It is adapted from the PDRI for Industrial Projects (see Reference 6)

The PDRI offers a comprehensive checklist of 64 scope definition elements in an easy-to-use score sheet format. Each element is weighted based on its relative importance to the other elements. Since the PDRI score relates to risk, those areas that need work can easily be isolated. (A PDRI score of 200 or less has been shown to greatly increase the probability of a successful project.)

The PDRI identifies and precisely describes each critical element in a scope definition package and allows a project team to quickly predict factors impacting project risk. It is intended to evaluate the completeness of scope definition at any point prior to the time a project is considered for development of construction documents and construction. Building type projects may include the following:

• Offices                              • Schools (classrooms) • Banks                                • Research and laboratory facilities • Medical facilities                   • Stores and shopping centers • Institutional buildings              • Apartments • Donnitories                          • Parking structures • Hotels and motels                    • Light assembly and manufacturing • Warehouses                           • Airport terminals • Recreational and athletic facilities • Public assembly and perfonnance halls • Industrial control buildings

The PDRI consists of three main sections, each of which are broken down into a series of categories which, in turn, are further broken down into elements, as pictorially shown in Figure 1.l. Details of how the PDRI for buildings was developed, as well as a summary of the overall research effort are given in References I and 2. A complete list of the PDRI's three sections, 11 categories, and 64 elements is given in Figure 1.2.

'''Figure 1.1. PDRI Partial Hierarchy'''

PDRI |                     __________________________|___________________________                                            |                         |                          |                  Section I                Section II                 Section III

Basis of Project          Basis of Design           Execution Approach Decision |                     __________________________|___________________________                                     |                         |                           |                  Category D               Category E                  Category F               Site Information       Building Programming         Building/Project Design Parameters |                     __________________________|___________________________                       |                         |                           |                  Element El               Element E2                  Element E3

Program Statement    Building Summary Space         Overall Adjacency List                  Diagrams (and so on)

'''Figure 1.2. PDRI SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements'''

SECTION I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

A. Business Strategy

A1. Building Use Requirements A2. Business Justification A3. Business Plan A4. Economic Analysis A5. Facility Requirements A6. Future Expansion/Alteration A7. Site Selection Considerations A8. Project Objectives Statement

B. Owner Philosophies

B1. Reliability Philosophy B2. Maintenance Philosophy B3. Operating Philosophy B4. Design Philosophy

C. Project Requirements

C1. Value-Analysis Process C2. Project Design Criteria C3. Evaluation of Existing Facilities C4. Scope of Work Overview C5. Project Schedule C6. Project Cost Estimate

SECTION II. BASIS OF DESIGN

D. Site Information

D1. Site Layout D2. Site Surveys D3. Civil/Geotechnical Information D4. Governing Regulatory Requirements 05. Environmental Assessment D6. Utility Sources with Supply Conditions D7. Site Life Safety Considerations 08. Special Water and Waste Treatment Requirements

E. Building Programming

E1. Program Statement E2. Building Summary Space List E3. Overall Adjacency Diagrams E4. Stacking Diagrams E5. Growth and Phased Development E6. Circulation and Open Space Requirements E7. Functional Relationship Diagrams/Room by Room E8. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Requirements E9. Transportation Requirements E10. Building Finishes E11. Room Data Sheets E12. Furnishings, Equipment, & Built-Ins E13. Window Treatment Considerations

F. Building/Project Design Parameters

F1. Civil/Site Design F2. Architectural Design F3. Structural Design F4. Mechanical Design F5. Electrical Design F6. Building Life Safety Requirements F7. Constructabilily Analysis F8. Technological Sophistication

G. Equipment

G1. Equipment List G2. Equipment Location Drawings G3. Equipment Utility Requirements

SECTION III. EXECUTION APPROACH

H. Procurement Strategy

H1. Identify Long Lead/Critical Equipment and Materials H2. Procurement Procedures and Plans

J. Deliverables

J1. CADD/Model Requirements J2. Documentation/Deliverables

K. Project Control

K1. Project Quality Assurance and Control K2. Project Cost Control K3. Project Schedule Control Requirements K4. Risk Management K5. Safety Procedures

L. Project Execution Plan

L1. Project Organization L2. Owner Approval Requirements L3. Project Delivery Method L4. Design/Construction Plan & Approach L5. Substantial Completion Requirements

In order to provide the most value to NASA, a team of NASA project professionals was formed to adapt the PDRI to Construction of Facilities (CoF) projects. (The list of team members is given in Appendix F.) This team met for two days in September 1999 and subsequently performed its work via electronic communications. Each of the PDRI elements was reviewed for applicability to NASA projects and their descriptions were modified slightly to include NASA-specific telminology and administrative requirements. All of the elements were found to be applicable to NASA projects, even in the context of minor construction projects. A discussion of PDRI adaptation to small and renovation projects is given in Chapter 4. In addition, the use of the PDRI in the context of the CoF capital budgeting and delivery cycle was developed and is given in Chapter 3.

It should be noted that there is a PDRI for industrial projects that can be used for NASA projects such as power plants, chillers, manufactnring facilities, wind tnnnels, and so forth. Although not covered specifically in this document, it is almost identical in usage and similar in content. Individuals involved in pre-project plalming these types of facilities should get ClI IR 113-2, PDRI for Industrial Projects and use it as a planning tool. (Reference 6) Use the PDRI score sheet most closely related to your project's use or type.

If your project is a hybrid of industrial and building types, which PDRI score sheet should be used (building version or industrial version)? In general, if the designers who are driving the project are architects, then the PDRI for Buildings should be used. If the primary designers are process (chemical) engineers or industrial (mechanical) engineers, then the PDRI for Industrial Projects should be used. Alternatively, the team can look at the composition of the project in telms of work (design or construction expenditnres) to make the decision. In some circumstances, the team may decide to use both in concert. The PDRI for Industrial Projects is not included in this document, but is available from CII.

Structure of this Document

This implementation resource consists of six main chapters followed by five appendices of supporting infonnation. Chapter 2 highlights how the benefits of the PDRI and how it can be used to improve project performance on building projects. Chapter 3 provides direction tor using the PDRI within the NASA budgeting cycle. Chapter 4 provides detailed instructions for scoring a project using the PDRI. Chapter 5 describes the various ways in which PDRI scores can be analyzed to assess a project's potential for success. The final chapter summarizes the major uses and benefits of the PDRI and offers recommendations for implementing it on future projects.

CHAPTER 2: BENEFITS OF THE PDRI

Effective early project planning improves project performance in terms of both cost and schedule. The majority of industry participants recognize the importance of scope definition during the early stages of a project and its potential impact on project success. Until now, however, the building industry has been lacking a practical, non-proprietary method for determining the degree of scope development on a project. The PDRI for buildings is the first publicly available tool of its kind in this sector. It allows a project planning team to quantify, rate, and assess the level of scope development on projects prior to beginning development of construction documents.

A significant feature of the PDRI is that it can be utilized to fit the needs of almost any individual project, small or large. Elements that are not applicable to a specific project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from the final scoring calculation.

The PDRI is quick and easy to use. It is a "best practice" tool that will provide numerous benefits to the building industry. A few of these include:

• A checklist that a project team can use for determining the necessary steps to follow in defining the project scope

• A listing of standardized scope definition terminology throughout the building industry

• An industry standard for rating the completeness of the project scope definition package to facilitate risk assessment and prediction of escalation, potential for disputes, etc.

• A means to monitor progress at various stages during the front-end planning effort

• A tool that aids in communication and promotes alignment between owners and design contractors by highlighting poorly defined areas in a scope definition package

• A means for project team participants to reconcile differences using a common basis for project evaluation

• A training tool for organizations and individuals throughout the industry

• A benchmarking tool for organizations to use in evaluating completion of scope definition versus the performance of past projects, both within their organization and externally, in order to predict the probability of success on future projects

Who Should Use the PDRI?

Anyone wishing to improve the overall performance on their projects should use the PDRI.

An example of constructability review from an article on building schools in California

A Constructability Review is Compatible with New State Funding Procedures

By Chuck Wing

A recent paradigm shift in the way that OPSC funds the planning and construction process has brought increased attention to the practice of Constructability Reviews. This shift will likely bring a significant change to the planning methodology employed by school districts across the state as they look to the potential of a successful State bond election for funding facilities development. Thus, it is an opportune time to assess the role of Constructability Reviews in the planning process.

School districts seeking to build or modernize facilities from newly obtained State bond funds will discover significant changes brought about by amendments to the Education Code in 1998. One significant change is that OPSC will no longer reimburse districts for change orders incurred during a project. Formerly, districts could receive reimbursements up to 10% of the total project cost for change orders submitted after the completion of the project. Carol Shellenberger, special assistant to the Interim Executive Officer of OPSC, points to the 1998 change in the Education Code that eliminated the automatic reimbursement for change orders. "Instead of reimbursement for change orders, the state now allows 50% matching funds for school construction." These matching funds may be used to offset the cost of a constructability review.

Districts may request that architects provide a constructability review as a part of their services, or they may seek an independent third party review of plans. Optimally, the school district, architect and the third party doing the review should work in partnership to ensure the efficiency, bidability, and buildability of the project and the plans.

What is the purpose of a Constructability Review?

A constructability review is a comprehensive analysis of all related factors to the feasibility of a project. The purpose of the review is to determine the final cost of a project before it begins by providing accurate scope and specifications, thus bidability, to the project. In addition, detailed plans and specifications help avoid the time delays from excessive RFI's and change orders once the project is underway. Mahendra Mehta, S.E. from DSA suggests that "a constructability review by those with a knowledge of cost and construction industry practices has significant value in ensuring the plans and specifications developed by an architect are efficient and buildable." He suggests that school districts may want to use "an experienced building inspector, in whom they have confidence" to assist them with a constructability review during the design process. He also suggests that a constructability review should be a collaborative effort between the school district, architect, the party completing the review, and DSA. To this end, DSA offers pre-design meetings to provide guidance to school districts preparing for construction. He also recommends that a constructability review be completed prior, instead of after, submitting plans to DSA back check. This timing minimizes redundancy and time delays since DSA must review and approve all changes that occur as a result of a constructability review.

Is a Constructability Review cost effective?

The State has chosen a pro-active method for saving money on school construction costs. Previously, on a 40 million-dollar high school the state would have reimbursed up to 4 million dollars in change orders. Under the new guidelines, a constructability review costing $100,000. would be 50% reimbursable. If the constructability review is effective in eliminating hidden costs, change orders and time delays, the overall cost savings on the project to the district will be significant.

When is a constructability review necessary?

Virtually every project can benefit from a constructability review. Determining the scope of the review is essential for each project. Ken Doyle, Facilities Director, Rim of the World Unified School District believes that each school district needs a solid set of construction documents (plans and specifications) for each and every project to protect their interest. "Some school districts falsely assume that their architect, general contractor or the state has responsibility for the risk (cost and time) involved in completing their project." He further cautions however, "that districts and parties conducting a constructability review must not take away the role and responsibility that properly belongs to the architect." He concurs with the notion that a constructability review is most effective when completed in the early stages of the project planning process and that it should be a collaborative effort from all participants. Anthony DePaola, CSI of tBP/Architecture had the following comments about the value of a constructability review: "A modern educational facility requires the architect to coordinate information from a variety of consultants that must meet stringent local, state and federal guidelines. The architect therefore must have a strong quality control system to coordinate the documents. An additional careful review of the documents ensures that coordination items that are sometimes overlooked are "caught", thereby saving potential conflict that may lead to costly change orders. A constructability review performed by competent checkers has the potential of major cost savings to a project."

What are the components of a constructability review?

Each of the following components represents a significant potential cost or time factor in a project that should be addressed before the beginning of construction. As you contemplate your next project it will be beneficial to consider each of the planning and development tasks listed below and determine who on your team is responsible for accomplishing them.

•	Review Property Title Report Documents •	Review Mitigation Monitoring Program for Mitigative Negative Declaration •	Review Environmental Impact Report and CEQA Documents Including Seismic and Fault Hazard •	Review Phase 1 or DTSC Report •	Review Storm Water Pollution Permit Plan •	Review Soils Report and Recommendations •	Review Off Site Utilities and Accessibility •	Review the DSA Plan Check Comments •	Review the Districts Comments •	Cal/OSHA Title 8, Energy Conservation Standards Regulations, ADA and other applicable codes and regulations

Establish a written Schedule to complete:

•	Interdisciplinary Coordination Checks •	Drawing Checks •	Specification Checks

When was the last time you heard about a project that was within budget and on schedule? The State is clearly seeking to provide leadership by encouraging school districts to become more pro-active during the planning process. Mike Vail, Executive Director of Facilities with the Vista Unified School District summed up the topic of constructability reviews this way. "A constructability review simply makes good sense if a project is going to be completed with a minimum of delays and change orders."

A Framework for the Constructability Review of Transportation Projects

Description:

The objective of this project was to recommend to the Washington State Department of Transportation a new process for conducting constructability reviews. In Phase I of the project, the researchers sought to define the problem, identify critical issues, and develop the initial elements of a Constructability Review Process (CRP). To understand how WSDOT develops its projects, the researchers obtained documents and briefs on a current series of management studies; reviewed WSDOT's manuals, directives, and guides describing the project development process involved; and conducted an extensive round of interviews with WSDOT staff and management, as well as interviews with consultants and others involved with the process. They also reviewed projects on SR 18 in the Northwest Region. The CRP model was developed concurrently with other studies focusing on other aspects of improving the WSDOT Project Development Process. Although significant changes are being implemented that should result in improvements, the researchers found that issues germane to constructability remain. These include the need for WSDOT to consider constructability in a statewide Project Management Process; to form a multi-disciplinary CRP team at the project scoping phase; for closer communication, coordination, and team building between the Headquarters Structures Service Center and the Regional Design offices; for plans review coordination with the final constructability review; for structured project checklists for use throughout the project development process; and for an accessible record of design decisions made, as well as design and post-contract lessons learned.

The researchers agree that the re-engineering being done to the project development process is making improvements that are consistent with the constructability enhancement provided by the CRP. The main aspects of this new process are as follows: At the draft Project Identification Report (PIR) stage, a project-level Value Engineering study should be considered for projects that are major, costly, or that include complex features to evaluate every possible alternative for the project. A set of up to four constructability reviews should be implemented, with the number depending on the project's type, size and complexity. The general purpose of the constructability review is to assure that constructability issues, including maintainability, are identified and resolved before completion of the PS&E. A system of checklists and a compendium of lessons learned should be developed for use throughout the project. •	Date Published: May, 1996



Constructability Review Guidelines

Purpose:

Constructability reviews are intended to improve the effectiveness of a set of plans and specification by having those with construction expertise review the plans and specification. Those involved in constructability reviews should be reviewing issues that affect the ability for contractors to understand the plans and specifications well enough to provide well informed bids and meet the Department requirements during construction. Reviewers should also be considering if the plans and specifications are allowing the contractor to perform the work in the most efficient manner possible, while delivering a high quality product. Those conducting the reviews should have knowledge of construction practices and the ability make independent cost estimates of the work elements.

Project Selection

A region project team consisting of the Project Manager, Pre-Construction Engineer, Designer, Construction Engineer and Traffic Engineer, and others should review the project and determine what level of constructability review is appropriate for the project.

At a minimum all projects should be reviewed for constructability and cost by the Region Construction group.

If a project has an issue that can benefit from industry input, but does not justify extensive overall review, the local construction industry expertise should also be utilized. The AGC has agreed to participate in reviewing specific issues of concern as needed. The project manager makes arrangements with central advertising group to place drawings or specifications to be reviewed on the Department website. The project manager writes a cover letter describing specifically the issues that they would like contractor input on. The cover letter also identifies the UDOT contact person and the time frame for desired responses. All contractors in the UDOT bid system will receive an email that notifies them of the request. The response from the contractors is voluntary. They receive no compensation for their efforts. This review should be specific to a certain issue and not require a significant time commitment from the contractors. In addition to this effort, certain projects should have a more detailed review (hereafter referred to as “formal”) using constructability review consultants from the constructability review consultant pool. Recommended projects for a formal constructability review are those that include interchange modifications, significant geotechnical issues, complicated construction phasing, complicated traffic control, unique or unusual work elements, significant utility or railroad impacts, significant rightof- way impacts, significant environmental impacts, accelerated construction schedule or have difficult estimating issues. In addition, any project that is estimated to exceed $10,000,000 should have a formal constructability review.

Timing:

For projects that have significant environmental impacts, the constructability review should begin as the environmental document is being prepared. The review for all projects should begin no later than the plan-in-hand phase of design and continue through PS & E. Adequate time must be scheduled into the design process for reviews to take place.

Cost

There is strong evidence that constructability reviews will have a very high benefit/cost ratio. Design funds should be allocated to pay for consultant reviews. It is likely that significant cost savings will result in constructability reviews. This may not always be the case, therefore the PM should not count on those savings to fund the review process.

"PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial Projects", prepared by Construction Industry Institute, Front End Planning Research Team, Implementation Resource 113-2, July 1996