Construction Progress in October 2008

1. Construction Progress in October 2008

2. Introduction • Project Background • Research Focus • Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Chilled Beam Cost & Schedule Impact (Mech. Breadth) • Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth) • Thesis Conclusions • Acknowledgements • Questions???

3. Project Background • Johns Hopkins Hospital • Ranked #1 Hospital since 1992 by U.S. News & World Report • Annual Operating Budget = $4.1 Billion (2007) • 82,523 Admissions, 72,797 Surgeries, 205,034 ER Visits • 4.2 Million Square Feet of Building Space New Clinical Building

4. Project Background • Johns Hopkins Hospital • Ranked #1 Hospital since 1992 by U.S. News & World Report • Annual Operating Budget = $4.1 Billion (2007) • 82,523 Admissions, 72,797 Surgeries, 205,034 ER Visits • 4.2 Million Square Feet of Building Space Children’s Tower Adult Tower • New Clinical Building • Two Towers – Adult and Children’s with Connector • 1.6 Million SF • $573 Million GMP • Oct. 2006 – Dec. 2010 • Design-Bid-Build, Fast-track schedule • Surrounded by operating hospitals throughout construction Connector

5. Project Background • Johns Hopkins Hospital • Ranked #1 Hospital since 1992 by U.S. News & World Report • Annual Operating Budget = $4.1 Billion (2007) • 82,523 Admissions, 72,797 Surgeries, 205,034 ER Visits • 4.2 Million Square Feet of Building Space • New Clinical Building • Two Towers – Adult and Children’s with Connector • 1.6 Million SF • $573 Million GMP • Oct. 2006 – Dec. 2010 • Design-Bid-Build, Fast-track schedule • Surrounded by operating hospitals throughout construction

6. Project Background • Johns Hopkins Hospital • Ranked #1 Hospital since 1992 by U.S. News & World Report • Annual Operating Budget = $4.1 Billion (2007) • 82,523 Admissions, 72,797 Surgeries, 205,034 ER Visits • 4.2 Million Square Feet of Building Space • New Clinical Building • Two Towers – Adult and Children’s with Connector • 1.6 Million SF • $573 Million GMP • Oct. 2006 – Dec. 2010 • Design-Bid-Build, Fast-track schedule • Surrounded by operating hospitals throughout construction

7. Research Focus “Explore alternatives and procedures that could have been implemented on the NCB to avoid or reduce the number of changes and constructability challenges.”

8. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Problem Statement • Traditional Design-bid-build with Fast-track • 60 CCD’s • 2,700 RFI’s • 700 CO’s • Design Omissions/Errors • Donor Enhancements • Latest & Greatest Medical Technology • Cost Increase = $250 M (44%) • 7 Month Delay (1st pass) • Bid was done with GMP Docs • CD’s Due April 2007 • Issued 2 Floors per Month • Final Set Arrived January 2009 • Goal • Demonstrate that an alternative delivery method could have more effectively managed the changes while meeting the Owner’s goals.

9. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) Possible Project Delivery Outcomes Traditional Design-bid-build Traditional with Early Procurement Traditional with Project Manager Traditional with Construction Manager Traditional with Early Procurement and CM CM at Risk Design-Build Multiple Design-Build Parallel Primes Traditional with Staged Development Turnkey Fast Track • Analysis • Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool • 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes

10. Selection Factors Completion within Budget Minimal Cost Cash Flow is Constrained Owner Requires Early Cost Figures for Planning Owner Assumes Minimal Financial Risk Completion within Schedule Early Completion Early Procurement for Long Lead Items Above Average Number of Changes are Anticipated Below Average Number of Changes are Anticipated Confidentiality of Business/Engineering Details Local Conditions are Favorable Owner Desires High Degree of Control Owner Desires Low Degree of Control Owner Desires Use of Own Resources Owner Desires Minimal Use of Own Resources Project Well Defined at Bid Project Not Well Defined at Bid Owner Prefers Minimal Number of Parties Responsible Project is Complex, Innovative or Non-Standard Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Analysis • Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool • 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes • 20 Selection Factors

11. Selection Factors Completion within Budget Minimal Cost Cash Flow is Constrained Owner Requires Early Cost Figures for Planning Owner Assumes Minimal Financial Risk Completion within Schedule Early Completion Early Procurement for Long Lead Items Above Average Number of Changes are Anticipated Below Average Number of Changes are Anticipated Confidentiality of Business/Engineering Details Local Conditions are Favorable Owner Desires High Degree of Control Owner Desires Low Degree of Control Owner Desires Use of Own Resources Owner Desires Minimal Use of Own Resources Project Well Defined at Bid Project Not Well Defined at Bid Owner Prefers Minimal Number of Parties Responsible Project is Complex, Innovative or Non-Standard Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Analysis • Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool • 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes • 20 Selection Factors • Surveyed Owner, A/E, and CM Principles

12. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) Owner’s PDCS Results Turkey – 81.13 Design-Build – 77.64 CM’s PDCS Results CM@Risk – 68.05 Turkey – 64.91 A/E’s PDCS Results Traditional Design-Bid-Build – 76.25 Traditional with CM – 74.52 • Analysis • Construction Industry Institute’s Project Delivery and Contract Strategies (PDCS) Tool • 12 Possible Delivery Method Outcomes • 20 Selection Factors • Surveyed Owner, A/E, and CM Principles • PDCS Results • Top 3 Delivery Methods • Integrated Project Delivery • Design-Build • Traditional with Early Procurement and Project Manager

13. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Integrated Project Delivery • Not Included in PDCS • Critical Industry Issue • Sutter Health System – Camino Medical Center • $98M • Saved $9M and 6 Months Over Traditional Methods

14. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) IPD Principals Mutual Respect & Trust Mutual Benefit and Reward Collaborative Innovation and Decision Making Early Involvement of Key Participants Early Goal Definition Intensified Planning Open Communication Appropriate Technology Organization and Leadership • Integrated Project Delivery • Not Included in PDCS • Critical Industry Issue • Sutter Health System – Camino Medical Center • $98M • Saved $9M and 6 Months Over Traditional Methods • Principles of IPD

15. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Integrated Project Delivery • Advantages • BIM • Reduce Project Disputes • Involve Specialty Contractors Early • Well Defined Scope for All Team Players • Open Communication, Pricing, Schedule, and Quality – Better CO Management • Disadvantages • Not a Familiar Delivery Method in Region • More Risk for Bidders • Not a Proven Delivery Method – Too Risky for this Project

16. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Design-Build • Advantages • Team Approach • Constructability Issues Addressed Early in Design • Better Control of Budget in Design and Construction Phase • Disadvantages • Would Not Accelerate Project • No Checks and Balance • Risk of Sacrificing Design Quality to Protect Design-Builder’s Profits

17. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Design-Build MEP • Changes have Increased MEP Trades Contracts by 17% • Severely Impacted Coordination and Prefabrication • Last-minute Drawings • Eliminated All of the Float • D/B MEP would have Cost 5% More Initially • Advantages • Involved Early in Design • V/E • Schedule Input • Early Coordination, Procurement, and Prefabrication • Disadvantages • Initial Cost

18. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Traditional w/Early Procurement and PM • Same Delivery Method Except for PM • KLMK Group • Advantages • PM has Extensive Experience • PM Familiar with Team Players • Checks and Balance • Assist Owner with Managing CO’s • Assist with Close-out and Occupancy • Assist with Master Planning • Disadvantages • Initial Cost of 1% of Total Project Cost • May Create Hostile Environment

19. Alternative Delivery Method (MAE) • Conclusion • PDCS Did Not Identify Best Delivery Method • Hindsight is 20/20 • Best Alternative is a Mix of the Top 3 • PM • D/B MEP • IPD Principles • Manage CO’s More Efficiently

20. Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth) Goal Conclusion Design Phase Construction Phase • Common problem on steel decks • Floor Flatness and Floor Levelness key • Strict requirements – hospitals, warehouses, etc. • JHH has an FF = 25 (1/4” over 10’) • No FL but there was note CP-4 • Moving hospital beds • Sophisticated equipment (MRI’s, ventilators, etc.)

21. Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth) Goal Conclusion Background Design Phase Construction Phase Problem Statement • Clark Concrete poured floors to finish floor elevation • Did not check deck thickness (wet-stick) • Some areas had deflection of up to 2” in mid-bay • Concrete Contractor was responsible for all over-pour per note CP-4 • Potential problems from steel deflection • Overload the floor • Impact MEP coordination • Floor installation • Door jams

22. Case Study: Concrete Over-pour on Decks Due to Steel Deflection (Structural Breadth) Goal Conclusion Background Design Phase Construction Phase Problem Statement 28’-8” • Predicting Steel deflection is quite difficult because actual loads can vary from design loads • Camber beams • No camber on girders • Note CP-4 is not common practice • No constructability consulting with a contractor • Structural Engineer allowed 7 PSF for concrete over-pour in construction load Simply Supported Beam – Uniformly Distributed Load 85 PSF W16x26 c = ¾” EQ. W16x26 c = ¾” W16x26 c = ¾” 28’-8” EQ. R R 28’-8” W21x57 c = 0” W16x26 c = ¾” W21x57 c = 0” • Max Deflection (Midspan) = 1.41” • Up-size beam – W18x35 • Deflection = 0.83 • Difference = 0.58” • Significant cost – most common steel member EQ. W16x26 c = ¾” EQ. W16x26 c = ¾”