LIFE CYCLE COSTING (LCC) - A CASE STUDY
MANAGING SCHOOL DESIGN FOR LIFE CYCLE COST EFFECTIVE, SUSTAINABLE, CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE VALUE
Background
This paper includes recommendations for life cycle cost enhancement of a school project in Waubay, South Dakota. They stem from a life cycle costing workshop initiated by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and held at the school in Waubay, SD. The LCC workshop focused on review of the building layout, site work, and engineering systems.
The project consists of constructing a Kindergarten through 8th grade school which will house educational classrooms, gymnasium, dining, administration and support spaces appropriate to the functions required. Early childhood and adult education needs are also accommodated in the project. A bus maintenance facility is located on the site. Three modular units are to be relocated to this site since the project does not provide all the space needed for the school.
The LCC workshop provided a rigorous and in-depth examination of the value that will be provided by the project. For example, an option under consideration may lower the project life cycle cost while keeping the school performance the same. Or an option may lower cost and raise the performance of the project.
LCC Objectives
Following is a summary of the objectives set for this LCC study:
- School needs 67,000 GSF. Current design provides 53,000 GSF (school itself is 47,000 GSF).
- Design to accommodate expansion capability (student population is increasing)
- Maintain quality of current design and long term performance
- Meet current budget $8.5 million
- Give emphasis to the most life cycle cost effective design alternatives
- Achieve sustainability (LEED rating of silver) if within project budget, consider
- Natural lighting
- Geothermal mechanical system
- Reflect some cultural heritage features
- Take advantage of views to buffalo farm and lake
- Incorporate natural light
- Assure all classrooms have adequate natural light
Cost Estimate and Budget
The project budget is $8.5 million. The total estimated construction cost is $8.7 million. This is an overage of approximately $200,000.
Collaborative Team & Agenda
The LCC workshop consisted of a collaboration of the Sioux Indian Tribe representing the school, Sioux Falls Construction, Todd Architects, Dakota Land Surveying and Engineering, Duffy Engineering & Associates, West Plains Engineering, and Kirk Associates, life cycle costing /LEED consultant.
The team reviewed the design documents and estimate as a part of the workshop. Certain life cycle costing analytical tools and methods were used during the 4-day workshop to focus the LCC team on the issues, problems and opportunities presented by the concept design.
LCC WORKSHOP
During the workshop, the life cycle costing methodology was followed which includes specific phases to ensure a thoughtful, professional analysis. Following is a discussion of these phases.
1. INFORMATION PHASE
At the beginning of an LCC study, it is important to understand the background and decisions that have influenced the project. Preparation included research in the Sioux culture, school design, cost benchmark data, and sustainability opportunities. The following models were prepared.
Benchmark Pareto Cost Model The overall construction cost model for the project is shown as Figure 1. This graphical "Pareto" diagram helped the team focus on high cost items to identify areas of savings. This model contains the cost for the building and site work, and is broken down by Construction Specification Institute (CSI) category. Largest costs include masonry, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, Construction Manager (CM) fee, contingency, general requirements, earthwork, and asphalt paving.
A 'Benchmark" of comparative costs was also prepared and is included on Figure 1. A recent school located in Fowler, Colorado was used to compare costs. This project is very nearly the same size as the Waubay, South Dakota project. The largest differences include the costs for mechanical, site work, masonry, and concrete. Ten other projects were also reviewed by the LCC team for cost comparison.
Life Cycle Cost Model The overall project life cycle costs were estimated for the project based on historical data. The following life cycle cost model (Figure 2) is a graphical "pie" diagram helped the team focus on high energy, water, sewer, custodial, maintenance & repair, and replacement cost items to identify areas of savings. Largest costs include the heating fuel, custodial and electricity. This analysis was based on a 25 year life cycle and a 7% discount rate. The costs are shown in present worth.
LEED (Sustainability) Model In 1993 the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) was formed to improve the sustainability of buildings. A high priority was the development of a system to define and measure "green buildings." A committee was formed that developed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a sustainability checklist and measurement system which is receiving much attention today. LEED Reference Package Version 2.1, from the U. S. Green Building Council, in Washington, DC contains a complete description of each of the checklist items. Enough points were identified by the team to achieve "silver" certification.
The LEED rating system is based on proven technology. It evaluates environmental performance from a whole building perspective over a building's life cycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a "green building." The LCC specialists referred to this checklist during the creativity phase of the workshop to help identify ideas to make a project more sustainable.
2. FUNCTION ANALYSIS PHASE
The functions of the project are the controlling elements in the overall Value Engineering (VE) approach. Explicitly identifying the functions that drive the project is essential to the team because it forces the participants to think in terms of the purposes for the project and the desired results and costs associated with those functions.
3. CREATIVITY PHASE
This step in the LCC study involves the listing of creative ideas. During this portion of the workshop, the team explored as many ways as possible to provide the necessary functions, keeping in mind the benefits important to the client and, at the same time, the need to reduce costs in a responsible manner. During this creative session, judgment about the ideas was not permitted.
The LCC team explored a number of layout alternatives to improve views, building expansion, enhance sustainability, and lower costs enough to enable the adding of more classrooms.
4. EVALUATION PHASE
All of the information created up to this point must undergo careful consideration. The value planning team assessed the ideas stemming from the creativity session to test, first, whether the creativity session addressed the problem areas, opportunities and functions identified earlier and, second, whether the specific strategies generated during the creativity session can be, at least in a preliminary fashion, linked with them.
5. DEVELOPMENT PHASE
The development phase included preparing sketches, engineering calculations, cost estimates and life cycle cost analyses to verify the idea adds value to the project. The results of this effort are then used to prepare a presentation.
What is the best value that can be applied? What brainstorming ideas are there? What can we improve to align with the overall goals and objectives? What is the big bang for the buck?
- Need more classroom space (in lieu of trailers)
- LEED certification (silver if possible)
- Natural lighting
- Thermal cell
- Reflect some cultural heritage into design
- View of buffalo farm and lake
6. RECOMMENDATION PHASE
The last phase of the LCC study involved the presentation of recommendations. The team carefully reviewed the recommendations before they were formally presented on the last day of the workshop. The recommendations, the rationale that went into the development of each proposal and a summary of the cost savings are presented at this time so that the client can begin an evaluation of the LCC recommendations prior to the receipt of the report itself.
Cultural Value Improvements
The tribal members and teachers at the school wanted to include some of the tribes' heritage and cultural aspects into the design. They knew that they could add artifacts to the walls but was looking for some other ideas. The school had classrooms dedicated to the teaching of their heritage and culture. They also wanted a cultural garden area near these classrooms.
We had discussions about their history and some tribal photographs to help generate ideas. Some of the strongest ideas evolved around: symbols, colors, building materials and animals.
The tee pee and the Indian shield were strong symbols. The tee pee was added at the entrance to reinforce the skylight. The Indian shield was added at the entrance as windows into the school. The tee pee and shield could also be added as floor patterns inside or outside.
The native building materials were mostly field stone and wooden poles. The field stones were used as the base of the building and the wooden poles as an entrance terrace.
The colors were of the earth in tones of warmth, yellow, orange with accents of red were used.
The animals that were identified were the buffalo, turtle and lizard. They were used as themes for outdoor play areas. The playground equipment could be changed to more natural using earth berm and wooden pole type.
The center court yard of the school was to be dedicated to a tribal ceremony honoring the many directions in life. It was to be named the Seven Directions Ceremonial court. (East, West, North, South, UP, Down and Self)
Some other important advantages of the site were:
The tribal Pow Wow grounds were in front of the school so the cultural gardens were placed the school and the Pow Wow grounds so that they could be shared.
The buffalo farm and a large lake were to the south and southwest, so the playgrounds were oriented towards them to take advantage of the views.
LIFE CYCLE COSTING SUMMARY
Following summary identifies each proposal by number, description of the change, benefits and cost impact. Benefits include: sustainability LEED, energy savings, cultural improvements, greater flexibility, future expansion, reduced schedule, performance enhancements, initial cost savings and life cycle cost savings. Some recommendations will generate significant savings for the project while others will add costs.
The following table summarizes the value recommendations of the team:
POST-STUDY PROCEDURES
The post-study portion of the LCC study included the preparation of a report describing the activities undertaken during the study and incorporating the recommendations stemming from the workshop. This post-study effort also included follow-up to resolve questions remaining from the study. Both the LCC team leader and appropriate team members worked directly with the client to further implementation strategies. Recommendations requiring the most follow-up included the LEED sustainability recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
This school case study illustrates application of the life cycle costing approach and principles followed in a recent workshop to manage school value. The project was enhanced by focusing on the issues needing most value improvement. This approach rather than dwelling on cost savings alone resulted in cultural heritage improvements, better daylighting in the classrooms, LEED sustainability, additional classrooms, greater expansion capability, improved views, and life cycle cost effective systems such as the geothermal mechanical system.
REFERENCES
Sustainability/ LEED and Life Cycle Costing ~ Their Role in Value Based Design Decision Making, Stephen J. Kirk and Alphonse J. Dell'Isola, SAVE International Conference, Montreal, Canada, July 2004 .
Scenario Learning for Value Master Planning, Stephen J. Kirk and Michael M. Paquette, SAVE International Conference, San Antonio, TX, June 27-30, 1999.
LEED Reference Package Version 2.1, U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, DC, June 2001.
Life Cycle Costing for Facilities, Alphonse J. Dell'Isola and Stephen J. Kirk, RS Means, Reed Construction Data, 2003.
Enhancing Value In Design Decisions, Stephen J. Kirk and Kent Spreckelmeyer, 1994. (Korean Edition 1997).
Leadership in Design Team Innovation Using Value-Based Decision-Making Techniques, Stephen Kirk, Harvard University, Harvard Design School, Executive Education Seminars, Cambridge, MA, January 24-25, 2002.
- Stephen Kirk
Previous Article Next Article |
