Carmen Dragon Elementary School, California’s First Design-Build Public School

About the Project

California is known as an integrator for global innovation with its technology industry, but many would be surprised to find a similar description for the state’s school construction program. Tucked away in northern California is the start of something that could revolutionize school facility delivery. That revolution is design-build. Faster and more cost-efficient than its more traditional alternatives, design-build schools offer a simple solution — more students in more schools, quicker and more cost-effectively. Not surprisingly, these results have attracted attention.

Construction of Carmen Dragon Elementary School, named after one of Antioch’s favorite sons and a Hollywood composer and conductor, has been completed and the design-build project was, to say the least, a success. This was the first school to be designed and constructed under California’s historic design-build legislation, AB 1402, that became law in January, 2002. The project is a 750-student, single-track, elementary school designed and constructed for the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD) on a 10-acre district-owned site in the Meadow Creek residential area of Antioch, CA. Procurement began in March of 2002, the project was awarded in July of 2002, and plans were submitted for Division of the State Architect (DSA) approval in January of 2003. Site work began in May of 2003 and the project was successfully completed for the 2004-2005 school year.

A joint venture of Haskell-3D/I, in association with LHA Architects, completed the project ahead of schedule and under budget. There were no additive change orders, no claims or lawsuits, and the relationship with the District remained positive and collaborative throughout the design and construction of the project. Success in this case came from applying “best practices” in design-build delivery.

Design-build was a new concept for California school districts and, as such, presented new opportunities for those involved in this project. The District, architect, engineers, contractor, subcontractors, project inspector and state and local agencies experienced first-hand the benefits of this unique way of doing business. Carmen Dragon Elementary School is the prototype and real-life working example of the advantages encountered when building a school using design-build rather than the traditional design-bid-build method. The lessons learned here should be of value not only to California school districts but others interested in design-build as an alternative method of project delivery.

Unique Characteristics

Cost to District — The District presented a required budget of $12,700,000 in the RFP, including design and construction. This guaranteed contract amount was known before the design began and, because the design-builder was at risk, was never exceeded.

Enhancements — During the design development phase, the design-build team worked together with the District and identified available savings to return to the project, adding more value in the form of additional programming or design features for the school.

Change Orders — Contrary to a typical design-bid-build project, there has been no increase in the contract cost. This comes in part because of the inherent nature of a design-build contract. In a design-bid-build project, a district warrants to the contractor that the drawings are complete and free from errors. In a design-build project, the design-builder warrants to the district that it will produce documents that are complete and free from errors. Since the design-builder owns the design risk as well as the typical construction risk, there were no change orders to the district for design errors or omissions.

Schedule — One of the advantages of design-build is the opportunity to accelerate the schedule. As Denise Wakefield, AUSD Director of Facilities and Operations said, “I was impressed with the ease of construction start-up.” The entire project, consisting of design development, construction documents, public agency approvals, and construction, was completed within 23 months, bettering more typical timelines. California requires numerous public agency approvals for the design and construction of public schools that can, at times, add complexity and delays to a project. One of these key agencies is the DSA.

In order to accommodate the required schedule, plans were submitted to DSA in “increments.” The design-build team met prior to the submission of plans and partnered with the regional Oakland office of the DSA. Due to this collaboration, the DSA was very considerate of the request to submit in increments and the plans were approved within the scheduled time frame. The DSA was also very complimentary regarding the condition and completeness of the documents. It is the authors’ observation that design-build construction professionals render strict attention to the details to avoid subcontractor confusion and possible change orders later on. That was also an important factor in the on-time approval.

Another important factor that eased construction start-up was that subcontractor bidding and site work began before Increment 2, plans and specifications for the buildings, were completely back-checked and stamped out of DSA.

Coordination with State Agencies — A good working relationship with local government agencies is critical to the success of any project. Carmen Dragon Elementary School was the trailblazer for all other California design-build school projects to follow. The design-build team recognized this and worked with the DSA, California Department of Education (CDE), and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to promptly address any idiosyncrasies that arose due to the newly-enacted legislation and practical requirements of the design-build process. The District was very complimentary of the working relationship, saying the OPSC “understood what was needed to process this design-build project and worked collaboratively with the District to iron out any ambiguities.”

Team Continuity — The architect, LHA Architects, and the prime design-builder, Haskell-3D/I, were on board, working together as a team, from the beginning. There was team continuity from the design-builder, architect, and District, providing personal involvement. Keeping these same key individuals involved in the project from beginning to end was very important to the project’s success.

Relationship with District — AUSD Superintendent of Schools, Dennis Goettsch, said, “For us, design-build is a lot easier. What I notice most of the time is the cooperation between the builder and the architect. Design-build is a lot more about problem solving than problem identification and blaming.” Teamwork was encouraged and promoted from the beginning. The District required approval of the plans by the Owner’s Representative at certain intervals during the design development process. The design-builder took this one step further to involve all District stakeholders (principals, technology, food service, maintenance, etc.) to help ensure a complete and thorough review as the plans were being developed. This early collaboration led to a positive working environment and a strong, positive relationship.

District Administration — The District managed the project with minimal effort because there was far less oversight required than with a traditional design-bid-build project. One person from the District staff attended a monthly project coordination meeting. The District also employed an Owner’s Representative, Richard Hinman, AIA, to oversee the project. Mr. Hinman, who was involved in the project from its inception, said, “The School Board has a comfort level with the team and the design-build process. They are not dealing with the typical change orders seen on most projects. Everyone seems to be on the same page, wanting to do the same thing.”

QA/QC — The full-time Project Inspector (Inspector of Record) was hired by and reported to the District. In addition, the design-build team prepared a QA/QC Plan for the project and maintained consistently high quality work from the subcontractors. This was because the design-builder was ultimately responsible for the total cost and final quality of the product. Therefore, the project benefited from the extra layer of quality control at the Carmen Dragon Elementary School than one would normally find on a typical design-bid-build school project.

Distinctive Process Issues and Lessons Learned

AUSD Already Had a Design from a Sister School but Decided Not to Use It — The District decided to use design-build as its delivery choice after the school was already designed. The initial design was based on a sister school, with identical program requirements, constructed one year earlier under the traditional design-bid-build method. This decision was due to the district downsizing its facilities staff and the facilities manager, Dane Ruddell, knew from previous experience that a design-build project would be easier to manage. Since the price for the sister school was known, it was used to determine the budget for the design-build procurement. The plans for the sister school were not a part of the RFP but were made available to the proposers upon request. Javan Nabili, AIA, of LHA Architects, decided to use the plans, not for the overall design, but for programming matters and interior space planning.

The plans for the sister school called for a single-story design. In spite of this, the team decided to employ a two-story design for the classroom buildings to better comply with two stated needs of the District: (1) maximize the play area, and (2) provide room for future expansion. A business decision that was risky, but according to the best overall design solution in the best judgment of the team.

Change is Not Easy — AUSD had the political will to try something new. California had not traditionally allowed design-build for public projects at that point in time. Prior to the enactment of AB 1402 only a handful of public projects were procured with the design-build method, none of which were K-12 public schools. There was also political resistance to the project on behalf of a few opponents of design-build, led primarily by an organization of local labor unions. Being the first district to implement the new legislation carried with it the burden of creating a learning curve for those who follow. AUSD was wiling to take on this assignment for the good of the project, knowing that design-build was the right solution.

Switching Horses Mid-Stream — Not an easy task, but accomplished by the design-build team without much interruption. During one of the many rounds of routine price checking of the project, just prior to submitting for DSA approval, the team discovered that the cost of wood framing for the two-story classroom building substantially exceeded the budget. Properly set aside contingencies would cover a large portion of the overrun but still leave the team with a considerable financial burden.

Quick thinking on the part of one of the team members caused the team to consider changing the structural system to steel. A rough design was accomplished, preliminary pricing completed, and the decision made to proceed with steel framing. The design was fast-tracked, coordinated with architectural and other design disciplines, and plans were on the street for subcontractor bidding within six weeks. The DSA received the plans and were sympathetic to the situation. Thanks in part to the excellent relationship established through the partnering process, the DSA approved and stamped the plans out three weeks earlier than their projected timeline, just in time for the actual construction to begin according to the original schedule.

It is highly unlikely that this quick turnaround could have happened under traditional design-bid-build. The district would have absorbed the extra cost or simply thrown out the bids, pulled back and redesigned the project, only to rebid the entire project over again, costing valuable time and expense.

A New Paradigm for the Architect — Carmen Dragon Elementary School was the first design-build public school project for LHA Architects, a firm with 26 years’ experience in California public school construction. Key to success was the firm’s willingness to try design-build, work with an experienced contractor, and learn along the way. According to Mr. Nabili, “Our team approach was about problem solving, working collaboratively with various trade contractors to iron out ambiguities, wherein everyone was on the same page. It is a rewarding experience serving the District as a ‘Master Builder’.”

Early Involvement of Design-Build Subcontractors — The team made the decision to engage design-build subcontractors for plumbing, HVAC, electrical, and fire sprinkler trades. These design-build subs were selected by way of “best value” procurement during the design development phase of project design. They were brought on board just prior to the construction drawing phase to provide a coordinated effort early in the project design process. Their selection was based on past performance, preliminary design, and price.

During one of the design coordination meetings, an engineer from one of the subcontractors was overheard commenting to an engineer from another firm that this is the first time they had the opportunity to work out their coordination issues on paper during the design stage. The last time they met for the purpose of coordinating their work on another project, the project was under construction and there was a conflict about whose pipe was going to go where. It was costly and time-consuming for both firms under that scenario. The architect was also appreciative, remarking the HVAC sub came prepared with overlays of their work with the structural system, the first time the architect had seen this happen.

Summary

Carmen Dragon Elementary School, California’s first Design-Build school under historic AB1402,

• Was 12 percent less expensive than traditional design-bid-build (apples for apples comparison)
• Was under budget, saving nine percent total project costs (including initial design not part of the RFP)
• Was completed ahead of schedule, nine percent faster than comparable “sister project”
• Added approximately $250,000 value through a cost savings program
• Required less District administration because the design-build entity was at risk for the design, construction, and project costs.
• Had no claims and no lawsuits
• Focused on problem solving rather than problem identification and blaming
• Promoted partnering and teamwork throughout the project due to the nature of the process
• Was an enjoyable experience for all participants

Perhaps the most telling accomplishment of the project, and a strong endorsement for the design-build process when “best practices” are employed, is the School Planning & Management Magazine Grand National Award for Excellence in Management (October 2004), where the process was the key. The award, “… rewards effective management techniques in the planning, design and construction of a project from inception to completion.” According to the magazine, the Carmen Dragon Elementary School project was superior at demonstrating “… a commitment to managing the construction process to help school districts get the most bang for the buck while keeping school district administrators well informed without consuming all of their time or confronting them with technical questions and problems they should not have to answer.”