RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT THE PORTLAND BUILDING REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2016 PHASE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents DBR Project Team Executive Summary Basis of Design Narrative Basis of Design Drawings C[.]
THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PHASE REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2016 / PHASE DELIVERABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Table of Contents DBR Project Team Executive Summary Basis of Design Narrative 16 Basis of Design Drawings (Refer to separate package) Conceptual Budget 35 Project Master Schedule 36 Space Program 38 Sustainability Targets & Plans 57 Constructability, Phasing & Logistics Plan 62 Project Risk Matrix 64 Code & Regulatory Requirements 66 / DRAWINGS GENERAL STRUCTURAL 0.0 S1.0 S1.1 S1.2 S1.3 S1.4 S1.15 S1.16 Floor Plan, Basement Floor Plan, First Level Floor Plan, Second Level Floor Plan, Third Level Floor Plan, Typical Level (4th - 14th) Floor Plan, Fifteenth Level Floor Plan, Machine Room S2.0 Details Cover Sheet ARCHITECTURAL A1.0 A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.15 A1.16 Floor Plan, Basement Floor Plan, First Level Floor Plan, Second Level Floor Plan, Third Level Floor Plan, Fourth Level Floor Plan, Typ Level (5-14) Floor Plan, Fifteenth Level Floor Plan, Penthouse & Roof A3.0 A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A3.4 A3.5 A3.15 Reflected Ceiling Plan, Basement Reflected Ceiling Plan, First Level Reflected Ceiling Plan, Second Level Reflected Ceiling Plan, Third Level Reflected Ceiling Plan, Fourth Level Reflected Ceiling Plan, Typ Level (5-14) Reflected Ceiling Plan, 15th Level A4.0 Roof Plan, Overall A5.1 A5.2 A5.3 A5.4 A5.5 Building Elevation, Main St Building Elevation, 4th Ave Building Elevation, Madison St Building Elevation, 5th Ave Building Elevations A6.1 A6.2 Building Section, Overall North-South Building Section, Overall East-West A10.1 Building Details MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING MEP1.0 MEP1.1 MEP1.2 MEP1.3 MEP1.4 MEP1.5 Floor Plan, Basement Floor Plan, First Level Floor Plan, Second Level Floor Plan, Third Level Floor Plan, Typical Level (4th - 14th) Floor Plan, Typical Level (4th - 14th) Chilled Beam Layout MEP1.15 Floor Plan, Fifteenth Level MEP1.16 Floor Plan, Machine Room TABLE OF CONTENTS Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / DBR Team General Contractor Architect Structural Engineer Specialty Consultants Howard S Wright Architectural Carleton Hart Architecture DLR Group Architectural Convergence Architecture KPFF Consulting Engineers Brokerage / Transition Planning Mechanical Engineer PAE Engineers Building Envelope Facade Forensics Electrical Engineer PAE Engineers Code Pielow Consulting Electrical Environmental Graphics Trade Partners Building Envelope Electrical Geotech Benson Industries On Electric Group Mechanical General Sheet Metal Mechanical TCM Corp /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT GeoDesign Historic Preservation Venerable Group Interior Design DLR Group Interiors Czopek Design Studio Lighting Little Fish Whole Building Solutions Donaldson Enterprises Security Securadyne Structural ABE Design Structural James G Pierson Sustainability Brightworks Sustainability Eggleston Consulting Group Technology Mayer/Reed Architectural Resources Group Mentor Protégé Services DESIGN-BUILD-RELOCATE (DBR) TEAM Samata Consulting Engineers Historic Preservation Mechanical /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group JLL RLF Enterprises EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / PROJECT BACKGROUND On behalf of Howard S Wright and DLR Group, we are pleased to submit for your consideration the attached Basis of Design package which summarizes the DBR team’s efforts for this Phase Concept/ Criteria Design phase of work The Portland Building, designed by Michael Graves and built in 1982 as administrative offices for the City of Portland, is an award winning design of Post Modern architecture The building was later placed on the National Register of Historic Places as a building of “exceptional importance,” but it currently faces problems with its structure, exterior, and operational systems that repairs alone cannot address To protect and preserve this major public investment, the City has initiated a $195 million project to reconstruct the Portland Building by the end of 2020 The City will create an adaptable building that will last another 50-100 years, providing a productive work environment for employees and a welcoming space for community members The Project scope includes envelope repair/replacement, seismic upgrades, system replacements, interior remodel, and relocation services to accommodate the construction work The Portland Building is a 15-story high-rise building that is occupied primarily by City bureaus and is located at 1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon The building is approximately 360,000 SF plus basement In addition to the repair and replacement scope of work outlined above, the City outlined the following goals for the Project: • The Project will seek, at a minimum, LEED™ Gold certification • The Project should maintain its historic elements and character and should seek to ensure the Portland Building’s place in Portland’s history, • The Project should result in a significantly improved efficiency and functionality of the building as a workplace, • The Project should result in reduced maintenance and operational costs for the Portland Building • The Project should utilize comprehensive strategies to support and contract with Disadvantaged, Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and Emerging Small Businesses (“DMWESB”) and support the hiring of minority and women workforce in the trades EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT In July, 2016, the City of Portland engaged the design-build team of Howard S Wright & DLR Group (DBR team) to perform a “reconstruction” of the existing Portland Building to holistically address the building’s issues by designing and constructing a building renovation that would meet the City’s requirements for the Project The City chose to use a progressive design-build delivery model for the project including a Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) method that brings the City and the DBR team into the design and construction process in a way that makes best use of each member’s unique knowledge and skill sets to increase value, reduce waste and maximize efficiency The DBR team in collaboration with City staff and the Owner’s Representative, Day CPM has completed Phase of the project This report documents the important outcomes and recommendations that were developed during the Phase – Validation, Conceptualization, and Criteria Design scope of work PHASE SCOPE OF WORK PHASE PROCESS PHASE TEAM The Phase Validation, Conceptualization, and Criteria Design scope of work served to validate and refine the project scope, budget and schedule recommendations for the Project—all while staying within the project constraints of $195 million and completion by the end of 2020 Extensive engagement with City project staff, City Bureaus, and other stakeholders allowed the team to develop programming and design recommendations that were then tested against target budget and schedule assumptions The following key tasks were performed by the team during this phase: An important first step in the Collaborative Project Delivery (CPD) process was implementing a focused partnering session that helped strengthen the integrated owner/DBR team This partnering “alignment to purpose” was achieved through Howard S Wright’s SmartStart® process Executed as part of the project kick-off, this process focused on the alignment of the team members in the areas of Behavior, Values, Governance, and Milestones The early partnering session ensured that the team understood the project goals and allowed the team to establish a plan for how to effectively work as a group to achieve the goals The shared alignment of goals and vision guided the team in making decisions during Phase and will continue to be beneficial throughout the remaining phases of the project As part of the Project Phase process, the DBR team, with City input, selected specialized design consultants and key design assist trade partners to join the team These consultants and design trade partners developed recommendations and provided valuable expertise as we validated and developed the outcomes that are documented in this report Please refer to page of this report for a complete list of the consultants and trade partners that participated on the DBR team during this project phase During Phase the project moved along two simultaneous paths Along one path, specialized workgroups were established to focus the team’s expertise on each area of the project scope—building envelope; mechanical/electrical/ plumbing; seismic upgrade; workplace/interiors; technology; sustainability and social equity These workgroups focused on discrete portions of the scope and defined the issues that needed to be addressed by the larger group Along the other path, collaborative charrettes and visioning sessions were held that assessed the results being produced by the workgroups to provide direction on how to proceed within the context of a “best value” approach for the entire project The combination of these two paths allowed for focused attention and expertise within the workgroups while still maximizing the innovation and collaboration potential of holistic integrated team work sessions The Project team participated in a number of community and City staff engagement activities during Phase to seek input in the development and design of the project The community had opportunities to learn about the project and provide design input in two separate open house activities— one at the Portland Building and one at the Ron Russell Middle School in East Portland The Project team engaged in dialog with community members interested in the project The City’s website provided updated information on project direction established during the development of Phase and provided a place for community input through comments and a survey Additionally, comment boxes were placed in the Portland Building to collect comments from staff and the community • Examined previous feasibility and assessment studies, other City-provided information, and other data to understand the City’s needs; • Examined the options previously considered by the City and consider applicability to the current project; • Examined the Project Site and conducted investigations into site conditions and legal and regulatory requirements for the Project; • Engaged with City project staff, Bureaus and stakeholders to develop detailed program requirements, refine project goals, and identify recommendations for operational changes that support the project goals • Developed preliminary recommendations for the Project Criteria including the Project scope and options to deliver the needed functionality and capacity more efficiently and cost-responsibly; • Developed and refined the target budget and the target schedule; • Developed the preliminary Basis of Design (BOD) criteria and drawings to establish the Project Scope COMMUNITY AND STAFF INPUT Portland Building staff and staff city-wide had various opportunities to learn about and provide input on the project Monthly information sessions were held for City staff They provided project updates to the staff and provided a place for staff to ask questions and provide input to the Phase development process City staff in the building also participated in a detailed survey that allowed the Project team to gather important data about staff perceptions of current workplace conditions and staff aspirations for workplace design in the renovated building The results of this survey helped inform the workplace design visioning process Both survey results are posted on the City website EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / VISIONING The project team held two day-long interactive visioning sessions with City of Portland Bureau Directors and other key City stakeholders The first session was held in August to introduce workplace concepts and establish a consensus on operational and workplace approaches that should be explored by the DBR team The second session was held in September to present and discuss concepts that validated the approach established in the first session The City of Portland’s vision for interior planning and workplace concepts needed to support the City’s goals to serve the public well and to become an “employer of choice.” In order to envision an appropriate design concept to align with those goals, our team focused the visioning sessions on both the public experience and the employee experience Developing the project vision through this lens allowed us to stay focused on how we should plan spaces and set design criteria within the iconic building Each vision session led to a series of goals and priorities that the design team used as guiding principles when making decisions about the organization and intention of the interior environment In 2020 when the public and employees return to the building our measure of success will be evaluated against the consensus and direction established during the visioning sessions Following are key outcomes and directions from our visioning sessions that establish the framework for the project workplace planning and programming recommendations in this report PUBLIC FACING SERVICES & AMENITIES EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE SHARED CONFERENCING • Locate public-facing services on the lower floors keeping public access primarily on these floors Public access to upper floors would be limited by some level of access control • • Consensus on the value of shared conferencing amenities as long as the program identifies how many spaces are needed • Explore consolidation of some customer service “windows” with cross trained employees Director’s acknowledged the benefits of the approach and understood that programming and operational discussions still need to occur to develop the optimal solution for public facing services on the lower floors At a minimum, all customer service functions will be combined in a common area for ease of public access, flexibility of functions over time, and combined security approaches • Consensus on the need to standardize the approach to technology in meeting and collaborative spaces so the rooms can be used easily no matter where they are located in the building, while acknowledging that AV equipment is not within the current project scope (The photographs shown here are precedent images for reference only) Public First Employee Experience Collaboration EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT • Locate shared conferencing for small and large meetings on lower public floors • Consensus that there would be benefit to having public meeting event space directly accessible from the loggia area for after-hours use Limit public access to the upper floors and allow open access for employees to all the bureau floors, with limited secured access only as required by specific functions This will facilitate better cross-bureau communication, better access to shared employee amenities, more flexibility as bureau requirements change over time, and the ability to create an open access stair connection between all the bureau floors • Consensus on break rooms / amenity areas on bureau floors being open to all staff in the building • Consensus on developing open stair access and connections between floors • Consensus that the project provides an opportunity to connect bureaus and support a more one-city culture The project also provides opportunities to look for commonalities between bureaus in considering their location on a floor and within the building to better support alignment and collaboration • Consensus on standardization and use of a common “kit of parts” with flexibility to accommodate unique needs and bureau differentiation within the standardized context "THIRD PLACE" - COLLABORATIVE SPACE 15th FLOOR DAYLIGHTING & LIGHTING BRAND • • Consensus on the value of creating an employee service and support floor on the 15th floor allowing shared access to the floor that has the best access to daylight and views • • • Consensus that the design team should explore a number of options for activating the floor including: • Space for employee / bureau gatherings and celebrations • Training rooms and HR training support services • HR wellness services—including wellness program rooms • Food service • Third-place area for employees to work/collaborate • City-wide and group displays/events Consensus that this is a highly important aspect of improving the workplace environment The Portland Building has limited windows so the enclosure redesign needs to bring as much light into the building as possible In addition, the design of the workplace needs to allow for daylight to penetrate as far into the floor as possible • Consensus that it would be desirable to be able to adjust lighting / light fixtures by zones • Consensus that some shared access to the windows on each floor would be desirable • Consensus that lighting variety in the space would help “de-institutionalize” the workplace • • Incorporate more “third-places” into the building—these are defined as more casual “living room like” spaces where employees and/or public can go to work and/or collaborate in small groups away from their desks These may occur on the public access floors and as a part of the typical office floor Consensus that the work place design needs to consider acoustic and technology requirements that support more open, collaborative third-place spaces Technology infrastructure should be included to allow options for connections to the network in a variety of locations It is recognized that end user technology is the responsibility of the Bureaus and is outside the scope of the project, but there is recognition they need to work together Consensus that access to outdoor spaces from within the building is highly desirable • Consensus that there should be a common branding theme for the building with a level of variation for each Bureau representing the uniqueness of each Bureau’s mission Consensus that creating this shared employee service and support space will encourage employee collaboration and “one city” integration while also supporting the City’s interest in becoming the “employer of choice” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / PROGRAMMING INTERIOR PLANNING The goal of The Portland Building programming process was to assess and identify the space requirements related to the public-service areas, Bureau workspace, shared meeting spaces, and employee support spaces based on the planning concepts agreed to at the two Director + Design Committee Visioning Session The resulting space program recommendations were developed to support the building reconstruction planning process as well as the temporary relocation of City staff during construction Programming began on Friday, August 26th with tours of each Bureau’s work area and support spaces within the building This provided the planning team with a frame of reference related to existing conditions during the programming meetings which took place the following week, Monday August 29th through Wednesday August 31st and subsequent follow-ups with specific Bureaus and function areas as needed Key Concepts Employee Support Floors The space planning concepts are based on the direction established in the visioning and programming process Direction for allocation of shared space, managing security access, and improving the public service experience set the parameters for space planning concepts Employee Support floors include Levels B, 3, and 15 Bike parking, lockers, showers, and a fitness center are located on Level B along with other building support areas Vehicle parking will no longer be provided in the building Level has very little access to natural light and so is ideally suited for shared storage and some conferencing Level 15 has a great deal of access to natural light because of the large windows that occur around its perimeter This floor has been designated primarily as an employee support floor with shared meeting space, collaborative work space and break space As part of the programming process, the team developed new planning assumptions for the private office and workstation standards These new standards are based on the desire to align better with current “best practices” in workplace design and to allow the City to move to a new workplace environment that provides appropriate employee shared space as well as a variety of right-sized focus / collaboration spaces to allow staff a choice of where to work depending on the task In order to accommodate these new spaces, the individual office and workstation sizes have been reduced and the allocation of individual to shared space reallocated There are eleven typical “workplace” floors (Levels – 14) which are able to accommodate City of Portland staff Levels B, 1, 2, 3, and 15 are able to accommodate public customer service and meeting areas, shared employee support spaces, shared meeting rooms, storage, and select staff functions The project scope of work is based on 1,332 FTE’s which is the current City of Portland staff count in the building The 1,332 FTE scope can be accommodated on 8.5 of the typical floors This leaves 2.5 typical floors available for future department growth and/or additional staff coming into the building from other locations The build-out of those additional floor areas is outside the scope of this Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 10 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Public Floors In order to improve the public customer service experience and integrate an appropriate security access control concept into the building, the public access functions are located on Levels and These functions include a consolidated Customer Service Center and shared public and staff meeting, training, and event spaces Space is allocated for food service provider(s) and a daycare These floors also include “historic” spaces preserving Michael Graves’ original design intent for the two level entry lobby area and elevator lobbies Tour groups interested in the history of the building will be able to experience these spaces Space has also been provided for the City to display and incorporate public art as well as items of historic interest should that be desired Typical “Workplace” Floors The typical “workplace” floors are located on Levels – 14 The floors have standardized locations for built-rooms and shared support spaces An optimal ratio of open work space to built-rooms and standardized room sizes will allow each bureau to customize their workplace by how they choose to assign rooms and furnish open areas Establishing a consistent planning approach for the typical floors helps reduce move costs as bureau’s requirements change over time and helps provide way-finding that is intuitive to navigate from floor to floor The planning strategy for the typical floors assumes that the City will replace existing furnishings and standardize on a systems furniture “kit-of-parts” that will support the desired workplace efficiency, flexibility, and standards Storage Requirements Overview DETAILED STORAGE REQUIREMENTS Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) Total ASF ASF Qnty Business Services Resource Area 64 128 128 Engnieering Services Storage Room 85 170 170 Watershed Resource Room / Field Supplies 120 240 Watershed Storage Room 120 120 Wastewater Storage Room / Field Supplies 120 120 B 778 240 NA ASF Qnty NA Bureau of Internal Business Services (BIBS) Notes Potential to split some of the storage between the basement wet storage and 3rd Floor 120 120 Potential to split some of the storage between the basement wet storage and 3rd Floor 360 Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) - Pioneer Tower to 14 Total ASF 418 B to 14 Notes B to 14 Notes Total ASF ASF Qnty Facilities Storage Room 200 200 Facilities Plan Storage 225 225 Risk Occupational Health & Safety Room 150 150 200 575 225 150 Refrigerator storage of vaccines, medicine, etc + work area for OHS staff 575 Bureau of Human Resources (BHR) ASF Qnty BHR Locking File Rooms 150 600 Total ASF BHR Locking File Rooms 40 40 B 640 to 14 415 Notes Represents 35% reduction to file room size requirements (scanning + archiving) 415 Bureau of Revenue + Financial Services (BRFS) Procurement ASF Qnty Outreach Storage 100 100 File Room 200 200 B Total ASF to 14 Notes 100 300 50 Reduce by 25% for temp move; reduce by 75% upon move back into TPB 150 Bureau of Technology Services (BTS) BTS Storage Room / Supplies ASF Qnty 100 B Total ASF 200 - to 14 Notes 200 200 Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Bus Ops ASF Qnty Equipment Room / Storage 200 200 OMF Storage Room 100 100 B Total ASF 300 to 14 Notes 300 300 City Budget Office (CBO) NA ASF NA SPACE PROGRAM /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 56 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Total ASF Qnty B to 14 0 Notes SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS & PLANS Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 57 SUMMARY LEED RATING SYSTEM APPLIED TO TPB During Phase I, TPB team kicked-off the sustainability program with a charrette The primary objectives of the charrette were to prioritize the project’s sustainability goals and to assess collaboratively potential strategies to support and achieve those goals LEED certification, WELL certification and high-performance, whole-building energy performance each were deemed high priorities and areas of focus in this phase More specifically, the team confirmed a Baseline pathway to LEEDv3 Gold, as well as a LEEDv3 Gold approach formally incorporating the new LEEDv4 materials credit strategies which align closely with the City’s sustainable and healthy purchasing policies The team also confirmed the feasibility of WELL certification at the Silver-level And through comprehensive analysis of whole-building energy performance, historical and potential future, the team mapped out a set of potential energy-saving measures that could put the project on par with Architecture 2030 LEEDv3 Gold certification is a minimum project requirement of TPB Design Build Relocate contract, and TPB is in a very strong position to achieve this LEED Gold requires complying with all of the LEED prerequisites and earning at least 60 of the optional points The team has developed and refined a LEEDv3 Scorecard focusing on the most valuable and meaningful credit strategies to be pursued in the Baseline building design and construction This approach is summarized in the project’s LEEDv3 Gold Scorecard (attached) To date, a total of 65 points have been deemed achievable (“Yes”) in the Baseline design, offering contingency points above 60 points minimum for LEED Gold Additional points have been targeted for additional consideration and options carried forward, 17 points of which are highly likely (“Maybe Yes”) and are possible but unlikely (“Maybe No”) More specifically, the current Baseline design LEEDv3 Gold program includes: Additional details about the TPB’s sustainability charrette, LEED program, WELL program and energy performance analysis are provided below In addition, key supporting documents include: Sustainability Charrette Report, Sustainability Goals Matrix, LEEDv3 Scorecard and LEEDv3 with v4 Materials Scorecard SUSTAINABILITY CHARRETTE SUSTAINABLE SITES TPB is tracking as “Yes” 21 points in Sustainable Sites based primarily on its central downtown location with access to transportation options and a multitude of basic services, and the City’s commitment to supporting alternative transportation modes TPB’s expansive green roof and light-colored, on-grade hardscape will also contribute to the LEED point tally On September & 8, 2016, members of The Portland Building Reconstruction (TPB) design and construction project team and several staff representatives from the City of Portland convened for a charrette to clarify and prioritize sustainability goals for the project and to assess collaboratively potential strategies to support and achieve those goals WATER EFFICIENCY City staff and other project team members shared their vision for the project, with recurring themes of transforming TPB into a light, open, welcoming, biophilic, energy-efficient, collaborative space where people are excited to work; promoting health and productivity, and representing the values of its namesake: the City of Portland ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE The group collaboratively mapped by order of priority and feasibility the “galaxy” of the many sustainability performance goals included in current City policy, the RFP and beyond Refer to summary table below Each sustainability goal under consideration was categorized as: • Required = minimum project requirements, as defined by TPB DBR contract • Baseline = strategies addressed by existing City policies, to be included in TPB (unless deemed not feasible and an exemption is approved); and/ or strategies mapped by the project team as meaningful and feasible for the project • Target = strategies deemed as meaningful and potentially feasible for the project, pending additional analysis and budgeting • Aspirational = strategies deemed as meaningful but very challenging for the project, pending additional analysis and budgeting During the charrette, the group also explored the application of the WELL Building Standard to TPB Working groups considered each WELL feature (in the categories of Air, Water, Comfort, Fitness and Mind) and plotted each on an axis of “Value to the City” vs “Level of Lift/Effort,” and took note of issues for future consideration The team also vetted preliminary LEEDv3 and LEEDv4 Scorecards, noting opportunities and challenges to explore further Four “Yes” points have been confirmed in Water Efficiency based on the selection of water-efficient, WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures and the eco roof’s efficient irrigation system and drought-tolerant plant palette Twelve “Yes” points have been deemed achievable in Energy & Atmosphere based on the City’s commitment to commissioning of building energy systems, building energy use monitoring (measurement & verification) and purchasing green power At least five “Yes” points related to whole-building energy performance have been deemed feasible based on Baseline design energy efficiency improvements to the building envelope, lighting systems, HVAC system (variable air volume with hydronic heat, condensing boiler), and heat recovery MATERIALS & RESOURCES At least eight “Yes” points have identified in Materials & Resources based on extensive reuse of TPB’s existing structural walls, floors and roof; best practices for construction & demolition waste management; and the selection and installation of materials with sustainable attributes such as post- and/or pre-consumer recycled content, regional sourcing and Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The project is tracking as “Yes” eleven Indoor Environmental Quality points Contributing strategies include the use of low-emitting materials and products, ventilation systems designed and monitored to deliver ample outside air throughout the building, as well as indoor air quality best practices during construction INNOVATION Based on the City’s deep commitment to sustainable operations and maintenance practices, TPB has many good credit strategy options for earning all five of the available Innovation points Some of the best candidate options include: green cleaning program, integrated pest management, sustainable purchasing policy, access to mass transit, green power purchasing among others SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS & PLANS /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 58 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT LEEDV3 GOLD WITH V4 MATERIALS CATEGORY SWAP The team recognizes the LEEDv4 Materials & Resources (M&R) category as a substantial improvement compared to that in the LEEDv3 standard and its strong alignment with the City’s green building policy, sustainable purchasing policy, healthy materials purchasing initiative and commitment to healthy workplaces The U.S Green Building Council has formally approved for LEEDv3-registered projects to pursue a wholesale swap of the Materials & Resources category from v3 to v4 (The team registered TPB project with US Green Building Council under LEEDv3 on August 11, 2016.) In addition, for TPB the swap to v4 M&R category would enable to project to potentially earn additional points than under v3 M&R because v4 M&R allocates additional point weighting for the preservation of historic buildings and the use of sustainable and healthy materials and products Refer to the LEEDv3 with v4 M&R Swap Scorecard, tracking as “Yes” 69 points WELL BUILDING STANDARD APPLIED TO TPB The WELL Building Standard, established in 2013, focuses solely on the health and wellness of building occupants It includes 100 features related to human health and well-being in seven categories: air, water, nourishment, light, fitness, comfort, and mind Each category has some mandatory, required features referred to as Preconditions, as well as a group of additional optional measures referred to as Optimizations, which can be chosen as applicable to the project The City is very seriously considering pursuing WELL certification for TPB With the current perception of TPB as a “sick” building, WELL certification would provide a meaningful framework for the inclusion of measurable, performance-based health and wellness strategies backed by the credibility of a third-party certification In addition, LEED and WELL are complementary WELL focuses on human health; LEED focuses on the environment Of the 100 total WELL Building Standard features, approximately 40% of the WELL requirements are identical or similar to LEED requirements The dual LEED and WELL certification approach for TPB would leverage the City’s long-time commitment to LEED, while also advancing its commitment to providing a healthy work place environment During Phase 1, the City, the design and construction team and a WELL program administrator toured TPB and reviewed all of the WELL Preconditions applied to TPB They identified value for the project, alignment with current City efforts and no insurmountable issues related to the pursuit of WELL Silver certification Additional consideration of WELL will take place in future phases Whole-Building Energy Performance Throughout Phase I, the team explored a number of potential opportunities and challenges related to energy efficiency and occupant comfort A clear baseline of TPB’s “existing” energy use was established through actual performance data The existing TPB energy end-use pie chart The reconstruction project provides an opportunity to rethink energy and thermal comfort to target aggressive energy efficiency and provide for a comfortable and healthy indoor environment for future occupants Building energy performance is best understood through the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) metric that normalizes energy use per square foot per year (kBtu/sf/yr) Energy studies were conducted using the existing building’s energy model A number of energy upgrades were analyzed, with the intention of setting a target EUI goal or range to achieve LEED Gold, and to demonstrate a path to achieving net zero The graphic below demonstrates the EUI of TPB, starting with: • Typical office building EUI, based on 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data • TPB’s Existing EUI • New Baseline EUI, including 2014 Oregon energy code, which includes changes in input assumptions The additional studied performance scenarios or Energy Conservation Measures include: • Hydronic heating, served by Heat Recovery Chiller and Central Heat Pump • Active Chilled Beams served by Heat Recovery Chiller and Central Heat Pump • Plug load management or reduced plug loads and improved lighting controls • Additional plug load reduction and wider thermal comfort set- points as a result of personal comfort controls The target EUI for TPB goal, based on the preliminary energy studies and assumptions, was estimated to be 26 to 38 The EUI target will be refined as the design process progresses SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS & PLANS Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 59 LEEDv3 Scorecard, with v4 MR Category Swap The Portland Building Reconstruction Yes ?Y ?N No Certified 40-49 Total Project Score 69 17 10 17 Y ?Y ?N N 21 2 Sustainable Sites Y 1 1 1 Y 2 2 1 12 Silver 50-59 c d d d d d d d c d d d c d d 11.17.2016 Gold 60-79 Platinum 80+ ?Y ?N N 2 Note v4 pts awarded for v3 projects: +2 pts for or more pts 10 1 Materials & Resources Site Selection Y Prereq Storage & Collection of Recyclables n/a Credit Development Density & Community Connectivity Y Prereq Construction & Demolition Waste Mgmt Planning n/a Credit Brownfield Redevelopment Credit Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access Y Option 1: Historic Building Reuse Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms N Option 2: Renovation of Abandoned or Blighted Buildings Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles N Option 3: Building & Material Reuse Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity N Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat (20% of site area) 1 Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space ?Y Option 1: Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) AND / OR Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control N Option 2: Optimization, 50% material costs Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof ?N Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof Y Credit Light Pollution Reduction Credit 26 Points Possible 10 Points Possible Y Y TPB Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Targets 26 - 38 & Assumptions 1 2 ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON The team is collaborating with Energy Trust of Oregon and TPB is enrolled in ETO’s Path to Net Zero program to promote aggressive energy efficient design targets via use of energy modeling and leveraging energy efficiency incentives Targeting an EUI of 28 represents a 70% reduction compared to CBECS and meets the Architecture 2030 Challenge and the Path to Net Zero program requirements 1 1 ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF TPB’S BASELINE BUILDING DESIGN At the conclusion of this phase, energy model results indicate for the Baseline building design an EUI in the range of 38, the upper end of the project’s EUI goals The anticipated energy-cost savings are roughly 16% relative to the LEEDv3 standard An estimated additional 14% energy-cost savings is possible with identified mechanical options, and the integration of occupant-dependent plug load controls and thermal comfort strategies also offer the potential for additional savings Additional modeling analysis and cost analysis will be conducted in Phase II, with the goal of further reducing the project’s EUI, while also providing a healthy and comfortable indoor environment SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS & PLANS /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 60 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 0 Credit Credit Credit 2-4 Environmental Product Declarations Sourcing of Raw Materials Option 1: Raw Material Source & Extraction Reporting AND / OR Option 2: Leadership Extraction Practice, 25% material costs Material Ingredients ?Y Option 1: Material Ingredient Reporting AND / OR ?Y Option 2: Material Ingredient Optimization, 25% AND / OR Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction n/a N Option 3: Product Manufacturer Supply Chain Optimization Credit Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% , No Potable Use 2-4 Credit Innovative Wastewater 50% of annual flush supply non-pot Credit Water Use Reduction, 30%, 35%, 40% Credit Construction & Demolition Waste Management Option 1: 50% or 75% OR Option 2: Reduction of Total Waste 2-4 35 Points Possible 2 Indoor Environmental Quality Y Prereq Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems n/a Y Prereq Minimum Energy Performance - (10% Requirement) n/a Prereq Fundamental Refrigerant Management n/a Credit Optimize Energy - Existing Bldg, 16% better ASHRAE 90.1-'07 1-19 Credit On-Site Renewable Energy, 1% to 13% 1-7 Credit Enhanced Commissioning Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management Credit Measurement & Verification Credit Green Power 35% Innovation & Design Process d d d d d c Option 4: Whole Building Life-Cycle Assessment 1 14 Points Possible Prereq 12 Energy & Atmosphere c d d d d c d c c Alternative Compliance Option: Wholesale MR Credit Suite to v4 12 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 11 Y +?N: 96 Y n/a Prereq Water Efficiency d d d d +?Y: 86 Yes: Points Possible Credit 1.1 Many good options - refer to list below 1 Credit 1.2 Many good options 1 Credit 1.3 Many good options 1 Credit 1.4 Many good options 1 Credit 1.5 Many good options 1 Credit LEED™ Accredited Professional Salmon Safe, Green Cleaning (LEED EBOM), IPM (LEED EBOM), Reduced Mercury Lamps (LEED EBOM), Sustainable Purchasing Policy (LEED EBOM), Bird-Friendly Design (Pilot Credit), SSc4.1 Exemplary, EAc6 Green Power Exemplary, or other 97204 d d d d c c c c c c d d d d d d d Minimum IAQ Performance n/a Prereq Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control n/a Credit Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Credit Increased Ventilation Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Flooring Systems Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products Credit Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces Regional Credits 0 0 0 0 d d d 15 Points Possible Prereq Points Possible Project Zip Code Credit 1.1 Regional Credit: SSc3 Credit 1.2 Regional Credit: SSc5.1 Credit 1.3 Regional Credit: WEc2 Alternative Compliance Option: Wholesale MR Credit Suite to LEED v4 1 0 d Credit MR: Environmental Environmental Product Declarations, Option 1Option MR: Product Declarations, d Credit MR: Sourcing Sourcing of of Raw Materials, OptionOption MR: Raw Materials, - 25% LEEDv3 Scorecard The Portland Building Reconstruction Yes ?Y ?N No 65 17 19 Certified 40-49 Y ?Y ?N N 21 2 Sustainable Sites Y 1 1 1 Silver 50-59 Total Project Score c d d d d d d d c d d d c d d 11.17.2016 Gold 60-79 Platinum 80+ Prereq Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Credit +?Y: 82 Yes: 26 Points Possible +?N: 91 Y ?Y ?N N Materials & Resources n/a Y Site Selection Credit Development Density & Community Connectivity Credit Brownfield Redevelopment 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation , Public Transportation Access Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation , Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation , Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation , Parking Capacity Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat (20% of site area) 1 Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design , Quantity Control Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design , Quality Control Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect , Non-Roof Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect , Roof Credit Light Pollution Reduction 1 1 1 11 Water Efficiency d d d d Y 2 2 1 10 Points Possible Y Prereq Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction n/a Credit Water Efficient Landscaping , Reduce by 50% , No Potable Use 2-4 Credit Innovative Wastewater 50% of annual flush supply non-pot Credit Water Use Reduction, 30%, 35%, 40% 2-4 12 12 Energy & Atmosphere Y Y Y 6 2 1 1 1 0 c d d d d c d c c Prereq Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems n/a Prereq Minimum Energy Performance - (10% Requirement) n/a Prereq Fundamental Refrigerant Management n/a Credit Optimize Energy - Existing Bldg, 16% better ASHRAE 90.1-'07 1-19 Credit On-Site Renewable Energy, 1% to 13% 1-7 Credit Enhanced Commissioning Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management Credit Measurement & Verification Credit Green Power 35% Innovation & Design Process d d d d d c 35 Points Possible Points Possible Storage & Collection of Recyclables n/a Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 50 /75 /95% 1-3 Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse, Specify 5% Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse, Specify 10% Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, 10% Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10% Credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Credit Rapidly Renewable Materials 2.5% Credit Certified Wood, 50% of new wood budget Minimum IAQ Performance n/a Prereq Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control n/a Credit Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Credit Increased Ventilation Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials , Adhesives & Sealants Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials , Paints & Coatings Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials , Flooring Systems Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials , Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products Credit Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort , Design Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort , Verification Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces Regional Credits Many good options - refer to list below Credit 1.2 Many good options 1 0 Credit 1.3 Many good options 1 0 Credit 1.4 Many good options 0 Credit 1.5 Many good options 1 Credit LEED™ Accredited Professional 1 0 d d d d d d 15 Points Possible Prereq 97204 Credit 1.1 Salmon Safe, Green Cleaning (LEED EBOM), IPM (LEED EBOM), Reduced Mercury Lamps (LEED EBOM), Sustainable Purchasing Policy (LEED EBOM), LEED v4 Materials Ingredient Reporting, LEED v4 Materials EPDs, Bird-Friendly Design (Pilot Credit), SSc4.1 Exemplary, EAc6 Green Power Exemplary, or other d d d d c c c c c c d d d d d d d 14 Points Possible Prereq Indoor Environmental Quality Y d d d c c d d c c c c c c Points Possible Project Zip Code Credit 1.1 Regional Credit: SSc3 Credit 1.2 Regional Credit: SSc5.1 Credit 1.3 Regional Credit: WEc2 Credit 1.4 Regional Credit: MRc1.1(75%) Credit 1.5 Regional Credit: MRc3 Credit 1.6 Regional Credit: MRc7 SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS & PLANS Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 61 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT SITE LOGISTICS RADIUS OF TOWER CRANE SWING MA IN S T W5 TH AVE SW THE PORTLAND BUILDING DELIVERIES ON EAST SIDE ONLY MATERIAL HOIST WORKER ENTRANCE PARKING STALLS AND SIDEWALK ON SW MADISON CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION 4TH CONSTRUCTABILITY SO NS PHASING T & LOGISTICS PLAN ADI SW WM AVE WORKER BREAK/LUNCH ROOM ON LEVEL ONE GAT E TOWER CRANE EAST ENTRANCE MAIN GATE MATERIAL STAGING IN THE EXISTING BASEMENT PARKING STALLS AND SIDEWALK ON SW 4TH AVE CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERIES FLAGGER DURING MAJOR DELIVERY TIME FRAMES N /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 62 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PARKING STALLS AND SIDEWALK ON SW MAIN CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTABILITY, PHASING & LOGISTICS SUMMARY In executing the reconstruction activities for the Portland Building Project, the project team determined that vacating the building was in the best interest of all parties involved, with the foremost thought being the health & safety of the buildings occupants This recommendation was made and accepted as part of Phase planning With this decision made, the attached site logistics plan is focused on maintaining the health and safety of the public, while supporting worker and material access to the building during construction RADIUS OF TOWER CRANE SWING THE PORTLAND BUILDING SIDEWALK ON SW 5TH AVE CLOSED DURING WEST FACADE WORK ONLY In consideration of the large quantity of reinforcing bar for the seismic upgrade and the need to hoist curtainwall materials directly into position on the exterior of the building, a tower crane shall be erected to minimize impacts to traffic surrounding the site The crane shall be erected through the Southeast stairwell which currently provides access from the basement to the 2nd floor Use of a tower additional shall minimize the amount of tree trimming & potential need to remove trees for construction access Material Hoist To enable efficient material loading to floors, a material hoist shall be located on SW 4th Ave in the footprint of the North Stair serving the basement to 2nd floor The team evaluated the use of the existing buildings passenger and freight elevators for this purpose, but given the size, speed, landing elevations, and locations of the elevators, a material hoist was selected T DELIVERIES ON EAST SIDE ONLY MA DIS 4TH SW AVE WORKER BREAK/LUNCH ROOM ON LEVEL ONE GAT E TOWER CRANE ON SW Hoisting IN S MATERIAL HOIST Deliveries & Material Staging Material deliveries will primarily be received from SW 4th Avenue given the convenient direct access from the 405 freeway From SW 4th Avenue, material will be 1.) hoisted directly onto/ into the building via crane, 2.) loaded into the material lift, or 3.) staged in the basement level of the building via the basement driveway entrance MA 5TH AVE SW SW Sidewalks The sidewalks and adjacent parking lanes adjacent the North, East and South elevations of the building will be closed for the duration of the project Howard S Wright shall seek to keep the sidewalk under the West elevation of the building, under Portlandia, open as much as possible during construction This is possible given the setback of the building on this elevation But during overhead envelope activities on the West elevation, this sidewalk likely will need to be closed as part of a designated Controlled Access Zone for safety purposes TH REC ST WORKER ENTRANCE PARKING STALLS AND SIDEWALK ON SW MADISON CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION EAST ENTRANCE MAIN GATE MATERIAL STAGING IN THE EXISTING BASEMENT PARKING STALLS AND SIDEWALK ON SW 4TH AVE CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERIES FLAGGER DURING MAJOR DELIVERY TIME FRAMES N CONSTRUCTABILITY, PHASING & LOGISTICS PLAN Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 63 Project Risk Matrix Project: The Portland Building Reconstruction Project Update: 11/30/16 Area Identified Risk Project Schedule and Staffing Project Execution Risks /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 64 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Lead Permitting Durations & Approvals DLR Group (Carla Weinheimer) Landmarks Approval of Envelope Approach Engage in discussions with interested parties to understand concerns related to our design approach Utilize the DAR process with landmarks commission to identify areas of concern and address them prior to formally submitting for approvals Engage DBR team members which are experts in the historical design & preservation community to guide the submission & approval process DLR Group (Erica Ceder ) Market Escalation Leverage the progressive design build process to engage key trade partners to work with the team to develop the scope and provide cost effective solutions Engage the subcontractor community broadly with smaller bid package scopes to allow more firms to compete for work HSW (Todd Miller) DAY CPM (Charles Matschek) HSW (Todd Miller) DMWESB Subcontractor Availability & Risk of Not Meeting Goals Engage DMWESB community early on in project through a variety of ways Ensure bid packages are right-sized for the subcontractor community and utilize the opportunities allowed per the contract and city policy to selectively bid and direct award work where possible Leverage trade partners to mentor and support DMWESB firms as part of their engagement on the project HSW (Todd Miller & Rhonnda Edmiston) Availability of Temporary Lease Space for Short Durations in Current Market Engage an experienced & informed real estate consulting and brokerage team Engage search early with mindset to be flexible in dealings with Landlords and being open to potentially less conventional spaces if necessary JLL (Craig Reinhart & Charlie Floberg) Timely Decisions from the City Establish a streamlined decision makng process, with a clear escalation path should roadblocks occur Communicate the timing of critical decisions early and often in an easily understood format CoP (Kristin Wells) City Changes to Design Approach Ensure milestone timing for major decisions are known by all appropriate stakeholders Ensure communications regarding the cost and schedule impacts due to subsequent changes are well known by all parties CoP (Kristin Wells) Engage Owner to Contract with certified abatement firms to remove Hazardous Materials identified in select areas Asbestos in mastic of and dispose of materials Plan for removal durations within schedule flooring materials duration Site and Environmental Conditions Unforseen Conditions - Sub-grade and in concealed portions of the Perform advanced exploratory work where practical Have team building aligned to expedite mitigation efforts should a condition be identified PROJECT RISK MATRIX Risk Level (1 = Low; = High) Utilize the facilities permifting program (FPP) for the project and engage in frequent discussions with the buildings BDS FPP representatives to ensure complete information is provided as part of submittals for review Identify any potential elements of work which would be potentially reviewed outside of the FPP program and make submissions early Planning and Permitting Approvals Buy-out and Procurement (Subcontractors and Suppliers) Mitigations Risk Assessment Project Risk Matrix Project: The Portland Building Reconstruction Project Update: 11/30/16 Area Identified Risk Moves of Employees To/From the Building Permitting Durations & Approvals Planning and Permitting Approvals Client Business Impacts Temporary Space Acceptance Landmarks Approval of Envelope Approach Technology Impacts Buy-out and Procurement (Subcontractors and Suppliers) Market Escalation Mitigations Utilize the facilities program (FPP) for the project and Implement a robustpermifting change management process with thoughtful engage in frequent discussions with the buildings BDS FPP communications to appropriate bureau representatives Engage representativestransition to ensure complete is provided as part of knowledgable planning andinformation move management submittals for to review Identify any potential elements of work which professionals implement a transition program with key stakeholder would be potentially reviewed outside of the FPP program and make involvement and guidance submissions early Engage in in-depth discussions with bureau representatives to ensure critical are met inwith temporary space selections, while being Engageneeds in discussions interested parties to understand concerns thoughtful of expenditures in the Utilize short term spaces Engage related to our design approach the DAR process withbureau leadership appropriately engageareas their of employees in managing landmarks to commission to identify concern and address them expectations during the transition period prior to formally submitting for approvals Engage DBR team members which are experts in the historical design &firm preservation community Engage experienced project management to fully understand theto guide the submission & approval process clients needs and the services coming into & out of the Portland Building Plan for reconfiguration of the network systems early and in depth, via the communications with BTS other stakeholders Leverage progressive design buildand process to engage key Perform trade reconfiguration detailed "Methodthe of Procedure" planningcost and partners to workwork withwith the team to develop scope and provide approval process Engage the subcontractor community broadly with effective solutions smallerCity bidEmployees package scopes allow more to competeProvide for work Move out of to building duringfirms construction for construction barricades at perimeter of project to separate public from Engage Owner to Contract with certified abatement firms to remove HazardoustoMaterials identified in select areas Asbestos in mastic Exposure public & construction workers related to demolition at of exposure to potential unforeseen falling objects Implement barricade and dispose of materials Plan for removal durations within schedule Safety and Loss Control flooring perimeter materials of building exterior program and controlled access zone protocols during construction to duration Site and Environmental Conditions ensure the public and construction workers are not exposed to hazards Unforseen Conditions - Sub-grade and in concealed portions of the Performconstruction advanced exploratory work where practical Have team during building aligned to expedite mitigation efforts should a condition be identified Project Schedule and Staffing Project Execution Risks Risk Assessment Risk Level (1 = Low; = High) 4 Lead HSW & JLL DLR Group (Todd Miller & Matt Newstrom) (Carla Weinheimer) CoP & DLR (Kristin Wells & Sherrill Johnson) DLR Group (Erica Ceder ) HSW (Todd Miller) HSW (Todd Miller) 21 DAY CPM HSW (Charles Matschek) (Troy Boardman) HSW (Todd Miller) DMWESB Subcontractor Availability & Risk of Not Meeting Goals Engage DMWESB community early on in project through a variety of ways Ensure bid packages are right-sized for the subcontractor community and utilize the opportunities allowed per the contract and city policy to selectively bid and direct award work where possible Leverage trade partners to mentor and support DMWESB firms as part of their engagement on the project HSW (Todd Miller & Rhonnda Edmiston) Availability of Temporary Lease Space for Short Durations in Current Market Engage an experienced & informed real estate consulting and brokerage team Engage search early with mindset to be flexible in dealings with Landlords and being open to potentially less conventional spaces if necessary JLL (Craig Reinhart & Charlie Floberg) Timely Decisions from the City Establish a streamlined decision makng process, with a clear escalation path should roadblocks occur Communicate the timing of critical decisions early and often in an easily understood format CoP (Kristin Wells) City Changes to Design Approach Ensure milestone timing for major decisions are known by all appropriate stakeholders Ensure communications regarding the cost and schedule impacts due to subsequent changes are well known by all parties CoP (Kristin Wells) PROJECT RISK MATRIX Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 65 CODE COMPLIANCE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Portland Building is an existing 15 story, with single basement, high rise structure that opened in 1982 and continues to operate under a current Certificate of Occupancy The building was designed and construction following the requirements of a legacy version of the Uniform Building Code The work proposed for the Reconstruction project will consist primarily of repairs and remodels, as defined in OSSC Chapter 34, to existing areas and systems Existing features and systems that were in compliance with the original construction code of record are allowed to continue their previously approved use All new construction will be in accordance with the provisions of the current codes to the extent practicable A Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) analysis of the building may be performed in accordance with NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety NFPA 101-A is a companion standard to NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code Both codes are promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts A FSES analysis is a systematic and repeatable evaluation of the fire and life safety features of a building Positive points are scored to positive aspects of the building (i.e sprinklers, fire alarm, means of egress) Negative points are scored to features that are not in compliance with the code The resulting score determines if the building is safe from a holistic standpoint This approach allows resources to be directed to those fire protection and life safety features that provide the greatest benefit The Portland Building is less than 420 feet in height The special provisions of 403.2.3 not apply CODE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 66 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT CODES AND STANDARDS The following codes and standards are used for establishing an acceptable level of safety within the building: 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) which is an amended version of the 2012 Uniform Building Code as promulgated by the International Code Council, Washington, D.C 2014 Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC) 2014 Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code (OMSC) 2014 Oregon Electrical Specialty Code (OESC) 2014 Oregon Efficiency Specialty Code (OEESC) 2014 Oregon Fire Code (OFC) ICC A117.1-2009 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) OCCUPANCY The Portland Building contains the following occupancies: Office – Group B Meeting rooms < 50 persons – Group B >49 persons – Group A-3 Storage – Group S-1 Café – Group A-2 Day Care Center – Group I-4 Parking – Group S-2 The amount of flammable, combustible, and hazardous materials used and stored within the Portland Building will be less than the exempt quantities specified in Section 307 A Group H Occupancy is not created No sleeping occupancies are included in the building No courtroom, detention, or correctional holding facilities are located within the building The building is designed using the non-separated occupancy approach in accordance with Section 508.3 A fire resistive rating is not required between the various occupancies CONSTRUCTION The original construction of the Portland Building is UBC Type I-FR, which equates to the current OSSC Type I-A construction OSSC Type I-A construction allows unlimited height and area for the building OSSC requires the following fire-resistive ratings: Primary Structural Frame – hour Secondary Structural Frame – hours Floors – hours Roof – 1.5 hours Shafts – hours Exit stairway enclosures – hours Elevator hoistways – hours The Portland Building is provided with adequate fire separation distances on all four sides to permit unlimited and unprotected exterior openings Investigation of the existing floor slabs have found that the actual fire resistive rating of the floor assemblies may be one hour in lieu of the two hours required by code Further analysis of the floor assemblies will be performed to verify the existing rating and if mitigation or a code alternate equivalent approach will be required VERTICAL OPENINGS The building will not contain an atrium that connects three, or more, stories The first floor will be open to the second floor OSSC Section 404.5 does not require mechanical smoke control for atria that connect only two stories MEANS OF EGRESS The means of egress will be in accordance with OSSC Chapter 10 The building is provided with two enclosed exit stairways The entrance to the stairways is separated by more than one third of the overall diagonal dimension of the floors as required The minimum separation between the walls enclosing the stairways is greater than 30 feet as required The legacy Uniform Building Code required the stairways to be connected with a one hour fire resistive rated corridor The original rated corridor has been opened on many floors without fire resistive rated opening protectives The current OSSC does not require rated corridors if the building is protected throughout with quick response sprinklers A rated corridor will not be required not provided Both exit stairway enclosures are mechanically pressurized The existing pressurization systems will be confidence tested and repaired as needed CODE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 67 The existing stairway treads, risers, landings, and enclosures will remain in service New compliant and accessible handrails / guardrails will be provided The exit stairway discharges will be reconfigured to conform to the OSSC One stairway will discharge directly to the outside The second stairway will discharge through the level of exit discharge lobby with a clear and direct path to the outside The means of egress will be sized as follows: Stairways – 0.20 inches per person Doors, ramps, and other level components – 0.15 inches per person The building will be provided with quick response sprinklers and a voice evacuation system FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLY Refer to the fire protection section of this report for additional details The building has an existing water supply with two, 500 gpm fire pumps The pumps will be confidence tested and refurbished as needed to maintain their acceptance for continued service The existing fire pump room will continue in service A secondary fire protection water storage tank is not required in existing buildings AUTOMATIC SPRINKERS Refer to the fire protection section of this report for additional details The existing fire sprinkler systems will be demolished from the floor control valves and replaced with new, code complying, sprinkler systems EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS Refer to the fire alarm section of this report for additional details The building will be provide with a code compliant voice communication with coverage provided throughout the building An Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System will be provided in accordance with OSSC Section 403.4.5 EXIT SIGNS Exit signs and means of egress marking will be provided as required by OSSC EMERGENCY LIGHTING Refer to the electrical section of this report for additional details Emergency egress lighting will be provided as required by OSSC EMERGENCY POWER Refer to the electrical section of this report for additional details The existing emergency generator will remain in service and connect loads as required by OSSC SMOKE CONTROL The Portland Building does not require mechanical smoke control A post fire smoke removal system required by OSSC 403.4.7 will be provided Refer to the mechanical section of this report for additional details ELEVATORS Refer to the fire protection section of this report for additional details The existing standpipe systems will be fully inspected and confidence tested and repaired or replaced as needed Refer to the elevator section of this code for additional details An existing elevator provide accommodates a stretcher as required by OSSC Details for Fire Service Access Elevators will be coordinated with the Portland Fire Department FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION The elevator hoistways will be mechanically pressurized or provided with one hour fire resistive rated lobbies as required by OSSC STANDPIPES Refer to the fire alarm section of this report for additional information A new, addressable fire alarm system will be provided The existing fire alarm system will be demolished FIRE COMMAND CENTER The existing building is not provided with a Fire Command Center A Fire Command Center will be provided in accordance with OSSC Section 911 The elevators will not be used as a part of the means of egress ACCESSIBLITY The Portland Building public spaces will conform to ICC A117.1-2009, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities The design team will work with the City of Portland to provide proper and reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities within their work area Areas of rescue assistance are not required in existing buildings nor in buildings that are fully sprinklered CODE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group 68 /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT END OF DOCUMENT Dec 2, 2016 / PHASE REPORT / 69 /CITY OF PORTLAND / HOWARD S WRIGHT / DLR Group /THE PORTLAND BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ... Cntrs) 14 2 - - 10 90 Bookshelves 80 - - 25 15 0 - 5,540 - 36 1, 0 71 12 - 14 896 500 1, 000 1, 000 18 0 11 660 540 200 300 10 1, 000 800 300 210 315 710 12 5 60 15 0 PBOT ASF Huddle Room - 1: 50 (4-seat) -. .. (PBOT) 15 0 1, 830 11 , 417 31, 575 15 0 1, 830 2,4 71 2,4 71 1,639 2,207 11 , 417 15 ,408 15 ,408 10 , 312 13 ,758 31, 575 46,377 46,377 29, 612 42,529 33,059 43,806 43,806 32,058 40,926 14 , 512 14 , 512 14 , 512 14 , 512 ... Spaces 410 14 , 512 410 16 0 14 , 512 14 , 512 14 , 512 14 , 512 14 , 512 14 5 17 8,9 31 226,357 239,7 01 154,663 200,767 23, 015 208,400 208,400 208,400 208,400 208,400 29,469 -1 7 ,957 - 31, 3 01 53,737 7,633 1. 55 -0 .95