Best Practices for Project Management, Design, and Construction of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OSHPD maintains several different approaches to review and permitting, many of which may be selected by the project proponent. Project applications that do not specify a particular approach will be reviewed as a standard project: permits for new construction and remodel projects that alter the existing structural frame (formerly known as “H” projects) and permits for new construction that do not alter the existing structural frame (formerly known as “S” projects). OSHPD maintains standard turnaround targets for these types of projects. OSHPD offers a “preliminary” review process these projects to look at major code issues prior to completion of construction documents. OSHPD also offers a program where limits of work can be agreed upon prior to permitting. Additional automatic and optional plan review programs include: • Annual permit – covers up to $50,000 in very small work on an annual basis. • AB 2632 project – supports certain types of maintenance and repair work for single story buildings. • SB 1838 Project – under $50,000. An owner can select the SB 1838 application for work under $50,000 excluding the cost of fixed equipment. Projects using SB 1838 are not plan reviewed; they are triaged to ensure eligibility for the program followed by issuance of a permit. The SB 1838 permit is intended to expedite commencement of construction for very small projects; the risk to use of this method comes from the potential to construct something to a non-code conforming condition which may require correction in later work. • Rapid Review Unit – under $100,000. OSHPD will automatically route all projects under $100,000 in value excluding the cost of fixed equipment to this unit for full review prior to permitting. Turnaround for the RRU is longer than that for an SB 1838 but substantially shorter than that for a regular “H” or “S” project. Full review also eliminates the risk of work not being in conformance with code that arises from use of the SB 1838 permit. • Incremental Projects – new construction and remodel projects that alter the existing structural frame (formerly known as “H” projects) may be separated into two or more permit sets by applying for it to be an Incremental (formerly known as “I”) project instead. Each increment of these types of projects must represent one or more complete building system. The incremental project method is typically chosen for large projects to allow for some portion of work to commence while other portions continue through the plan review process. The project proponent must request use of the incremental project; OSHPD will determine whether the proposal meets the requirement of code and is separated into appropriate increment packages. • Phased Plan Review (PPR) – established by SB 306, PPR is a voluntary review process that must be proposed by the project proponent and approved by OSHPD prior to engagement. OSHPD is not obligated to accept any project for phased plan review. PPR functions as a method to resolve all code issues prior to development of construction documents, assuring their highest possible quality. PPR works well with new construction and remodel projects that alter the existing structural frame, or those that do not alter the existing structural frame (formerly known as “H” or “I” projects); project teams using Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) methods will see PPR as a way of ensuring conforming design at the earliest possible opportunity during design phase to eliminate waste. (OSHPD Best Practices) Page 94 DRAFT FINAL, Sept. 2011
Best Practice 7: Determine whether your project is feasible Use your management staff and consultants to determine whether what you want to do can be accomplished. The following substrategies are needed to ensure feasibility: Best Practice 7a: Determine whether there are physical limitations that will prevent achieving your intended outcome There are limits to the built environment that can make a project infeasible. Physical feasibility may also be affected by existing conditions of the target location or by adjacent conditions. In applying regulations, OSHPD can require changes that either increase cost or result in project abandonment if physical feasibility is not properly evaluated. Accurate as-built drawings and physical evaluation of existing conditions are essential in determining feasibility for remodel or addition projects. Drawings should include all disciplines (e.g., architectural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). Best Practice 7b: Determine the financial feasibility of the project Whether you start with a target budget or target outcome, make certain that the total project budget and the scope of the project match. Careful planning at this stage of the process is the most important determinant of project success. Inaccurate or unrealistic budgets are the most common drivers of change throughout the project duration. Any corresponding changes in the scope of the project must be addressed in the project’s budget. Distinguish between the budget and construction costs. Make sure adequate contingencies are defined to accommodate unforeseen hospital impacts. Design Phase Best Practice 8: Require that your design team of architects and engineers design to the current California Building Code Experience has shown that there are common problems arising from design that seriously impact the satisfactory completion of the OSHPD process. These include: • Designing to a code other than the appropriate provisions of the CBSC; • Designing to out-of-date codes; • Using room designations or other nomenclature on plans that are not consistent with the CBSC; • Failure to make best use of PINs and CANs published by OSPHD; and • Failure to follow the OSHPD Remodel CAN, which provides flow diagrams for use in planning the scope and boundaries of remodel projects. Best Practice 8a: Build in flexibility for change A foundational design goal of any hospital project should be to provide flexibility to change. With (OSHPD Best Practices) Page 95 DRAFT FINAL, Sept. 2011
Page 1 and 2:
[On inside Title Page: Many of the
Page 3 and 4:
• Part 1 of Title 24 is the Calif
Page 5 and 6:
Rapid Review Unit The Rapid Review
Page 7 and 8:
Section 2: Geologic Hazards Investi
Page 9 and 10:
equested, CGS will review the suppl
Page 11 and 12:
under OSHPD regulations. Please see
Page 13 and 14:
Another approach to creating better
Page 15 and 16:
create confusion. The discipline ha
Page 17 and 18:
applicable phasing must be clearly
Page 19 and 20:
addresses, and project Websites, ma
Page 21 and 22:
• Plumbing fixture counts for pub
Page 23 and 24:
(OSHPD Best Practices) Page 23 DRAF
Page 25 and 26:
• Treatment of listed floor slab
Page 27 and 28:
• References to the prescriptive
Page 29 and 30:
Provisions of California Fire Code
Page 31 and 32:
Existing Special Conditions The sam
Page 33 and 34:
Enlarged Drawings Provide enlarged
Page 35 and 36:
3.6 Door Schedule Purpose The door
Page 37 and 38:
Existing or Special Conditions Exis
Page 39 and 40:
approved “shake table testing.”
Page 41 and 42:
Drawing Content Equipment may inclu
Page 43 and 44: Drawing Content For details that pr
Page 45 and 46: Details that provide information on
Page 47 and 48: Early in the design process, it is
Page 49 and 50: • Identify any equipment that req
Page 51 and 52: • Identify any equipment that req
Page 53 and 54: Several drawings contain essential
Page 55 and 56: o o o o o o o o Floor Plan - Lighti
Page 57 and 58: Section 4: Inspector of Record Best
Page 59 and 60: • Approved program flexes; • Ra
Page 61 and 62: 9. The IOR shall submit verified co
Page 63 and 64: • Log and record areas that by de
Page 65 and 66: • Inspections completed by the us
Page 67 and 68: Logging Inspection Requests 1. When
Page 69 and 70: Preconstruction Meetings A preconst
Page 71 and 72: • Explain code requirements for s
Page 73 and 74: Concluding Remarks An IOR needs to
Page 75 and 76: Although including the TIO Program
Page 77 and 78: Owner The Owner is responsible for
Page 79 and 80: Inspections The TIO Program should
Page 81 and 82: The construction of hospitals in Ca
Page 83 and 84: Instruction Bulletins (IBs), prepar
Page 85 and 86: Changes will undoubtedly be require
Page 87 and 88: Proper execution of these and the o
Page 89 and 90: contingencies, that concur with def
Page 91 and 92: and help in determining the cause o
Page 93: have discovered that bids only cove
Page 97 and 98: OSHPD believes the key to receiving
Page 99 and 100: the design assistance from the manu
Page 101 and 102: Permit Phase Best Practice 15: Keep
Page 103 and 104: Comment and Process Review The deci
Page 105 and 106: See Section 4 of this volume for a
Page 107 and 108: • OSHPD shall schedule a final st
Page 109 and 110: CPC CPR DD Deferred Submittals DSE
Page 111: (OSHPD Best Practices) Page 111 DRA
show all

Best Practices for Project Management, Design, and Construction of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?