A Successful Multiple-Prime Contract Project

It was a 12.3 million dollar multiple-contract capital project that included an 800-seat auditorium addition to an existing building. The project included a two-story multi-use addition, new field house structures, extensive sitework and miscellaneous renovations at five other buildings.  The steam heating system at one building was removed and replaced with a hot water system following asbestos abatement.   As the project architect, I was responsible to ensure that the efforts of landscape architects, civil, structural, plumbing, HVAC and electrical engineers were coordinated and construction cost estimates and milestone dates for the work were provided to meet the expectations of the owner.

One of the challenges to the project was the schedule.  The multiple contractors were tasked with completing all the work during the summer with minimum impact on the owner’s fall schedule for the building.  At two buildings, some of the work of several prime contracts could not begin until the work of the asbestos abatement contractor was complete. It was important that the asbestos contractor follow a prescribed phasing plan to allow the other prime contractors access to portions of the work as early as possible.  

Since separate prime contracts are mandated for certain projects in New York State, one of the unfortunate disadvantages is that it takes the control of a building construction project away from a single source and divides it among several with sometimes opposing needs. That creates a situation where there is little or no leverage to compel one contractor to complete his work soon enough to allow the other prime contractors to complete their work.

Instead of phasing the abatement work as required by the contract, the asbestos removal contractor performed each “phase” of his work continuously. Although it was finished ahead of the required overall completion date, some parts of the work scheduled to be finished earlier did not get completed until it was too late for the HVAC contractor to begin his scope of work at the building which shortened their window of opportunity. 

The HVAC scope of work was substantial and there was a state requirement that the heating system for the building be functioning by a certain date in the fall. 

The other building with asbestos removal is a three-story structure with a basement. The existing equipment and piping had to be removed before the new system could be installed. It was a challenge that was met with due diligence by the clerk of the works and the HVAC contractor with success.  We emphasized the importance of completing the HVAC system at every project meeting and worked with the prime contractors to achieve the desired result.

The schematic design of the auditorium addition began at the opposite end of the building. We were able to persuade the owner that it must be located closer to the existing band room after meeting with the departments affected by the project to discover their needs.  The primary use of the auditorium would be band and chorus.  Both activities are located at the southeast end of the building.  There was a challenge to designing the addition where it would be most efficient. An existing through-road would be blocked by the new construction.  We were able to convince the owner that the auditorium must be in that location.  The high water table at the back of the building helped convince them. We worked with the landscape architect consultant to create a turn-around to aid in the flow of traffic had utilized that through road for years.  The addition also eliminated one of the tennis courts. 

The scope of work at the existing smaller auditorium remained in flux until late in the design process. That scope developed into a large instruction space with perimeter storage spaces, a display cove, guidance offices and a lounge.  The existing stage was transformed into a chorus rehearsal space and offices.

Work at several buildings included coating the existing built-up roofing with an aluminized roofing product to extend the expected life.  One building had a foam roof that was recoated with foam.  We were surprised to learn from the owner’s buildings and grounds manager that the foam roof is preferred over the built-up and single ply membrane roofs because it is easier to maintain.

During construction document production, the concerns of the code official were identified and incorporated into the plans..  

After the bidding period, it was decided to pursue the additional funds necessary to include all the alternates with the work.  The initial bids would have prohibited the construction of the auditorium and a new turf field.  The turf specification was difficult to write to satisfy the three-manufacturer requirement.  We were able to satisfy that requirement by bidding each manufacturer as a separate alternate.  The three products were not equal in several aspects.  It was clear which manufacturer was preferred but the decision could not be solidified until the real cost numbers were known.  The preferred manufacturer provided the lowest bid. That meant which system to use became an easy decision.

The General Contractor for the original bid was not the preferred contractor.  Through the vetting process and the time lapse between the original bid and the subsequent bids received after obtaining the additional funds, the owner was able to approve the award of the contract to the preferred General Contractor who did an excellent job constructing the project on schedule and under budget.