1. T HE M OORE B UILDING A DDITION U NIVERSITY P ARK, PA 16802 M OHAMMAD A LHUSAINI C ONSTRUCTION M ANAGEMENT P HOTO C OURTESY OF OPP

2. P ROJECT B ACKGROUND B UILDING S UMMARY D EPARTMENT B UDGET S IZE T IME P ROJECT D ELIVERY M ETHOD C LASSIFICATION D EPARTMENT OF P SYCHOLOGY AT PSU ~$26.1 M ILLION S TATE F UNDS I NCLUDED 57,000 SF ADDITION + 16,000 SF N ORTH W ING J UNE 2010 TO J ANUARY 2012 D ESIGN B ID B UILD B (B USINESS ) B UILDING S YSTEMS S TEEL STRUCTURE L ATERALLY BRACED FRAMES B ASEMENT HOUSES MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT B RICK VENEER FAÇADE + ALUMINUM PANELS & GLAZING G ROUND LEVEL GLASS CURTAIN WALL U NDERPINNING REQUIRED FOR EXISTING STRUCTURE B UILDING S ITE & B RACING P HOTO : B ING M APS P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS

3. T HE T HEME D EPARTMENT OF P SYCHOLOGY R ESEARCH INTENSIVE – 45% OF LIBERAL ARTS RESEARCH FUNDS F OCUS ON NEW AND INNOVATIVE RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUES C URRENTLY LOCATED IN EXISTING M OORE B UILDING “D ISPLACED ” RESEARCHERS G OAL : E XPLORE METHODS THAT WILL [ THEORETICALLY ] ALLOW THE DEPT. OF PSYCHOLOGY TO BE ABLE TO OCCUPY THE M OORE B UILDING A DDITION AT A DATE SOONER THAN ANTICIPATED. T OP P RIORITIES ( CONSTRUCTION ) 1.E XPAND & ENHANCE LABS 2.L AB TECHNOLOGIES 3.S OUNDPROOFING P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS

4. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE M ECHANICAL B READTH PRESENTED S TRUCTURAL B READTH NOT PRESENTED A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL A NALYSIS IV: BIM THROUGH AE

5. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A SBESTOS C OST OF REMOVING ASBESTOS FROM N ORTH W ING : ~$350K N ORTH W ING 16,000SF S ELECTIVE D ECONSTRUCTION S TRUCTURALLY INDEPENDENT OF ADDITION C ONTAINS ASBESTOS S ELECTIVE D EMOLITION W ILL OCCUR ON N ORTH W ING C ANNOT BEGIN BEFORE A SBESTOS A BATEMENT C OST OF SELECTIVE DEMOLITION ON N ORTH W ING : ~$280K C ALENDAR DAYS REQUIRED FOR A SBESTOS A BATEMENT AND S ELECTIVE D EMOLITION : 103 D AYS

6. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION D EMOLITION /D ECONSTRUCTION 16,000SF P ROPOSED SCHEDULE ACCELERATOR M UST OCCUR AFTER ASBESTOS ABATEMENT D ECONSTRUCTION ; LESS DEBRIS, LOW COST 9 WORKDAYS TO DECONSTRUCT $81K TO DECONSTRUCT S UPERSTRUCTURE R ECONSTRUCTION 16,000SF T HIS NEEDS TO OCCUR AFTER DEMOLITION C ONSIDERED AS PART OF ENTIRE STRUCTURE C OST /SF OF STEEL W / O HSS B RACING 26 WORKDAYS TO ERECT SUPERSTRUCTURE ( SCHEDULE - DERIVED ) 10 WORKDAYS TO ERECT SUPERSTRUCTURE ( COMPARATIVE ) $426K COST OF RECONSTRUCTION A DDED B ENEFITS P OSSIBLE INCREASE IN BASEMENT SIZE BY 5,400SF & U NDERPINNING WILL BE ELIMINATED FOR N ORTH W ING C OST WOULD BE $24K LESS THAN UNDERPINNING ALONE

7. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION R ISKS I F >17,000SF ASBESTOS ; LOSSES D EMOLITION POLLUTION DANGEROUS ; 9 X INCREASE F INAL C OMPARISON ( NO ASBESTOS ) S ELECTIVE D EMOLITION C OST : $237K D URATION : 29 WORKDAYS F INAL C OMPARISON ( NO ASBESTOS ) D EMOLITION /D ECONSTRUCTION C OST : $390K D URATION : 19 WORKDAYS G ENERAL C ONDITIONS S AVINGS : $34.4K B ASED ON $17K/ WK

8. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE F AÇADE S YSTEM C OMPOSITION B RICK VENEER M ETAL PANELS G LAZING F AÇADE S YSTEM I MPORTANCE F ACE OF PSYCHOLOGY AT PSU A RCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

9. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE B RICK V ENEER 13,300SF B RICK F AÇADE (+ WASTE ) CFMF B ACKING 46 PSF – 307.5 TONS 98 DAYS TO CONSTRUCT (F RAMING SEPARATE CONTRACT ) $300K TO CONSTRUCT P RECAST P ANELS (O LDCASTLE P RECAST ) 12,100SF B RICK F AÇADE (+ WASTE ) CFMF B ACKING 44.5 PSF – 270.5 TONS 7-20 DAYS TO CONSTRUCT ( AFTER SUPERSTRUCTURE ) $304-363K TO CONSTRUCT S CHEDULE IMPACT : 67 DAYS REDUCTION

10. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE S TRUCTURAL B READTH P ERFORMED HAND CALCULATION P ERFORMED STAAD ANALYSIS R EALIZED LOAD IMPLICATIONS B ENDING MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS IN REPORT P RECAST PANELS HAVE NO ILL EFFECT ON STRUCTURE M ECHANICAL B READTH R V ALUES ( COLORADO ENERGY) R & U Values for Different Systems MaterialR Value/InchBrick Façade Precast Façade Concrete0.080.00 (0”)0.40 (5”) Brick0.110.44 (4”)0.11 (1”) Air Film1.00 (0.5” – 4”)1.00 (2”)0.00 (0”) Rigid Insulation4.008.00 (2”)0.00 (0”) Polyurethane Insulation 6.250.00 (0”)12.50 (2”) Sum of R Values9.4413.01 U Value (1/R)0.10590.0769BTU/(ft 2 * ͦF * h) Energy Through Façade Systems q = U * A * Δ T Brick Façade q = 0.1059 * 12100SF * 25 F 32,044BTU/h 279,900,0 00 BTU/year Precast Façade q = 0.0769 * 12100SF * 25 F 23,251BTU/h 203,100,0 00 BTU/year Difference76,800,00BTU/year 22,500kWh/year $0.1026/kWh Commercial 2010 Data Cost Saving = 22,500*0.1026 = 2,310 $/year E NERGY S AVINGS

11. P HOTO : G OOGLE P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE L OGISTICS T RANSPORT BY S EMI - TRAILER M AX LOAD 55,000 LBS 8.5’ X 53’ (W X L) 10 TRIPS REQUIRED S LOT = ROW ON BED OF TRUCK A MPLE TURNING ROOM FORM PARK AVENUE TO SITE P ANELS 66 PANELS R ANGE OF SIZES : 3’ X 24’ TO 12’ X 30’ Trailer Slot 1 (x2)2 (x2)3 (x3)4 (x1)5 (x2) 112x306x2412x199x2412x24 12x2012x173x249x2412x24 212x306x2412x194x2412x24 12x2012x173x244x2412x24 33x2412x173x244x2412x24 12x2012x173x244x2412x24 12x15 43x2412x1712x193x2412x24 12x2012x1712x193x2412x24 12x15 53x2412x1512x196x24 3x2412x1712x196x24 12x19 63x2412x1512x1912x16 3x2412x1712x197x16 12x19 73x248x2412x19 3x24 8x2412x19

12. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE A RCHITECTURAL I MPLICATIONS M AY NOT BE APPROPRIATE H IGHER COST TO BETTER MIMIC MASONRY C ONCLUSIONS C OSTS MORE S AVES AT LEAST 2 MONTHS S TRUCTURALLY SOUND P ERFORMS BETTER IN ENERGY SAVINGS : $2.3K/ YEAR R EDUCES ON - SITE CLUTTER AND WASTE M AY BE HARD TO COORDINATE P HOTO : G OOGLE

13. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL S IGNIFICANCE OF S TRUCTURAL S TEEL M OST IMPORTANT CRITICAL PATH I TEM 2 UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS AT ACCELERATING 1 ST ATTEMPT : A CCELERATE FOUNDATIONS 2 ND ATTEMPT : A CCELERATE STEEL FABRICATION S HORTCOMINGS : N O MONEY INVOLVED D ESIGN A SSIST (DA) C ONTRACT S IMILAR TO DESIGN - BUILD, BUT FOR ONE SUBCONTRACT ( E. G. STEEL PRIME ) M OORE G OAL : ACCELERATE STEEL FABRICATION & ERECTION D ESIGN A SSIST P ROCESS P HASE I: O WNER MUST HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET P HASE II: C OLLABORATION BETWEEN DA PROFESSIONAL / CONTRACTOR AND OWNER TO CREATE DESIGN GOALS AND SPECIFICATIONS P HASE III: C ONTRACT ADAPTED FOR DA INTRODUCTION, AND DA PROFESSIONAL FORMALLY SELECTED. Owner (PSU/OPP) OPP Project Manager Construction Management Firm All Subcontracors Steel Prime Contractor (DA)

14. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL C ASE S TUDIES B ASED ON D ON P ROFFER STUDIES ON H AVEN S TEEL D IRECT DA CORRELATION P ERFORMED IN 2000’ S C ASE 1: D AKOTA D OME S COPE : TEAR DOWN AIR SUPPORTED FABRIC ROOF OFF DOME ; CREATE STRUCTURAL STEEL ROOF S CHEDULE : 4.5 M ONTHS S UCCESSFUL THROUGH DA CONTRACT C ASE 2: C ONVENTION C ENTER S UCCESS STORY AS WELL ! P HOTO : P ROFFER

15. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL S URVEY P ERFORMED TO QUANTIFY BENEFITS / DRAWBACKS OF DA 50+ PARTICIPANTS M AJORITY CM, OWNERS AND PM S REPLIED M OST PERFORMED >1 DA PROJECTS Results Averaged QuestionAverage 3. How much more (or less) effective is a design-assist contract (generally) in terms of schedule reduction than a typical contract? 15.385% 4. How much more (or less) effective is a design-assist contract for structural steel in terms of schedule reduction than a typical contract? 15.769% 5. How much more (or less) effective is a design-assist contract (generally) in terms of cost reduction than a typical contract? 10.388% 6. How much more (or less) effective is a design-assist contract for structural steel in terms of cost reduction than a typical contract? 8.462% 7. How would you quantify the risk involved with taking on a design-assist contract as opposed to holding a typical contract with a steel subcontractor, as a percentage of the contract value? 13.88% S URVEY R ESULTS Final Analysis Item % Average increase/decrease Original QuantityIncrease/(Savings) Schedule Impact15.769% 71 Days (from design to delivery of structural steel) (12 work days) Cost Impact8.462%$1.28M (structural steel only)($108K) Risk Involved 13.88% $26.1M($3.62M) S URVEY R ESULTS

16. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL C ONCLUSIONS O WNER BUY - IN A CTION MUST BE TAKEN EARLY M OST COST SAVINGS IN TERMS OF LESS CHANGES E ARLY PURCHASE OF STEEL T RUSTWORTHY CONTRACTORS B ARRIER T HE ONLY BARRIER TO THIS APPROACH IS MONEY

17. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE I MPORTANT TO NOTE P REVIOUS TRIAL : GOOD AND BAD ! AE222 CONSISTS OF INEXPERIENCED STUDENTS, MANY HAVE LITTLE / NO EXPERIENCE WITH R EVIT L ACK OF DEFINITIVE STANDARD OPP CONSIDERED AS CLIENT IN THIS ANALYSIS O UTLINE C OLLABORATION EFFORT BETWEEN OPP AND AE DEPT. M EDIUM : AE222 M AIN PARTICIPANTS : D R. E D G ANNON, C OLLEEN K ASPRZAK, C RAIG D UBLER, P AUL B OWERS, D R. D AVID R ILEY P HOTO : G OOGLE

18. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE OPP: W HAT DO THEY WANT ? U SEABLE MODELS M ODELING UN - MODELED BUILDINGS AND RENOVATIONS 425 PROJECTS AVAILABLE M.E.P. MODELED ACCURATELY E XTERIOR MODELED TO CLOSE RESEMBLANCE ( DIFFERING OPINION AVAILABLE !) S PACES NEED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OPP: W HY DO THEY WANT IT ? P HOTO : G OOGLE BIM Model Asset Management Preventative Maintenance Enterprise Management System Complete Item Data Maximo Integration Ordering Capabilities B.A.S. Integration Space & Operational Management

19. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE PSU AE E DUCATION IS NUMBER 1; NO INTRUSIONS N O TEDIOUS MODELING ; NO BENEFIT E QUAL LEARNING OPPORTUNITY M UST BE RELATED TO CLASSWORK D UAL - BENEFIT A PPROACH F ULLY INTEGRATED APPROACH – 2 ND TO 3 RD YEAR E XTERIOR AND INTERIOR SPACES MODELED IN 2 ND YEAR 3 RD YEAR : S TRUCTURAL CLASS : MODEL STRUCTURE AND USE IN STAAD M ECHANICAL CLASS : MODEL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND USE IF NECESSARY E LECTRICAL C LASS : MODEL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND LIGHT FIXTURES CM CLASS : PERFORM BIM INTEGRATION TO PUT MODELS TOGETHER A COUSTICS CAN ALSO BE INTEGRATED 4 TH YEAR : IF ALSO INTEGRATED, COULD BE USED FOR DATA OPP & PSU AE collaborate to select target SF and cost/SF expected as well as SF limits (if OPP budget limited) Preliminary building lists selected in order to be used for modeling; drawings prepared PSU AE assigns drawings to students in AE222 Model structure utilized in analyses in AE308 Model MEP enhanced in AE 310 and AE 311 Models produced in “fragments” Model acoustics analyzed and optimized in AE309 Model completely put together in AE372 as a final piece Model details and textures enhanced in some areas in AE444

20. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE C HALLENGES V ALUE 3 D MODEL VS. BIM MODEL T RIAL AND ERROR SUFFERED UNUSUAL FATE V ERY OPTIMISTIC T OO MANY CONSTRAINTS L OST INVESTMENTS O FF - LIMITS BUILDINGS OPP IN FULL CONTROL S TUDENTS BENEFIT FORM PAY AND EXPERIENCE N O RESTRICTIONS TO PROGRAM LACCD CURRENTLY DO THIS P HOTO : G OOGLE I NTERNSHIP

21. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I: D EMOLITION A NALYSIS II: F AÇADE M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III: S TRUCTURAL S TEEL A NALYSIS IV: BIM T HROUGH AE C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS C ONCLUSIONS A NALYSIS 1: A SBESTOS MUST BE CONSIDERED ON DEMO PROJECTS F ULL DEMOLITION WILL REDUCE SCHEDULE MARGINALLY A NALYSIS 2: F AÇADE CHANGE MUST BE INCORPORATED EARLY IN PROJECT – D ESIGN ISSUES A NALYSIS 3: DA CONTRACT MUST BE A PLANNING PHASE THOUGHT C OMMUNICATION IS KEY A NALYSIS 4: T HE ANSWER MAY BE SIMPLER THAN YOU THINK ! I NTERNSHIP MAY BE THE BEST METHOD

22. A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS ANDY SCHRENK CHAD SPACKMAN COLLEEN KASPRZAK CRAIG DUBLER, (PH.D.) DAVID RILEY, PH.D. DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AT PENN STATE ED GANNON, PH.D. JAMES FAUST, P.E. JOHN BECHTEL, P.E. DR. MOSES LING, P.E., R.A. OFFICE OF PHYSICAL PLANT P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS

23. Q & A P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS ??

24. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS Asbestos Abatement Cost Analysis - North Wing Item UnitCost / Unit 1 Asbestos Abatement & Removal16,375 SF$20/SF$327,500 2 Selective Demolition for Asbestos Preparation3,986 SF$10/SF$39,860 3 Temporary Equipment for Abatement1 EA$25,000 4 Selective Demolition for North Wing16,375 SF$12.10/SF$198,080 5Demolition of Concrete, Casework etc.16,375 SF$2.4/SF$39,303 Total$629,750 Asbestos Abatement Schedule Impact Analysis – North Wing + Selective Demolition W/O Basement AbatementW/ Basement AbatementTotal Area (SF) Total Days93 days207 days16,375 SF Only Workdays80 days177 days Schedule Day/CSF0.4885 days/CSF1.0809 days/CSF Schedule Hrs./CSF11.7252 hrs./CSF25.9420 hrs./CSF A PPENDIX U NDERPINNING Underpinning Elimination and Basement Expansion Analysis ConditionItem Quantit y Unitcos t Totalcost ExistingSOG Basement5,788 SFSF 9.26 $53,596.8 8 DeductUnderpin North Wing1,620 SFSF 50 $81,000.0 0 AddSOG New Basement5,461 SFSF 9.26 $50,568.8 6 AddConcrete Deck Fill New5,461 SFSF 6.41 $35,005.0 1 DeductStrip Footings 18X12136 LFLF 130 $17,680.0 0 AddStrip Footings 24X12500 LFLF 140 $70,000.0 0 Total Cost$57,000

25. P RESENTATION O UTLINE I NTRODUCTION P ROJECT B ACKGROUND T HE T HEME P RESENTATION O VERVIEW A NALYSIS I A NALYSIS II M ECHANICAL B READTH A NALYSIS III A NALYSIS IV C ONCLUSIONS A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS & T HANKS Masonry Construction Costs ItemQuantityUnitcostTotalcost Metal Panels2,020SF40$80,800 Window Sills585LF35$20,475 $101,275 Masonry Veneer13,360SF20$267,200 Stone Base - Granite168SF100$16,800 Caulking & Sealants13,360SF0.75$10,020 Rigid Insulation 3"13,260SF2.5$33,150 $327,170 TOTAL$428,500 A PPENDIX