1 / 23

An Analysis of Building Systems, Methods and Major Equipment in Relation to Construction Costs

An Analysis of Building Systems, Methods and Major Equipment in Relation to Construction Costs. Steve Taynton, AIA, Chief School Planning with statistical analysis by Daniel Boyette NC Dept. of Public Instruction CEFPI International Conference, Toronto, CA October 8, 2007. Purpose & Method.

derica
Télécharger la présentation

An Analysis of Building Systems, Methods and Major Equipment in Relation to Construction Costs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Analysis of Building Systems, Methods and Major Equipment in Relation to Construction Costs Steve Taynton, AIA, Chief School Planning with statistical analysis by Daniel Boyette NC Dept. of Public Instruction CEFPI International Conference, Toronto, CA October 8, 2007

  2. Purpose & Method • To find correlations between various construction variables and average costs. • Over 300 new school projects in NC1996-2007 • Compares project delivery methods, building code construction types, roofing, sprinklers, structural systems, number of stories, HVAC systems, etc. to overall construction bid costs.

  3. Method of Comparison • Each variable was compared to the overall average construction cost for the year in which the project was bid • Overall average difference for all years for that variable was then recorded • Average difference did vary (sometimes significantly) from year to year and among projects

  4. Cautions • A high or low difference in costs does not necessarily indicate a direct correlation – only an association. Difference can be due to other factors • Percent difference in cost for one variable is not a valid number. Other variables (including those not analyzed) contribute to the difference as well.

  5. Project Delivery • Several methods were examined • Construction Management (NOT at risk) • Traditional Design – Bid – Build • Design Build • Negotiated Contract • Other (not specified)

  6. Grade Level • Although many different grade level schools exist in North Carolina including K-2, K-8, 3-6, 10-12, we examined only the most common: • (P)K-5 (elementary) • 6-8 (middle) • 9-12 (high)

  7. Construction Type • The vast majority of schools in North Carolina have been constructed with three different Building Code types of Construction: • IBC IB (Southern Type II)/Fire Resistive • IBC IIA (Southern IV-P)/Non-Comb. 1 hr protected • IBC IIB (Southern IV-UP)/ Non-Comb. Unprotected.

  8. Sprinkler • Until NC adopted the International Building Code in about 2002, there was little, if any, code advantage to install sprinklers. • Following the adoption of the IBC, assembly spaces had to be sprinklered plus any educational areas larger than 20K sq. ft, so their use has become common.

  9. Variables associated with Lower Cost

  10. Variables associated with Higher Cost

  11. Summary and Conclusions • Remember: Cheaper is NOT BETTER! • Some items are only marginally more expensive than average yet lend quality and longevity • Some variables that appear significantly higher or lower may actually be due to other variable(s) • Many of the less expensive variables have shorter life, higher maintenance and /or higher energy cost which results in actual higher cost over the building’s life.

  12. The Future • Where should we go from here? • What additional variables should we track? • Questions?

More Related