Establish a move out schedule for the tenant (Microsoft)
(Background information for Question # 1): During our time together on Saturday we spent a lot of time talking about project management and three points of the project management triangle, IE Cost; Schedule (Time); and Performance (Scope). Most of our example revolved around contrasting how changes in either cost or schedule effect/impacts one another. For this discussion I want you to contrast the effects/impact with an example of schedule and performance of a facility project. As a guide I will provide one of my projects as an example:

Bellevue College Corporate and Continuing Education facility was unsuccessful at re-negotiating their off campus lease for the facility they were in, so sought other options. The course of actions that was accepted and implemented by the College was to:

Buy an existing facility

Establish a move out schedule for the tenant (Microsoft)

Then renovate the facility from offices and a small data center into a classroom building with administrative spaces

Our timeline after procurement of the facility was about 110 days (Thanksgiving to April 1st), a very aggressive (optimistic) schedule.
The electrical infrastructure for this three floor facility drove the decision for putting the computer labs on the third floor to save of cost and ensure completion of the computer labs first to accommodate the College’s computer classes starting up again in April. All of the non-computer classroom could remain in their current temporary leased space with Bellevue School District if needed and move those classroom into the new facility for a summer quarter start (IE July 1st)
One of the few contingency plans for missing our occupancy date for the entire facility was to do a phased construction plan so that the third floor was completed first.
The third floor was where all of the computer labs were located based on being need in April while the general education classrooms could have a delayed opening, if required, by the construction schedule until July.
Putting all of the computer labs on the third floor was the best for construction cost because of electrical infrastructure.
This contingency plan included coordination with the permitting agency for a floor by floor occupancy permit if absolutely necessary because of the construction timeline, therefore permitting us use for the computer classroom while the first and second floors renovation was being completed.
Bellevue College’s new Corporate and Continuing Education facility open in April for classes in the computer labs, and in July for the entire facility. The project came in very close to its established budget.
My example for performance of the Bellevue College’s new Corporate and Continuing Education facility revolve around American with Disability Act (ADA) compliance when the elevator is out of service for various legitimate reasons. Both the first and the second floor of the Bellevue College’s new Corporate and Continuing Education facility are accessible for wheel chairs without the use of the building elevator. The third floor is not. Any general education class could be accommodated within any of the classrooms on all three floors. However the computer class must be taught in a computer lab and all the labs are located on the third floor, only.

The facility department foresaw this academic facility design flaw, and attempt to change the computer classroom deadline for availability (IE in April) or incorporate infrastructure for future computer labs on the second floor however all of our attempts were unsuccessful. This academic facility performance issue will be a challenge that will remain with Bellevue College long after this project was completed, IE in the summer of 2012.

(Question # 1): For your first first Discussion Question please cite (from personal knowledge or research) a project performance issue that resulted from schedule considerations/decisions on a facilities project, (10 Points).

(Question # 2): For our second Discussion Question please highlight one of the key points you plan to use in our current and/or future work that you obtained by participating and/or reviewing Scott Yost’s presentation about the National Museum of the Marine Corps (10 Points).

(Student Peer Discussion): Follow Up Discussion with a minimum of one student peer about their Module # 2 Discussion Answers (10 Points)

After your initial response to our two Discussion questions after our second class meeting (a 20 point opportunity), you shall post a follow up response to at least one other student peers/classmates (an additional 10 point opportunity). When you make comments to any of your student peers please start your follow up comments by addressing your classmate by their name in the first line of your follow up comment posting.

The points for your follow up discussion are based on the following:
Completion of your post within the time frame published for this course.
The content and meaningful relevance for this course’s learning objectives and other course materials are evident in how you communicate with your student peers.
Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation etc. are expected with as a business professional, and we get judged on the appearance of our communications (something to be practiced with this course). A succinct writing style that clearly communicates your message should be your objectives. It will be recognized and appreciated as you progress in your career.

The Person to respond to
Larry,

In response to you second discussion question about Scott Yost’s Presentation, I would first like to say that I appreciated Scott spending his Saturday with us discussing a wide variety of facility related issues that he has faced during construction and operations at the National Museum of the Marine Corps. I took away a few different items for his presentation. One that I really had not considered before and another that reassured me that we were handling one of our own projects correctly.

The concept of fully assessing your clients specifically related to the increase in ADA parking was an interesting concept that I had not given much thought about prior to his presentation. I have been involved in several different parking lots / park and rides where the number of ADA stalls were simply determined by what the code requires. ADA parking stall add to the cost of any parking lot project because of the increased space required, additional curb cuts, pavement markings, and signage. For someone to assess their clients to that level and to willingly and purposefully go above and beyond what the code requires was very insightful to me. I will now look at projects a little differently and not allow the answer of “It meets the code requirements” to be the final answer if I feel further consideration is warranted.

The other item I took away from Scott’s presentation came for my question about the utilities to the facility and the preplanning for the expansion. I had asked Scott if they had sized the utilities initially with the current expansion project in mind. Scott explained that they had with the exception of the HVAC system that the new expansion project would need. The electrical service, water, and sewer were all sized so that additional services would not need to be brought into the new expanded facility. This is often a point of contention when discussing projects at Intercity Transit. We often find ourselves weighing the immediate cost of paying for larger utilities with the benefit of having them properly sized for potentially future projects. When the future project is simply based on a master plan that may simply be a pipe dream that no one knows when or if it will ever be built, the immediate cost of the extra utilities often becomes more difficult to justify. In Scott’s case at the National Museum of the Marine Corps facility, it sounds like their plan all came together and the foresight to plan ahead was well worth the initial added cost. I will keep his insight in the back of my mind when discussing our own projects, especially if the potential for future expansion is a potential factor.