Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Case study : assessment of innovation on a P3 project process perspective Melej Richter, Nicolás 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_melej_nicolas.pdf [ 5.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0165662.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0165662-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0165662-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0165662-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0165662-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0165662-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0165662-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0165662-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0165662.ris

Full Text

CASE STUDY: ASSESSMENT OF INNOVATION ON A P3 PROJECT PROCESS PERSEPECTIVE by Nicol?s Melej Richter B.Sc., Universidad Diego Portales, 2008  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies  (Civil Engineering)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   November 2013   ? Nicol?s Melej Richter, 2013  ii  Abstract  This study focuses on the construction business, where new ideas, system technologies, new and or enhanced materials, innovative construction techniques and associated equipment and facilities management processes are being constantly developed to aid greater efficiency in terms of time, money and functionality.  This thesis includes an analysis of innovation in terms of the process perspective between the indicative design and proposals submitted for the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre building (IHSC) in Kelowna, BC. The study focus relates to how the facility will be constructed and how it will be operated. Items reviewed and compared are: structure, schedule and energy consumption. For this study the indicative design was used as a starting point and basis for comparison with the proposals submitted in response to the RFP.  For the purpose of this study a description of innovation was selected as, ?The use of advanced technologies, methodologies, and clever ideas that result in a positive incremental change compared to the indicative design?. Along with this definition, a set of performance metrics were defined for the purpose of characterizing the proposals and then comparing them with the indicative design.    iii  Preface  This research was conducted with the cooperation of Partnerships BC (PBC), who made possible the opportunity to analyze and assess innovation for the Interior Heart and Surgical Center, developed under a P3 procurement mode. PBC facilitated the information pertaining to the indicative design and the proposals submitted for the IHSC project. This study only includes an assessment of innovation in terms of a process perspective. In order to achieve a broader understanding of this study, the work of Dalencon (2013) focused on the product perspective of the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre building    iv  Table of contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of contents .......................................................................................................................... iv List of tables................................................................................................................................ viii List of figures ..................................................................................................................................x Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiv Dedication .....................................................................................................................................xv Chapter  1: Thesis overview ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Motivation ................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Research challenges ................................................................................................ 6 1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Literature review ....................................................................................................... 20 1.5.1 Public private partnerships .................................................................................... 20 1.5.2 Innovation ............................................................................................................. 22 1.5.3 Construction performance and innovation metrics ............................................... 25 1.5.4 Experience in P3 health care projects in Australia, U.K and Canada ................... 34 1.6 Project overview and selection process .................................................................... 40 1.7 Research contributions .............................................................................................. 45 v  1.8 Thesis structure ......................................................................................................... 46 Chapter  2: Assessment of innovation through indicative design and proposal characterization................................................................................................................................................... 47 2.1 Indicative design analysis ......................................................................................... 48 2.2 General description of proponent solutions .............................................................. 57 2.2.1 Proponent 1 ........................................................................................................... 57 2.2.2 Proponent 2 ........................................................................................................... 61 2.2.3 Proponent 3 ........................................................................................................... 66 2.3 Proposal analysis ....................................................................................................... 70 2.3.1 Structure (RFP 3.2.3.4) ......................................................................................... 70 2.3.1.1 Structure- requirements (RFP 3.2.3.4) .......................................................... 71 2.3.1.2 Assessment of innovation (RFP 3.2.3.4) ...................................................... 73 2.3.1.2.1 Proponent 1 ............................................................................................. 73 2.3.1.2.2 Proponent 2 ............................................................................................. 78 2.3.1.2.3 Proponent 3 ............................................................................................. 81 2.3.1.2.4 Comparison between indicative design and proponents ......................... 83 2.3.2 Project schedule (RFP 3.1.1) ................................................................................ 92 2.3.2.1 Project schedule-requirements (RFP 3.1.1) .................................................. 92 2.3.2.2 Assessment of innovation (RFP 3.1.1) ......................................................... 94 2.3.2.2.1 Proponent 1 ............................................................................................. 94 2.3.2.2.2 Proponent 2 ............................................................................................. 97 2.3.2.2.3 Proponent 3 ............................................................................................. 99 2.3.2.2.4 Comparison between indicative design and proponents ....................... 101 vi  2.3.3 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification (RFP 3.2.4.3) ........................... 105 2.3.3.1 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification-requirements (RFP 3.2.4.3) ...   ..................................................................................................................... 105 2.3.3.2 Assessment of innovation-energy efficiency and LEED gold certification (RFP 3.2.4.3) ............................................................................................................... 105 2.3.3.2.1 Proponent 1 ........................................................................................... 105 2.3.3.2.2 Proponent 2 ........................................................................................... 108 2.3.3.2.3 Proponent 3 ........................................................................................... 110 2.3.3.2.4 Comparison between indicative design and proponents ....................... 114 2.4 Conclusions of the chapter ...................................................................................... 115 Chapter  3: Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 117 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 117 3.2 Research objectives ................................................................................................. 117 3.3 Work methodology ................................................................................................. 118 3.4 Research challenges ................................................................................................ 120 3.5 Overview of conclusions......................................................................................... 122 3.6 Details of the process perspective study ................................................................. 124 3.6.1 Process perspective ............................................................................................. 124 3.6.1.1 Structure ...................................................................................................... 124 3.6.1.2 Project schedule .......................................................................................... 126 3.6.1.3 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification .......................................... 126 3.7 Results analysis ....................................................................................................... 127 3.8 Future work ............................................................................................................. 130 vii  References ...................................................................................................................................131 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................134 Appendix A: Indicative design ..................................................................................................135 Appendix B: General description of proponent solution .......................................................144 Appendix C: Structure ..............................................................................................................155    viii  List of tables  Table 1.1 Items of the RFP under analysis ................................................................................... 12 Table 1.2 Details of items under analysis ..................................................................................... 17 Table 1.3 Performance metrics ..................................................................................................... 19 Table 1.4 Performance metrics (Fowler ,Solana and Spees (2005)) ............................................. 26 Table 1.5 Performance metrics (Rankin et al. (2008)) .................................................................. 27 Table 1.6 Performance metrics (AMA Alexi Marmot Associates for the UK Higher Education Space Management Group (2006)) ............................................................................................... 28 Table 1.7 Performance metrics (Stoy and Kytzia (2005)) ............................................................ 29 Table 1.8 Performance metrics (Stoy and Schalcher(2007)) ........................................................ 30 Table 1.9 Performance metrics (Chan and Chan (2008)) ............................................................. 31 Table 1.10 List of factors affecting buildability ........................................................................... 32 Table 1.11 Summary of benefits and innovations identified in value for money reports produced by Partnerships BC for health care projects .................................................................................. 39 Table 2.1 Process view ................................................................................................................. 47 Table 2.2 Process view performance metrics ............................................................................... 49 Table 2.3 Functional program space ............................................................................................. 53 Table 2.4 Proponent 1 functional area .......................................................................................... 59 Table 2.5 Proponent 1 gross building area.................................................................................... 59 Table 2.6 Proponent 2 functional area .......................................................................................... 64 Table 2.7 Proponent 2 gross building area.................................................................................... 64 Table 2.8 Proponent 3 functional area .......................................................................................... 68 ix  Table 2.9 Proponent 3 gross building area.................................................................................... 68 Table 2.10 Comparative metrics ................................................................................................... 85 Table 2.11 Total functional area ................................................................................................... 86 Table 2.12 Total gross floor area .................................................................................................. 86 Table 2.13 Proponent 1 important finish dates ............................................................................. 94 Table 2.14 Proponent 2 important finish dates ............................................................................. 97 Table 2.15 Proponent 3 important finish dates ........................................................................... 100 Table 2.16 Main activity durations ............................................................................................. 102 Table 2.17 Proponents milestones .............................................................................................. 103 Table 2.18 Proponent 1 energy target ......................................................................................... 108 Table 2.19 Proponent 2 energy target ......................................................................................... 110 Table 2.20 Proponent 3 energy target ......................................................................................... 113 Table 2.21 Target energy consumption ...................................................................................... 114 Table 2.22 Process summary metrics.......................................................................................... 116 Table 3.1 Possible areas of innovation ....................................................................................... 123 Table 3.2 Table of metrics-Process perspective ......................................................................... 129  x  List of figures  Figure 1.1 Methodology for assessing innovation .......................................................................... 8 Figure 1.2 Kelowna general hospital site plan .............................................................................. 41 Figure 2.1 Indicative design view corridors ................................................................................. 51 Figure 2.2 Kelowna general hospital site plan .............................................................................. 52 Figure 2.3 Indicative design exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue) ............................. 56 Figure 2.4 Proponent 1 exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue) ..................................... 58 Figure 2.5 Proponent 2 exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue) ..................................... 63 Figure 2.6 Proponent 3 exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue) ..................................... 67 Figure 2.7 Level 1 floor plans ....................................................................................................... 89 Figure 2.8 Level 2 floor plans ....................................................................................................... 90 Figure 2.9 Level 3 floor plans ....................................................................................................... 91 Figure 2.10 Milestones chart ....................................................................................................... 104 Figure A1 Indicative design site plan ......................................................................................... 136 Figure A2 Indicative design level 1 ............................................................................................ 137 Figure A3 Indicative design level 2 ............................................................................................ 138 Figure A4 Indicative design level 3 ............................................................................................ 139 Figure A5 Indicative design level 4 ............................................................................................ 140 Figure A6 Indicative design level 1 alternate ............................................................................. 141 Figure A7 Indicative design post construction settlements ........................................................ 142 Figure A8 Indicative design building load configuration ........................................................... 143 Figure B1 Proponent 1 level 1 and 2 Pre op to OR .................................................................... 145 xi  Figure B2 Proponent 1 level 2 OR to staff lounge...................................................................... 146 Figure B3 Proponent 1 level 1 and 2 Pre op to clean and cardiac OR to CSICU ....................... 147 Figure B4 Proponent 1 level 1 and 2 Pre op to OR .................................................................... 148 Figure B5 Proponent 2 level 1 Pre op to OR .............................................................................. 149 Figure B6 Proponent 2 level 1 PARR to Pre op ......................................................................... 150 Figure B7 Proponent 2 level 1 PARR to Pre op ......................................................................... 151 Figure B8 Proponent 2 level 1 links ........................................................................................... 152 Figure B9 Proponent 2 level 2 links ........................................................................................... 153 Figure B10 Proponent 2 level 3 links ......................................................................................... 154 Figure C1 Proponent 1 conceptual preload plan ......................................................................... 156 Figure C2 Proponent 1 conceptual stone columns ground improvement layout ........................ 157 Figure C3 Proponent 1 conceptual shoring, ................................................................................ 158 Figure C4 Proponent 1 structural plan foundation/crawl space .................................................. 159 Figure C5 Proponent 1 structural plan level 1 ............................................................................ 160 Figure C6 Proponent 1 structural plan level 2 ............................................................................ 161 Figure C7 Proponent 1 structural plan level 3 ............................................................................ 162 Figure C8 Proponent 1 structural plan level 4 ............................................................................ 163 Figure C9 Proponent 1 structural plan future level 4 .................................................................. 164 Figure C10 Proponent 1 structural plan level 5 .......................................................................... 165 Figure C11 Proponent 1 shear wall elevation ............................................................................. 166 Figure C12 Proponent 2 structure foundation ............................................................................. 167 Figure C13 Proponent 2 structure level 1 ................................................................................... 168 Figure C14 Proponent 2 structure level 2 ................................................................................... 169 xii  Figure C15 Proponent 2 structure level 3 ................................................................................... 170 Figure C16 Proponent 2 structure level 4 ................................................................................... 171 Figure C17 Proponent 2 structure level roof............................................................................... 172 Figure C18 Proponent 2 structure typical section ....................................................................... 173 Figure C19 Proponent 3 structure crawl and foundation space .................................................. 174 Figure C20 Proponent 3 structure main floor level .................................................................... 175 Figure C21 Proponent 3 structure level 2 ................................................................................... 176 Figure C22 Proponent 3 structure level 3 ................................................................................... 177 Figure C23 Proponent 3 structure level 4 ................................................................................... 178 Figure C24 Proponent 3 structure roof and future plan .............................................................. 179 Figure C25 Proponent 3 structure connecting links elevations and sections .............................. 180 Figure C26 Proponent 3 structure shear wall elevations and details .......................................... 181 Figure C27 Proponent 3 structure sections and details ............................................................... 182    xiii  Glossary  Public private partnership: Legally-binding contract between government and business for the provision of assets and the delivery of services that allocates responsibilities and business risks among the various partners. In a P3 arrangement, government remains actively involved throughout the project?s life cycle. The private sector is responsible for the project design, construction, finance and operations (Partnerships British Columbia 2003). Value for money: A measure of the extent to which cost savings are achieved when delivering a public infrastructure project through a P3 relative to a traditional government-led procurement approach (Garvin and Bosso 2008). LEED: Leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) consists of a suite of rating systems for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, homes and neighborhoods (Partnerships British Columbia, 2012). Net present cost: Refers to the value of periodic future cost outlays when they are expressed in current, or present day, dollars by discounting them using a client specified discount rate (Partnerships British Columbia, 2012). Design build (DB): The DB delivery model falls within the spectrum of partnership models. It expedites the delivery of the project relative to a DBB delivery model. With DB, the owner provides performance requirements and seeks multiple design-build proposals based on output specifications developed by the owner (Partnerships British Columbia 2010). Build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT): Public authority purchases services for fixed a period after which ownership reverts to the public authority  (McKee, Edwards, & Atun, 2006). xiv  Acknowledgements  I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Alan D. Russell who provided many hours of his time for advice and counsel during the developed of this work. His help and guidance were crucial during these years and I am convinced that without his support this work could not have been accomplished. Also I would like to thank Dr. Sheryl Staub-French for reviewing and commenting this work.  Thanks to Partnerships BC, for their cooperation for giving me access to one of their projects. Special thanks to Ms. Sarah Clark and Mr. Doug Ewing for providing me with the necessary information to develop this study.  Finally, I am sincerely grateful to my family for their constant support and understanding during this process. xv  Dedication  To my  family and friends for their constant love and motivation. Special thanks to Veronica, for her love, patience and unconditional support.  1  Chapter  1: Thesis overview   1.1 Introduction This thesis is one part of a two section study that performs an assessment of innovation in a specific project (IHSC) from the two perspectives of  product and process. This thesis treats only the process perspective of the study. In order to reach a more complete and comprehensive understanding of this study the work of Dalencon (2013) on a product perspective should be reviewed. This separation of division of work was adopted to guarantee conformity with the University of British Columbia?s Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies policy of independence amongst theses.   The concept of innovation has an important role to play in all industries. The focus of the research presented herein is on the role of innovation in the construction business, where new ideas, system technologies, new and or enhanced materials, innovative construction techniques and associated equipment and facilities management processes are being constantly developed in aid of greater efficiency in terms of time, money and functionality.  As outlined below, owners or their representatives frequently face several questions regarding innovation during the evaluation of proposals. These kind of questions are more important for the P3 delivery method since the private sector has the chance to include more innovation that other procurement methods (e.g. design-build or design-build-bid). The reason is that a public private partnership procurement method gives proponents the chance to evaluate and include tradeoffs between capital cost and future expenditures. 2  Questions of interest related to innovation include: (i) How best to define innovation to assist in determining its presence, its dimensions, and its contribution to project performance; (ii) What are the primary drivers of innovation; (iii) How does one stimulate the pursuit of beneficial innovation within an organization; (iv) What is the relationship between innovation and choice of procurement mode; (v) For design build and P3 procurement, how best to design an evaluation/scoring protocol to help guide proponents to emphasize dimensions of particular interest to the client, including relative importance or weighting, without incurring unanticipated and undesirable tradeoffs; (vi) To what degree is innovation present in the proposals proffered by those pursuing project opportunities, and in what dimensions (product, process, organizational, financial); (vii) How should an innovation be assessed in terms of its ability to satisfy performance required, to be equivalent or superior in terms of risk profile vis-a-vis proven solutions, etc.; and, (viii) What relationship exists between extent of innovation and success in terms of being the preferred proponent for a project.   3  This study includes an assessment in terms of innovation for specific items included in the proposals for the IHSC project from a process perspective. In order to perform this assessment a comparison between the RFP and the proposals submitted is conducted. More specifically, this assessment seeks to address question (vi) above and offers some insights with respect to questions (iv, v and viii) The Interior Health Surgical Project is a public private partnership between the Government of British Columbia and Plenary Group.  1.2 Motivation  This study is originated from the idea that ?P3 procurement generates innovation?, and tries to identify using specific performance metrics significant differences amongst proposals and the indicative design from a process perspective.   A public private partnership (P3 hereafter), is traditionally defined as a legally binding contract between a private partner and the government, normally a consortium in order to deliver, operate and maintain some asset during a specified time period. For a full-fledged P3 project, the private partner is responsible for the finance, design, construction, and commissioning of the project, as well as operation and maintenance for a specified period of operation. In some cases, some service delivery responsibilities can be assigned to the private sector partner.  A P3 is a procurement mode that tries to gather the advantages and strengths from the private and public sector as well. A considerable advantage from a public perspective is the fact that more risk can be transferred to the private partner than possible under traditional procurement 4  modes. In addition value for money (VfM) is defined as a measure of the extent to which cost savings are achieved when delivering a public infrastructure project through a P3 relative to a traditional government-led procurement approach (Garvin and Bosso 2008) is viewed as being positive in favour of P3.  From the private sector point of view, assuming the financial, design, construction and facility management (operation and maintenance of the physical infrastructure) functions associated with an infrastructure project can be a very profitable business if done well. Revenues are either collected directly from end users in the form of tolls (e.g. for highway, tunnel or bridge projects) or from government in terms of availability payments (e.g. hospitals, prisons, highways, water treatment facilities) (Partnerships British Columbia, 2003).  The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (2013) identifies countries where public health services P3s are more common. However each country uses a variety of procurement modes depending on the objectives of the public sector and private partner experience. For example Australia is the country with the highest number of models. Another example is the U.K which uses a design-build-finance and maintain (DBFM) procurement model. Canada, Spain and Portugal have also adopted similar procurement modes.   The inventory of Canadian P3 projects compiled by the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships indicates that healthcare is currently the most dynamic sector for P3 in Canada, with many projects in the procurement stage or already completed in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick. Specifically, the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships 5  (2013), indicates on their website that there are in Canada 71 P3 healthcare projects. 12 of these are in British Columbia - 8 are completed and operational, 1 is in the request for qualification (RFQ) stage, 1 is in the request for proposal (RFP) stage, and 2 under construction. The preferred model to date has been design-build-finance-maintain (DBFM).  1.3 Objectives The main objective of this work is to identify and evaluate the level of innovation (if any) included in the proposals submitted by each proponent for the IHSC project. Specifically this thesis analyzes the proposals from a process perspective (how the project will be constructed).  The assessment tries to find significant differences between the indicative design and the proposals. In order to achieve this objective a comparison between the indicative design and the proposals through specific performance metrics is conducted.   Specific objectives of this work are as follow: 1. Provide insights about the studies and research available with respect to the topic of innovation in the construction industry and its relationship to choice of procurement mode; 2. Create a process methodology that assists with identifying and evaluating innovation in proposals. Also present a list of metrics to help with the characterization of the project in terms of process perspective; 3. Identify particular innovations regarding the process perspective contained in the proponent proposals for the IHSC project; and, 6  4. Try to establish if innovation was in fact the reason of  significant differences(if any) found between the indicative design and the proposals for specific items (structure, schedule and energy consumption)  1.3.1 Research challenges Several challenges were found during the development of this work. These include: ? An important challenge is that the concept of innovation is subjective and depends on the different factors such the experience of the evaluator or the situation in which is involved. In other words, same process or idea can be defined as innovative or not depending on by whom the evaluation is being conducted or where. ? A challenge is to select or create specific performance metrics in order to characterize proposals. This was particularly hard given the complexity and multifunctional nature of the IHSC project ? Different designs and information formats included by each proponent made difficult the analysis and comparison of the proposals.  ? The large amount of and the confidentiality of some of the information included in the indicative design and proposals made challenging the analysis and comparison of proposals.   The information examined in this work comes from public sources and the Health Authority information facilitated by Partnerships BC. It included the following: ? RFP, including the indicative design architectural report, the geotechnical report, design and construction specifications, the project agreement, and design guidelines. 7  ? Proponent technical submissions, including schedules, design and construction strategies and drawings. ? Evaluation report compiled by the evaluation team.  Information regarding the capital cost and financial terms was not provided to the research team.  1.4 Methodology The focus is on permanent products as opposed to temporary products used in support of the construction process, although significant differences in temporary facilities (e.g. materials handling, lifting, off-site manufacture) could be a significant source of innovation.  The process perspective relates to how the facility will be constructed and how it will be operated. The focus is on the methodologies or techniques used to build and operate the facility, such as construction approach, and the facility and utilities management.   The items reviewed in this study are presented as follow (as included in the RFP) ? 3.1.1 Project schedule ? 3.2.3.4 Structure  ? 3.2.4.2 Energy efficiency and LEED certification    8  Chapter 2 includes an analysis and comparison in terms of process perspective between the indicative design and the proposals submitted for the IHSC project. Facts incorporated in the RFP and proposals are examined in Chapter 2. In this chapter and other sections of this work information quoted directly is presented in italics.   Figure 1.1 Methodology for assessing innovation   Initial meetings with PBCLiterature reviewDefinition of innovationRFP documentation reviewAssessing innovation Heart and Surgical Centre building (IHSC) Results and conclusions Process view How the facility will be constructed and how it will be operated  ? Structure ? Schedule ? Energy consumption 9  For the development of this thesis several steps were followed as shown in Figure 1.1. The description and scope of work of each step is described below  ? Meetings: An initial meeting with Partnerships BC?s president and CEO, Ms. Sarah Clark and Vice President Mr. Doug Ewing was conducted in order to discuss the scope of this study. It is observed that PBC was ?arm?s length? to this study in that their role was limited to facilitating the acquisition of RFP submission materials and related information.  ? Literature review: A comprehensive literature review was performed in terms of public private partnerships including, definition, experience in Canada and other countries. In this chapter innovation was studied with the purpose of knowing different definitions of innovation and also knowing the type of research available related to this study. Finally, the topics of construction performance, buildability and constructability and innovation metrics were studied in order to have useful indicators and metrics to characterize and evaluate each proposal. The review and analysis of the literature in terms of P3, innovation and performance metrics is presented in section 1.5.Literature review   10  ? Definition of innovation selected for this project: In order to assess innovation, a proper definition was needed. It is important to mention that special attention was required in order to identify innovation that could be included irrespective of the type of procurement method selected.  Many definitions of innovations were found, however for this project it was necessary to select one that meet the particular context. A definition based on Russell, Tawiah, and de Zoysa (2006) was selected as ?The use of advanced technologies, methodologies, and clever ideas that result in a positive incremental change compared to the indicative design?. The above definition helped to identify creative ideas or processes included in the proposals submitted for the Interior Health Surgical Center project.   The use of the author?s judgment was required to apply the above definition. Such judgment requires knowledge of the current state of the art in terms of design, construction and facilities management for the project type being studied, a breadth of knowledge that is hard to achieve in a study such as this one.  ? Review of request for proposal documentation: A complete review of the request for proposal including design guidelines, indicative design specifications, geotechnical report, review and evaluation criteria, was performed in order to understand the project and the specific exigencies of the Health Authority.   11  ? Assessment of innovation:  Chapter 2 includes an assessment and identification of innovation in terms of a process perspective. As mentioned previously, the assessment involves an study of the documentation included in the proposals as well as the indicative design. In order to perform the assessment a characterization of specific items included in the proposals was conducted and then compared against the indicative design (structure, schedule and energy consumption)  In conducting a study such as this, one of the challenges is to be able to organize and separate relevant information from the significant volume of material available. In order to focus on the assessment of innovation, all the information provided in the proposals such as activity durations, energy consumption, travel distances and other measures are used as they are presented in the documents. Independent corroboration of this information has not been and could not be pursued. Proponent information available for this study is based on their respective technical submissions in accordance with the project RFP, including schedules, design and construction strategies and drawings. For this study, information regarding capital cost and financial terms was not available    12  Summarized in Table 1.1 are the points examined in each proposal for the process views of the IHSC project.  Process view 3.1.1 Project schedule 3.2.3.4 Structure  3.2.4.2 Energy efficiency and LEED certification Table 1.1 Items of the RFP under analysis  It is observed that the proposal that scores best does not necessarily exhibit the highest level of innovation ? there might be a correlation between the two, but there is definitely not a one to one relationship.  Details of the scoring scheme stated in the RFP are as follows, along with a few observations shown in italics, as appropriate.  1. A proposal must be technically compliant [all proposals submitted met this criterion]. 2. The RFP indicates an affordability ceiling for the financial submission. It is indicated that the maximum NPC included in each proposal must be less that the indicated affordability ceiling. [The net present cost submitted by each proponent was not available for this study.]  3. The affordability ceiling indicated in the RFP is $128.17 million (nominal)  13  4. A tiered scope ladder list was given to assist, if necessary, with achieving affordability limits.  [For all proposals submitted, use was not made of the scope ladder]  However, the scope ladder list is provided here for completeness: (a) Tier 1 changes (may be made in any order) 1. Reduce number of public elevators but retain elevator shaft for future fit-out; 2. Reduce or omit the requirements for sunshades; 3. Reduce or omit all green roofs, and 4. Reduce the amount of glazing along links (begin with links form IHSC building to the Centennial building). (b) Tier 2 changes (may be made in any order but should only be made if all Tier 1 changes have been made) 1. Reduce elevator capacity to the fifth floor of the facility; 2. Remove requirement for the capability to construct the fifth floor of the facility; and 3. Single independent UPS system with multiple modules. (c) Tier 3 changes (may be made in any order but should only be made if all Tier 1 and Tier 2 changes have been made) 1. Remove finishes in 2 operating rooms for future development; 2. Remove finishes in pre-op bays on a ratio of 3 to every 1 operating room; and, 3. Remove finishes in post-anesthetic recovery bays on a ratio of 1.5 to every 1 operating room.   14  5.In the case that one or more proponents obtain the same score in terms of the scope ladder [For the IHSC project none of the proponent needed the use of the scope ladder provisions], it will be necessary to compute an adjusted net present cost as indicated as follow: a) NPCa = NPC ? 263517*(min (score, 80) ? 30). In order to meet the RFP requirements, the result must achieve a sore of 30 points or more. 6. The proposal which includes the lowest adjusted NPC as determined by the authority will receive the highest ranking and be designated the highest-ranked proposal ? i.e. minimize NPV = NPCa + NPCenergy. a) Calculate the net present cost of the annual cost of energy based on the proposed design and construction regulated energy target, the proposed agreed proportions of the different types of energy included in the regulated energy consumption, the authority?s assumed unit cost (per gigajoule of energy) for each type of energy, and the authority?s assumed indexation applicable to these unit costs, and add this to the net present cost of the proponent?s proposal. (a) The initial unit rate for natural gas is $10.44 per GJ, including carbon taxes and carbon offset. (b) The initial unit rate for electrical is $0.0819 per kWh, including carbon offset. (c) If considering an alternate type of energy, the proponent must notify the authority and the authority will provide the initial unit rate which the proposal will be evaluated on.   15  Even though the scoring sheet for health services delivery and wellness outcomes was available for this research, the results were not used directly, they were used only as reference to confirm significant differences amongst proposals for specific items [for example, there is no criterion directed at the aesthetic appeal or presence of the structure. The focus is on service delivery functionality, life cycle cost re energy in particular, and initial capital cost ? in many ways, the implicit message is: keep it simple. This shows up later in the physical solutions proposed. As an aside, the scoring system would seem to have implications for the design and balance of power within proponent teams ? i.e. would leadership come from the construction /functional use members of the team or would it come from the architectural side of the team. While these comments are somewhat speculative, they tend to resonate with the building forms proposed by the proponents ? see Chapter 2.]   16  Table 1.2 shows the items reviewed under the process view. A detailed explanation about each criterion is explained in Chapter 2. Section in RFP Criteria 3.2.3.4 Structure  Describe and provide details of the structural systems for the facility including as minimum a. Proposed soil preparation strategy (pre-load) b. Site preparation, ground improvement, and preload including expected vibration and settlement effects on adjacent buildings and infrastructure c. Foundation system including bearing assumptions for footings and rafts, pile capacity, foundation walls, drainage, expected total and differential settlement, and any required shoring and underpinning of existing structures d. Design load criteria including floors and roofs dead and live loads, and environmental and seismic loads e. Floor and roof framing systems including member sizes, columns and walls sizes and layout, grid dimensions, and any special features. Include a statement on expected floor deflection and vibration characteristics including exterior edge conditions f. Lateral load resisting system including design criteria, system type, system layout and member dimensions, foundations, and any special features including seismic joints g. Features that facilitate flexibility, adaptability to future change, and expandability h. Features that address durability 3.1.1 Project schedule  Provide a complete and comprehensive Project Schedule which includes, at a minimum, the following information: a. Design period:  Design user consultation groups, major submittal dates and review timeframes b. Mock-ups: Provision of mock-up rooms, including a detailed description of schedule, location, scope and method of development c. Equipment:  Selection of main equipment packages; Procurement of main equipment packages; Installation of major equipment; and 17  Section in RFP Criteria Commissioning/demonstrations/training. d. Construction period Site establishment and mobilization Demolition schedule and phasing/plans Preload and ground improvement Design development, including user consultation and design review activities; Demonstrate the extent to which the authority?s user group process will be incorporated; Major construction stages; Securing approvals, permits and licenses; Main equipment packages  Utility relocations and/or protection; and Anticipated service commencement date  e. Commissioning/demonstrations/training f. Deficiency review period g. Operation period 3.2.4.3 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification a. Narrative and summary of the proponent?s LEED gold certification strategy b. Proponent's plan to apply for and obtain available BC Hydro Power Smart new construction program or other funding or incentives for the authority c. Proponent?s energy management plan, including accountability mechanisms. d. Details of the planned energy performance of the facility. e. Design and construction regulated energy target and proposed agreed proportions of energy for the facility  f. Energy model supporting the expected energy performance and the proposed energy target. Table 1.2 Details of items under analysis   18  A set of performance metrics is used to characterize each proposal and facilitate the evaluation and comparison between proposals and the indicative design. Table 1.3 contains a list of performance metrics selected for the specific purpose of characterizing the proposals and indicative design from a process perspective. The list represents a selection of items from Tables 1.4 through 1.10 and other metrics identified. The criteria used for selecting performance metrics for this study were chosen based on their applicability to the case study project and their relevance for identifying innovation.  ? Compilation and validation of results: Chapter 3 presents the results of the this study in terms of the process perspective. It is presented in the form of a summary table using the indicative design as a base to compare with the proposals to observe the differences between the proponents and the indicative design. Even though differences in terms of specific performance metrics may appear, it does not necessarily means that innovation is the reason of those differences. . 19  Section in the RFP Product view  2.3.1 Structure   Total building area m2  Total project gross area m2  Number of levels N  Number of levels including future IPU N  Soil mitigation strategy Type 2.3.2 Schedule   Finish dates for milestones Date  Project duration (from proponent selection to service commencement) Months  Construction duration Months  Speed of construction m2/day  Service commencement Date 2.3.3 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification   Proponent energy target MJ  Electricity usage MJ  Natural gas usage MJ  Target score LEED Gold Score Table 1.3 Performance metrics 20  1.5 Literature review  For the purpose of this study a comprehensive review of the literature was conducted about the topic of public private partnerships, innovation in health care facilities and buildability/constructability design principles, including energy efficient design guidelines.   It is important to mention that no papers, reports or theses were found comparable to what is examined in this study ? i.e. no analysis was found that compares the features of proposals submitted, including the identification of process innovations proposed. This is somewhat surprising, given the advocacy one observes in the literature by proponents of various procurement modes as to the benefits or advantages offered.  1.5.1 Public private partnerships Partnerships British Columbia (2003) defines public private partnerships as a legally-binding contract between government and business for the provision of assets and the delivery of services that allocates responsibilities and business risks among the various partners. In a P3 arrangement, government remains actively involved throughout the project?s life cycle. In a full-fledged P3, the private sector is responsible for the project design, construction, finance and operation. A P3 arrangement can take a variety of forms, with varying degrees of public and private sector involvement and risk allocation.   Around the world, large-scale public infrastructure projects have increasingly been designed, built, financed, and operated through public private partnerships. The main government rationale for delivering hospitals, schools, prisons, water treatment plants, roads, and subways through P3 21  is the prospect of providing improved public services at a lower lifecycle cost, also known as value for money (Wall & Connolly, 2009).  Garvin and Bosso (2008) define value for money (VfM) as a measure of the extent to which cost savings are achieved when delivering a public infrastructure project through a P3 relative to a traditional government-led procurement approach. Drivers of VfM in P3 include contracts that encourage innovation, the management of complete lifecycle costs, and the allocation of project risks such that governments are protected in case of large cost overruns and revenue shortfalls.  Russell, Tawiah, and de Zoysa (2006) indicated that some of the disadvantages of P3 projects (such as higher cost of the bidding process) can be balanced by efficiency benefits from private sector involvement mainly due to the use of innovation and better control of the scope and project?s budget. Also studied by Russell et al (2006) is how innovation is a function of the procurement mode chosen.  Eaton, Akbiyikli, and Dickinson (2006) identified theoretical stimulants and impediments associated with the implementation of private finance initiative (PFI) or public private partnership (P3) projects. The focus of their research lies with the social and contextual factors that influence the creative and innovative behavior of individuals in construction organizations within the limited and constrained context of a PFI project.  Garvin (2004) examines the features of project delivery systems (design-bid-build, design-build, design-build-operate (DBO) and build-operate-transfer (BOT)) with examples of each one. The 22  major strength of DBO and BOT (typically used modes on P3 agreements) is the ability to introduce innovation particularly throughout the design and the use of new technologies during construction or operations. The integration of all project phases can reduce life cycle costs of facilities, which is not easily done with a non-integrated procurement system approach.  Liddle (1997) in his work studies the benefits of innovation resulting from the privatization of public infrastructure projects (P3 procurement is not considered as privatization). It is said that there two reasons for which privatization is more efficient; lower cost for delivering a project and the ability to offer more innovative solutions.   1.5.2 Innovation During the development of the literature review it was noticed that the amount of information and academic studies conducted regarding innovation included in health care facilities under a public, private partnership procurement mode is limited, specifically in terms of drivers of innovation and the results of innovation in projects.   Trying to find the most appropriate definition of innovation in order to apply it to infrastructure projects is not an easy task. The term ?innovation? has been used in a wide variety of ways in describing novel technologies, products, processes and organizational practices (Russell et al., 2006).  23  A more classic definition is provided by Schumpeter (Schumpeter, 1961), who defines innovation as an effort made by one or more individuals that produces an economic gain, either by reducing costs or by increasing income.   Developers and investors are always pursuing new ideas to help reduce costs and increase benefits. The idea of innovation is not limited to the construction phase with the use of new materials or construction techniques; in fact innovation can be found in the entire life cycle of the project, such as operation and maintenance as mentioned by Garvin, (2004) and Liddle, (1997).   In recent years construction clients have been demanding greater complexity in building types with an emphasis on value for money and optimum use of project time whilst still incorporating innovation (Cooper, 2005). Designers desire to incorporate innovation into their designs but are nervous about the implications to the project and their business (Emmitt, 2001).  Slaughter (2000) states that construction innovations can provide the critical component for a company?s long-term competitive strategy, but first the company needs to understand innovation and how it can be implemented. She notes that an innovation can be assessed with respect to its advancement of the state of knowledge as well as its links to other components or systems. The same research presents a detailed framework in which the six stages of implementation activity: identification; evaluation; commitment; preparation; use; and post-use evaluation are mapped to the five different types of innovation: i) incremental which is a small improvement in a current practice; ii) architectural innovation is a small improvement within a particular area or core concept; iii) modular innovation that is a significant improvement or new concept within a 24  specific region; iv) system innovation is a set of complementary innovations that work together to provide new functions; and v) radical innovation is a completely new concept or approach which often renders previous solutions obsolete.  Gambatese and Hallowell (2011), define innovation as a positive change as a result of new ideas. It is also said by the authors that improving productivity, quality and safety, and meeting or exceeding expected objectives often require innovation Gambatese and Hallowell (2011) also defined drivers that affect innovation, and how these elements can be used to identify and measure innovation. These authors indicated the need for three ingredients to achieve innovation: the idea generation, opportunity and diffusion.  The paper by Leiringer (2006) establishes that P3 procurement enables the actors involved in the design and construction phases to be innovative through the successful implementation of novel practices and technology. It is argued that there is reason to be cautious in fully accepting the alleged benefits of the P3. Some claims are that, since P3 generally involves replacing cheaper public finance with more expensive private finance, project participants will look for compensatory savings in other cost areas ? essentially those of construction and operation. These arguments seem to be based on the assumption that engineering a certain kind of collaboration between operators, designers and contractors in conjunction with added incentives and longer-term thinking being adopted will lead to innovative solutions to the client?s service requirements.   25  1.5.3 Construction performance and innovation metrics An extensive literature review was conducted about measuring project performance in the construction industry. The objective of this review was to find and study what had been done in terms of project performance metrics. In terms of results, it is possible to say that quite a large number of studies has been conducted regarding ways to measure project performance; with emphasis placed on measuring time, cost and quality performance. Metrics for assessing the success and impact of innovation have been identified and discussed in the literature, but practical application and more importantly, validation of these metrics is limited (Gambatese & Hallowell, 2011).  For the purpose of this study a selection of project performance metrics is used in order to characterize the indicative design and the project solutions presented in the three proposals submitted for the IHSC. The selection of metrics was made based on whether they are applicable to this type of project and to the information available. The characterization is useful for comparing specific features of each project, and the belief is that they should be helpful in determining if differences in metric values are attributable to innovation.   26  Project performance metrics identified in the literature are as follows.  1. Fowler et al. (2005), include two sets of metrics that need to be collected for both a sustainable design building and baseline ? they treat building and site characteristics data and building cost and performance data. Several of the metrics suggested in this paper are presented in Table 1.4.  Metric Units 1 Key building feature Landscaping, lighting, materials 2 Gross interior floor area  3 Landscape area  4 Total site area  5 Design cost $ 6 Construction cost $ 7 Total building energy Kwh/ Month 8 Peak electricity demand Kw 9 Source energy Kwh source/Month 10 Building potable water use Gal/Month Table 1.4 Performance metrics (Fowler ,Solana and Spees (2005))  2. The study conducted by Rankin et al. (2008), was in support of the measurement of performance of the Canadian construction industry, and specifically, establishing metrics to cover aspects of cost, time, scope, quality, safety, innovation, and sustainability. Several of the metrics suggested by the authors are listed in Table 1.5.  Metric Units 1 Cost predictability design % 2 Cost predictability construction % 3 Cost per unit $ 4 Cost for defects-warranty $ 5 Cost in use $ 6 Time predictability design % 7 Time predictability construction % 8 Time per unit ?	  27   Metric Units 9 Time for defects warranty Weeks 10 Client satisfaction product Subjective 11 Client satisfaction design Subjective 12 Client satisfaction construction Subjective 13 Quality issues-available for use Subjective 14 Quality issues-warranty Subjective 15 Reportable Incidents n 16 Lost Time Number of incidents/100000 WH 17 Cost for change-demand % 18 Cost for change-supply % 19 Time for change -demand % 20 Time for change-supply % 21 Innovation in procurement Subjective 22 Innovation technological Subjective 23 Innovation management Subjective 24 Sustainability design Subjective 25 Sustainability construction Subjective Table 1.5 Performance metrics (Rankin et al. (2008))  3. AMA Alexi Marmot Associates for the UK Higher Education Space Management Project (2006) conducted a study, the aim of which was to determine how design can maximize efficient and effective use for the full range of higher education functions. Some of the metrics cited in order to measure space efficiency are provided in Table 1.6.   28   Metric Units 1 Area GIA (Gross internal area)  2 Area NIA (Net Internal Area)  3 Area NUA (Net Usable Area)  4 NIA/GIA               % 5 NUA/GIA               % 6 NIA / student FTE1  7 Space per desk 										 NUA 8 Cost/ GIA $ 9 Cost/ NUA $ 10 Cost/ GIA construction $ 11 Cost/ GIA maintenance $ Table 1.6 Performance metrics (AMA Alexi Marmot Associates for the UK Higher Education Space Management Group (2006))  4. Stoy and Kytzia (2005) conducted a study called ?Office building efficiency and capacity benchmarks?. The study is based on a survey carried out in Switzerland, involving the collection of floor data of 116 owner-operated office buildings. The study provides space benchmarks and their drivers. Some of the potential drivers defined in this paper are presented in Table 1.7.                                                    1 Student full time equivalent 29   Metric Units 1 Gross external floor area  m 2 Gross cubic content m 3 Number of levels n 4  area of internal divisions and external constructions per  gross external floor area % 5  ancilliary area for services per  gross external floor area % 6  circulation area per  gross external floor area  % 7  ancillary to main function per  gross external floor area % 8  areas for residential and recreational purpose per  gross external floor area % 9  areas for storage, distribution and retail per  gross external floor area % 10  areas for training, education and culture per  gross external floor area % 11  health care areas per  gross external floor area % 12  vehicle parking areas per  gross external floor area % 13 Medium floor height m 14 Medium floor average m Table 1.7 Performance metrics (Stoy and Kytzia (2005))  5. Not surprisingly, Stoy and Schalcher (2007), assert that time and cost are substantial success factors of building construction projects. Their study is based on the German market, where early cost estimates are provided by multiplying the cost indicator by the gross floor area. The question arises as to which specific cost indicator to select. The author proposes guidance for this selection. Using regression analysis, the authors suggest cost drivers for residential buildings in Germany. Some of the drivers used in this study are listed in Table 1.8.   30   Metric Units 1 Gross external floor area  2 Gross Internal floor area/gross external floor area % 3 Area of internal divisions and internal construction/gross external floor area % 4 floor space/gross external floor area % 5 Circulation area/ gross external floor area % 6 Area ancillary to main function/gross external floor area % 7 Usable floor area / gross external floor area % 8 Area ancillary to main function/gross external floor area % 9 Median floor height m 10 Levels above ground n 11 Levels below ground n 12 Total number of levels n 13 Gross external floor area/ levels  14 Excavation volume/gross external floor area % 15 Building base surface/gross external floor area % 16 External wall surface/gross external floor area % 17 Internal wall surface/gross external floor area % 18 Ceiling area/gross external floor area % 19 Roof space/gross external floor area % 20 Fa?ade glass/gross external floor area % 21 Construction duration Months 22 Site area/gross external floor area % 23 Site area covered by buildings/gross external floor area % Table 1.8 Performance metrics (Stoy and Schalcher(2007))   31  6. Chan and Chan (2004), developed a framework for measuring success of construction projects. The authors present a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring project construction performance both objectively and subjectively. Selected KPIs presented in this paper are listed in Table 1.9.  Metric Units 1 Construction time Days 2 Speed of construction /days 3 Time variation % 4 Unit cost $/ 5 Percentage net variation over final cost % 6 Net present value $ 7 Accident rate n 8 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Certifications, EIA score and number of complaints received during construction 9 Quality Subjective 10 Functionality Subjective 11 Client?s satisfaction Subjective 12 Design team?s satisfaction Subjective 13 Construction team?s satisfaction Subjective Table 1.9 Performance metrics (Chan and Chan (2008))  Another useful way to characterize the indicative design and all the proponent designs is through the concept of constructability and building massing. These two concepts are especially for evaluating the proposals in terms of process.  1. Constructability: The Constructability Task Force of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) (1986) based at The University of Texas has defined constructability as the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, engineering, and procurement and field operations to achieve overall objectives. Another definition of constructability is given by  Lam, Chan, Wong, and Wong, (2007) who refer to constructability as the extent 32  to which a design facilitates efficient use of construction resources and enhances ease and safety of construction on site while the client?s requirements are met. According to Gibson et al. (1996) the benefits from the application of constructability are: reduced cost, shorter schedules, improved quality, and enhanced safety, among others. Furthermore, Wong, Lam, and Shen (2004) have identified a list of factors affecting buildability (Table 1.10). According to this paper a buildable design must take into account the site constraints and in addition, careful consideration should be given to the methodologies of constructing a building: how tools, plant and equipment are utilized; how materials and fittings are used and how products and sub-assemblies are going to be integrated, installed and detailed. Preferably, designs should facilitate the efficient use of resources during construction by allowing contractors to decide on the optimal mix of prefabricated and on-site items with uncomplicated and standardized layouts, displaying a high degree of flexibility for construction detailing, ensuring design information being correctly visualized, coordinated and rationalized and enabling a safe sequence of construction, and minimizing the impact of adverse weather.  Factors affecting buildability 1 Site-specific factor 7 Tools, plant and equipment 13 Prefabrication 2 Site layout, access and environment 8 Materials, fittings, products and sub-assemblies 14 Innovations 3 Below ground 9 Use of resources 15 Weather 4 Coordination and rationalization of design information 10 Material systems 16 Safety 5 Detailing 11 Installation     6 Flexibility 12 Standardization     Table 1.10 List of factors affecting buildability   33  2. Massing: The concept of massing relates to shape and volumetric design of the building. As described in Building planning and massing (The Centre for Sustainable Building and Construction (CSBC), 2010) the initial site planning of a project has significant impact towards achieving a green or high performance building. Things like the siting, massing and orientation of buildings set up the parameters and potential limitations for the later design process. Minimizing the development footprint (building footprint, roadway, walkway, parking areas, etc.) of a project impacts heat island effects, storm water generation, and green and open space.  In terms of efficiency of the design, the same document suggests the use of less perimeter area means using fewer materials. It is explained that too many jogs and changes in the massing can lead to significant increases in the building perimeter, which means more fa?ade materials to enclose the building and therefore, larger facade costs.  According to the Daylight guide for Canadian commercial buildings (Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002) building orientation and form can maximize daylight admission while minimizing excessive glare and thermal discomfort. In terms of orientation the author indicates that for a building where light uniformity and quality is key, large north-facing glazing area can minimize electric light use. On the other hand, southern exposure allows the most daylight access and the best control of excess solar gain in the summer. Finally, for the east-west exposure it is difficult to control daylight penetration on the East and West facades because of low sun angles. Daylight variability is high since these orientations provide only half-day exposure to sunlight. The West 34  facade especially suffers from large summer heat gain and serious glare problems from low solar angles at unwanted times, while providing little winter passive solar contribution.  The concept of constructability and massing provide a different set of measurable criteria that are useful to characterize the building such as; uncomplicated geometry, layout, orientation and consistency of shapes and standardization of components and materials.   1.5.4 Experience in P3 health care projects in Australia, U.K and Canada Also reviewed was literature regarding the implementation of public, private partnership procurement modes in health care facilities in the world. Taylor (2002) indicates that public hospitals will face a financial crisis, because of increasing costs and reduced budgets. In this scenario P3 offers a great potential to control and reduce costs. As mentioned earlier in this work, P3 procurement modes are seen mostly in countries with a public health are system. However each country uses a variety of procurement mode depending on the objectives of the public sector and private partner experience. For example Australia is the one with the higher number of models. Another example is the U.K who uses a design-build-finance-maintain (DBFM) model. Canada, Portugal and Spain have also adopted similar procurement modes.   The U.K. over the past decades has used public private partnerships for financing, construction, and facility management for many public hospitals. A regional health district tenders for a private firm to finance and construct a new hospital, maintain the facility, and provide nonclinical services. The operator receives annual payments for 15?30 years as reimbursement 35  for its capital costs and its recurring costs for maintenance and services. In this model of public private partnership, the public sector remains responsible for all medical services (Taylor, 2002). In Canada, according to The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (2013), hospitals and healthcare is currently the most active sector for P3s in the country, design-build-finance- maintain (DBFM) being the preferred model. In British Columbia, P3 procurement is consistent with the government?s vision for modernizing health care, as set out in the December 2002 ?Picture of Health? document. The document encouraged health authorities to explore public private partnerships where they can enhance patient care, deliver value for money and serve the public interest, consistent with the Canada Health Act (Partnerships British Columbia, 2005).  Summarized in Table 1.11 are the some of the advantages indicated in the value for money reports for health care projects using the P3 mode. The following list represents only a portion of the VfM reports publically available, other projects are identified in Dalencon (2013). ? Academic Ambulatory Care Centre.  ? Cancer Agency Centre for the North ? Fort St. John Hospital and Residential Care ? Kelowna(KGH) and Vernon (VJH) Hospital Project  Many of the benefits listed in Table 1.11 would be present regardless of the procurement mode selected. Nevertheless, these VfM reports are useful since they provide information and clarify questions regarding the selection of the procurement mode adopted.36  Project name Project agreement Value for money Expected benefits and innovation Academic Ambulatory Care Centre. (Partnerships British Columbia, 2004)  ? Design, build, finance and maintain ? Project capital cost:$95 million ? Operating term: 32 years Value for money of $17 million compared to a facility built, owned and operated wholly by the public sector. ? Business development opportunities related to the retail space at the facility. ? Creation of 300 jobs at the peak of construction. ? General improvement in property value in the neighborhood. ? A whole-building approach that approach that integrates facility design with teaching and care programs. ? A patient-centered environment that promotes accessibility, comfort and convenience. ? Environmentally-friendly building systems and materials. ? An atrium that may be used for special events and public meetings. ? A 350 lecture theatre that may be available for public use.    37  Project name Project agreement Value for money Expected benefits and innovation Cancer Agency Centre for the North. (Partnerships British Columbia, 2010) ? Design, build, finance and maintain. ? Project capital cost:$69.9 million ? Operating term: 32 years Value for money  of $4.9 million compared to a traditional delivery mode ? For the first time ever, patients have access to radiation therapy in Prince George, reducing the need to travel to other regional centers. ? Efficient and effective patient and staff flow throughout the building. ? The facility blends seamlessly into the existing campus (UHNBC). ? The centre reflects and complements the community, including consideration of Aboriginal culture and the use of wood in the facility. ? The centre for the north will be designed and built to achieve LEED gold certification.  Fort St. John Hospital and Residential Care. (Partnerships British Columbia, 2009) ? Design, build, finance and maintain. ? Project capital cost: $249.4 million (only DBFM contract) ? Operating term: 30 years Value for money of  $20.7 million compared to a traditional delivery mode ? The procurement process incorporated an affordability ceiling. This approach was taken to ensure that above-normal financing charges could not result in exceeding the approved funding. The decision was motivated since at that time the extent of the international financial crisis was uncertain. ? Position Northern Health to meet growth in demand for health care services. ? Provide adequate space to enable client focused care delivery and positive outcomes for patients, clinicians and staff. ? Improve quality of care provided to patients of the Fort St. John and Peace River region ? Improve working conditions to improve safety, efficiency, and outcomes for patients and staff   38  Project name Project agreement Value for money Expected benefits and innovation    ? Provide a practice and learning environment that will attract and retain quality health care professionals ? The facilities must be designed and built to LEED gold standards Kelowna(KGH) and Vernon (VJH) Hospital Project. (Partnerships British Columbia, 2008) ? Design, build, finance and maintain. ? Project capital cost: $382.8 million (only DBFM contract) ? Operating term: 30 years The agreement was expected to achieve value for money of $25.4 million compared to a traditional delivery mode KGH:  ? Modernized emergency department quadrupled in size, with ground level accessibility and ambulance garage. ? New operating rooms ? Two additional shelled-in floors for future inpatient beds ? Concentration of day procedures in one large, new comfortable facility for an optimal patient experience. ? Integration with the existing hospital ? Separate building to house UBCO clinical academic Campus. ? New rooftop heli-pad ? New parkade ? Vacated space in the existing emergency department and outpatient clinic leaves space for future care developments ? Medical student on-call rooms and lounge area within the patient care tower.    39  Project name Project agreement Value for money Expected benefits and innovation    VJH ? Emergency department with high visibility ground level access. ? Consolidated and centralized new operating rooms. ? Maternity/pediatrics ward with direct link to operating rooms ? Two shelled-in floors for future patient beds ? Separate outpatient entrance from upper parking lot and new expanded outpatient program. ? Expanded and modernized facilities to provide a better patient experience and improve patient flows. ? Full integration with existing hospital ? New and more efficient central sterilization services. ? New ambulance garage ? Vacated space in current hospital will leave space for other programs and services. Table 1.11 Summary of benefits and innovations identified in value for money reports produced by Partnerships BC for health care projects40  1.6 Project overview and selection process As previously stated, this thesis is centered on the application and use of a methodology that helps to identify innovation incorporated in the proposals presented by each proponent invited to submit a proposal as part of the bidding process for the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre building (IHSC) project in Kelowna, BC.   The complete IHSC Project includes two new buildings, the IHSC building and the Dr.Walter Anderson building (already constructed) and renovations to the Strathcona and the Royal building. However, this study is focused solely on the design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the IHSC building.   As described in this chapter, the IHSC is a three  level building that includes some of the following areas: ? A cardiac and inpatient surgical suite and cardiac surgery intensive care unit, ? Pre- and post-operative care unit ? New medical device reprocessing department ? Allow space for future expansion to accommodate a inpatient unit in the fourth floor (required in the RFP) ? The design of the IHSC building will achieve LEED gold certification   41  . Figure 1.2 Kelowna general hospital site plan   According to Interior Heart and Surgical Centre value for money report (Partnerships British Columbia, 2012), the decision to use the design, build, finance maintain(DBFM) partnership delivery method was based on a thorough analysis of procurement options, the objective of which was, amongst others, to determine an optimal procurement method that provided the best potential value for money for the project. The first step was to identify the procurement objectives and determine the available traditional and partnership procurement methods and then identify the two most appropriate procurement methods for the project.   N 42  Then a quantitative analysis was performed, which included a risk analysis and description of financial terms in order to compare and select a procurement mode. In this case the comparison was made between the design-bid-build (DBB) and design-build-finance-maintain (DBFM). Finally, after the analysis a DBFM procurement mode was selected, since was anticipated a reduction in cost and more benefits compare to the design-bid-build (DBB)  During the 2012, Partnerships BC, evaluated the proposals and ranked them based on the criteria set by Health Authority.   The proponents knew from the indicative design and accompanying documents, that the form and location was limited by geotechnical constraints and that remedial work was necessary to support the weight of a new building. Furthermore, the weight of the new structure would have an effect on the integrity of the existing structures.   The geotechnical report indicates the following generalized soil profile: ? Sand and gravel fill from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 1 m. ? Firm/stiff silty clay from below the fill to depths ranging from 2 to 2.2 m ? Loose/compact sand from below the silty clay to a depth of approximately 6 m. ? Inter-layered loose/compact sand and soft silt from approximately 6 m to 14 m. ? Compact sand from approximately 14 m to 19 m. ? Inter-layered loose/compact sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and soft silt from approximately 19 m to 57.2 m. 43  The same report also indicates that the sand and silty sand layers within approximately 12 m of ground surface are expected to liquefy under the influence of the 2006 B.C. Building code design earthquake. As a result, this site is classified as a site class F as defined by the Code.  Based on the soil classification, the geotechnical report suggests to all proponents the following considerations regarding the construction of the IHSC Building: ? Based on the soil conditions, proximity to existing structures, and expected differential loading across the buildings, the IHSC building should be constructed on a raft foundation. ? The construction of the IHSC building will cause settlement to the existing Strathcona building as well as the Centennial building and the CAC building. Due to the rigidity of the Strathcona building, the settlement to the 4-storey portion of the Strathcona building should be limited to 19 mm. The settlement of the remaining 1-storey portion of the Strathcona building, the Centennial building and the CAC building should be limited to 40 mm. In order to meet these settlement requirements. ? In order to reduce the post-construction differential settlement of the raft foundation of the IHSC building, the building area will require preloading. ? The sand and silty sand layers within approximately 12 m of ground surface are expected to liquefy under the influence of the 2006 B. C. Building Code design earthquake. In order to prevent a foundation failure, ground densification will be required.   44  Other clients constraints that impacted the design and construction, and possibly the potential for innovation included specification of a preferred grid for structural verticals, surrounding infrastructure had to be kept operational during the construction phase, setback constraints were specified, etc (see Chapter 2).  The wining proposal included a site preparation plan and compressed construction schedule that will see the building completed 13 months earlier than anticipated. According to the RFP the estimated net present cost of the project is $128,17 and the value for money analysis, indicated an expected saving of $33 million compared to the traditional procurement mode.   45  1.7 Research contributions The primary research contributions of this work are ? Provide insight and present the research and academic studies currently available regarding innovation in construction of health care facilities.  ? Development of a methodology to assess innovation during a proposal evaluation process inclusive of relevant performance metrics, with emphasis on the process view of a project. ? At least partial demonstration that a P3 procurement mode includes innovation with respect to project construction and operation. ? Partial demonstration of the proposition that the winning submission is derived in part from the use of clever or innovative ideas, and thus there is a correlation between evaluation scored achieved and extent of innovation.  Of particular note in terms of contributions made is the unique perspective of this thesis because of the opportunity to examine the actual proposals submitted for a relatively functionally complex building project plus the indicative design. As mentioned before, during the development of the literature review no equivalent study was found. Hopefully a body of detailed studies will emerge in the years ahead. It is observed, however, that conducting such a study is an onerous task, as the volume of information that must be perused is very substantial.   46  1.8 Thesis structure This thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 1 Thesis overview: This chapter presents the motivation and objectives of this research along with a literature review focused on the topics of public private partnership, innovation and specific performance metrics. The primary perspective of the research is a process one.  Chapter 2: Assessment of innovation: This chapter includes an assessment of the level of innovation included in the proposals submitted by the proponents for the Interior Heart and Surgical Center (IHSC) project. Described in this chapter are the methodologies used and related fats identified regarding the structure, schedule and energy consumption for the proposals examined. The focus of this chapter is on find significant differences between the indicative design and the proposals submitted for the IHSC project  Chapter 3 Conclusions: Presented in this chapter is a summary of the ideas, methodologies and findings related to process innovation. 47  Chapter  2: Assessment of innovation through indicative design and proposal characterization  As described in Chapter 1 of this thesis, the process view relates to how the facility will be constructed and operated- i.e. the focus is on the methodologies or techniques used to build and operate the facility.  For this work, specific criteria were selected (Table 2.1) in order to measure and assess the level of innovation included by the proponents for the IHSC project.   Process view 3.1.1 Project schedule 3.2.3.4 Structure  3.2.4.2 Energy efficiency and LEED certification Table 2.1 Process view  Chapter 2 of this thesis presents facts included by each proponent in their respective proposals as well as the facts and information included in the request for proposal. Information directly extracted from one of those sources is presented in italics not quotation marks.  48  Substantive positive differences amongst the proposals and/or between one or more proposals and the indicative design could be asserted as resulting from innovation according to the definition of innovation chosen for the purpose of this study ?The use of advanced technologies, methodologies, and clever ideas that result in a positive incremental change compared to the indicative design?. Even though that the names of the proponents are public knowledge, for the purpose of this work the participants will be identified as proponent 1,2 and 3, with no specific order. This decision was made in order to keep confidentiality about ideas or methodologies suggested by each proponent.  2.1 Indicative design analysis The items indicated as process view in Table 2.1, were not scored directly in terms of being broken out separately during the evaluation process. However, they were important in order to compare and evaluate each proponent, as they had a direct impact on both capital as well as life cycle cost, items scored directly through the NPC and energy consumption criteria identified in the RFP. Other benefits not measured or monetized from a public sector perspective are differences in schedule in terms of earlier or later delivery of medical services housed within the IHSC facility. A comparison between what is offered in each proposal with what is requested in the RFP is performed in order to assess innovation. 49  Using the process view metrics of Table 2.2 as presented previously in Chapter 1, a characterization of the IHSC is made in order to help the comparison between the indicative design and each proposal. The purpose of these metrics is having additional tools to complement the analysis and comparison of the proposals.   Process view  2.3.1.2 Structure Unit  Total building area m2  Total project gross area m2  Number of levels n  Levels above ground n  Levels below ground n  Number of levels including future IPU n  Soil mitigation strategy Type  Soil mitigation duration Month  Type of foundation Type 2.3.2.2 Schedule   Finish dates for milestones Date  Project duration (From financial close to service commencement) Months  Construction duration Months  Speed of construction m2/days  Service commencement Date 2.3.3.2 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification   Proponent energy target MJ  Electricity usage MJ  Natural gas usage MJ  Target score LEED gold Score Table 2.2 Process view performance metrics 50  Also as presented in Chapter 1 are the concepts of constructability and massing of the building. Constructability can be referred to as the extent to which a design facilitates efficient use of construction resources and enhances ease and safety of construction on site while the client?s requirements are met (Lam et al., 2007). The concept of massing relates to shape and volumetric design of the building.   These two concepts provide a different set of measurable criteria that are useful for characterizing the competing designs. The following criteria are relevant because they have direct impact in terms of cost and duration of the project. ? Uncomplicated geometry, layout and shape  ? Consistency of shapes  ? Standardization of components and materials.   According to the indicative design the building is oriented to the orthogonal street grid and located to respect private, public and semi-public views; North/South on Pandosy Street, along the internal roadway and along Royal Avenue to the lake (Figure 2.1). 51   Figure 2.1 Indicative design view corridors  According to the RFP, proponents? designs must capture sunlight appropriately, and also must shelter people approaching the building from the rain and wind.  Figures A1 to A6 from Appendix A, show the layout of the indicative design included in the RFP. The building has 4 levels. Level 1 is the cardiac surgery room (CSR), main entrance, mechanical and electrical space; on the second level is located the post anesthetic recovery room (PARR), operations rooms and cardiac surgery intense care unit (CSICU). Surgical support, staff facilities and expansion space are located on the third level. The mechanical floor is located on the fourth floor. The first four levels of the building will be constructed immediately, and Level 5 will be constructed at some point in the future.   52  Additionally, the RFP indicates that the design should have four level in order to accommodate the space required, also indicates that at least 51 out 62 rooms must be standardized. Regarding the duration of the construction the indicative design indicates a duration of 47 month. In Figure 2.2 is possible to observe the site configuration and the t building adjacent to the new IHSC project  Figure 2.2 Kelowna general hospital site plan     N 53  In terms of the functional space required, the indicative design indicates that the building consists of the following areas: ? Surgical procedures (standard and specialty operation rooms) ? Pre op and level II recovery ? Post anesthetic recovery room (PARR) ? Cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) ? Medical device reprocessing (MDR)  Table 2.3 includes the functional program space for the indicative design indicated in the RFP (not including the circulation space). Space description Total net m2 Pre op and level II recovery area 945,5 Surgical procedures area 1.701,1 Post anesthetic recovery room (PARR) 315,5 Administrative and staff facilities 376,6 Cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) 371 Medical device reprocessing (MDR) 1.088,8 Total programmed space 4.798,5 Table 2.3 Functional program space  The indicative design does not include specific information about net or gross areas per floor, courtyard areas or links with other buildings. An analysis and comparison of the space between the indicative design and each proponent it is included later in this chapter. 54  As indicated in the RFP, the form of the IHSC is largely derived through geotechnical constraints, the project site should remain classified as a site class F and the design must be in accordance with the specifications for site class F outlined in the 2006 BC Building Code.  According to the geotechnical report the property has a high water table which restricts below grade development. The groundwater level was recorded about 2 m below the ground surface; however, it is expected that the groundwater level will fluctuate seasonally with the level of Okanagan Lake.  Indicated by the geotechnical report is that remedial work is required to support the weight of any building which is to be constructed on the hospital campus. The report also suggests that the building area would require preloading in order to reduce the post-construction differential settlement of the raft foundation of the IHSC Building.  The indicative design includes a detailed description about the physical characteristics of the building. Some of the items included in the design guidelines included in the RFP are listed below (as a reminder, chapter contents in italics reflect material taken directly from proponent proposals as well as RFP material).  ? Height, bulk and scale: Building height and bulk are designed with materials that help visually reduce the scale and form of the buildings into smaller scaled elements and that complement neighboring structures within the same visual field. Allowed building heights are 25m on the perimeter of the site and 30m on the interior of the site. 55  ? Setbacks: The height, volume and skyline of the building relate to the surrounding environment. For the indicative design the setbacks are: o East/West yard - Pandosy Street - 6.0m o  North yard - Royal Avenue - 6.0m for structures up to 10.0m in height. 9.0m for portions of the structure up to 18.0m in height and 12.0m for structures up to 25.0m in height. o  West yard - Abbott Street - 12.0m for structures up to 10.0m in height. 15.0m for portions of the structure up to 15.0m in height and 18.0m for structures up to 25.0m in height. o South yard - Christleton Laneway - 4.5m ? Form, materials and color: For this item the RFP indicates that low reflective or glare-reducing materials are used to minimize visual impact on adjacent properties. Exterior building design emphasizes the institutional character of the precinct. Dominant materials are architectural concrete, clear glass, brick masonry and stone or metal cladding. Generally, stucco is not a principal building material.  ? Rooftops and balconies: Landscaping of roof areas are considered wherever possible. ? Vents and roof flashing: All flashing and vents exposed to public view are painted to match adjacent surfaces.   56  Figure 2.3 is a rendering of the indicative design. In terms of the shape and exterior facade the indicative design seeks to integrate with the community and blend with the surrounding environment. Comments about the shape of the facility and the complexity of the design will be provided later in this chapter.   Figure 2.3 Indicative design exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue)   57  2.2 General description of proponent solutions 2.2.1 Proponent 1 A reduction of one floor is suggested by proponent 1 in comparison to the indicative design (from 5 to 4). It is also indicated that a section of the 4th floor will be leave for a possible future expansion.   Proponent 1 explains that the building is primarily a cast-in-place concrete superstructure from levels 1 to 4 with a steel structure above level 4 for the mechanical penthouse on the north half of the building.  The level 4 slab was designed for the future floor in mind, and will provide flexibility in regards to structural column placement. Three quarters of this level has been left vacant for the future expansion.  The concept design introduces a staff amenity area (Figure B1 appendix B). (which includes the staff lounge, male and female locker/change areas) on Level I directly adjacent to the service elevator and a convenience stair which provides quick and discreet staff access to level 2 without crossing the public concourse on level 1. (Figure B2 appendix B).The travel route to transfer post-operative patients from the Cardiac OR?s to the eight CSICU patient routes are direct with three turns. Two of those turns are the 90 degree turns out of the OR into the surgical restricted sub-sterile corridor and the 90 degree turn into the CSICU patient room from the corridor. (Figure B3 Appendix B).  58  Proponent 1 includes in its proposal that the patient elevators are situated centrally in the Pre-Op/level II recovery department to minimize the distance from any of one the patient bays to the elevators. These patient elevators open directly beside the surgical control desk and either directly into the surgical restricted sub-sterile corridor or onto the bypass corridor on Level 2 (Figure B4 Appendix B).  Figure 2.4 shows proponent 1?s exterior rendering of the building (Pandosy Street) and the south elevation fronting (Rose Avenue).  Figure 2.4 Proponent 1 exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue)   59  Functional areas per type of room are presented in Table 2.4  Space description Net area ( m2) Pre op and level II recovery area 985,8 Surgical procedures area 1.779,8 Post anesthesia recovery room (PARR) 342,8 .Administrative and staff facilities 386,7 Cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) 386,4 Medical device reprocessing (MDR) 1.125,1 Total programmed space 5.006,5 Table 2.4 Proponent 1 functional area Gross areas for proponent?s 1 design excluding crawl space and courtyard areas are presented in Table 2.5:   Gross floor area  Total building perimeter area  m2 Total gross floor area: level 5 144 Total gross floor area: level 4 798 Total gross links floor area: level 3 117 Total gross floor area: level 3 4.194 Total gross links floor area: level 2 46 Total gross floor area: level 2 4.614 Total gross floor area: level 1 3.261 Total building area 13.174 Table 2.5 Proponent 1 gross building area   From Table 2.4 it is possible to see that proponent 1 meets the indicative design space requirements (4798.5 m2). Also comparing the gross building area (Table 2.5) with the functional area it is possible to calculate that the ratio is 0,38. In other words 38% of the total building is intended for functional areas. In terms of functional space a comparison between proponent 1 and the indicative design is presented later in this chapter. 60  Regarding the foundation solution, proponent 1 explains that pre-foundation treatment consists of using vibro-compacted stone columns followed by the placement of 3.5m high preload material. By installing the stone columns prior to the preload, the stone columns act as wick drains, reducing the overall duration of the preload from nine months to five-to-six months. The overall duration of the ground consolidation requires 47 weeks or 11 months. Following the suggested by the indicative design, the foundation solution proposed by proponent 1 is a raft slab. The exterior walls consist of a mixture of structural steel stud, rain screen wall, curtain wall and aluminum storefront. Construction of the exterior walls on levels 1 to 4 follows construction of the concrete structure. Installation of roofing follows concrete structure construction for the south half of the building, while a steel and metal deck structure is to  be installed on the north half of the building.     61  2.2.2 Proponent 2 Proponent 2, also offers a reduction on the numbers of floors in comparison to the indicative design(From 5 to 4). The 4th level could be used in the future to accommodate the impatient unit (IPU)  In terms of vertical and horizontal travel routes, proponent 2 indicates that to facilitate vertical movement within the IHSC, the public and patient/service elevators and one restricted stairwell are centrally located, providing a concept which allows direct and immediate access from all floors. Four additional perimeter stairs and an internal sterile stair provide dedicated vertical travel routes for staff between the IHSC levels to create critical links between the ORs, PARR, CSICU, Pre-op/stage II recovery, the sterile core, MDR and the staff change area and lounge (Figure B5, Appendix B).  Proponent 2 indicates that to travel to Pre-op on level 1 from PARR on Level 2, staff will use the centrally located and restricted stair. This stair allows staff to enter or exit the Pre-op department via an ?off stage? entrance near the patient/ service elevator lobby. The central stairwell is also immediately adjacent to PARR on level 2, facilitating vertical movement from PARR to Pre-op for surgical staff (Figure B6 and B7, Appendix B).   In terms of links between the IHSC building and the adjacent buildings, proponent 2 explains that, the main horizontal circulation paths on Levels 1-3 are the bypass corridors that connect the IHSC Building to Strathcona and Centennial and allow building users to travel between Strathcona and Centennial without entering any IHSC departments. On level 1, the main 62  circulation route is the north-south corridor that links the Rose Avenue entrance to the building lobby and the Centennial entrance.   As shown in Figure B8 in Appendix B, links have been designed at Level 1 to lengthen the existing corridors from the Strathcona building. Proponent 2 explains that a public corridor to the North allows all building users to circulate to and from the Strathcona building, and a corridor to the South provides a direct, restricted logistics connection between the Strathcona service areas and the IHSC patient/service elevators.   In Figure B9, Appendix B, it is possible to see that the level 2 links to Centennial and Strathcona create a restricted access of circulation that connects the IHSC, Strathcona, Royal, and Centennial buildings.  The link in Level 3 to between the IHSC and Strathcona provides access to the existing maternal health and surgical inpatient units. It also provides a circulation route between the MDR and all Strathcona levels (Figure B10 Appendix B).   63  Figure 2.5 shows proponent 1?s exterior rendering of the building (Pandosy Street) and the south  Figure 2.5 Proponent 2 exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue)   64  Functional areas per type of room are presented in Table 2.6  Space description Net area (m2) Pre op and Level II recovery area 1,057 Surgical procedures area 1,756.8 Post anesthesia recovery room (PARR) 373.2 Administrative and staff facilities 382.1 Cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) 402.7 Medical device reprocessing (MDR) 1,134.6 Total programmed space 5,106.3 Table 2.6 Proponent 2 functional area  Proponent 2?s gross areas excluding crawl space and courtyard areas are presented in Table 2.7:  Gross floor area  Total building perimeter area m2 Total gross floor area: Level 5 0 Total gross floor area: Level 4 1,117.2 Total gross links floor area: Level 3 117.3 Total gross floor area: Level 3 4,032.2 Total gross links floor area: Level 2 73.3 Total gross floor area: Level 2 4,808.0 Total gross floor area: Level 1 4,014.2 Total building area 14,162 Table 2.7 Proponent 2 gross building area   65  From Table 2.6 it is possible to see that proponent 2 also satisfies the indicative design space requirements (4,798.5 m2). Also comparing the gross building area (Table 2.7) with the functional area, it is possible to calculate that the ratio is 0.36. .Meaning that 36% of the total building is intended for functional areas. In terms of space a comparison between proponent 2 and the indicative design it is presented later in this chapter.  In terms of the foundation solution, as suggested by the geotechnical report included in the RFP, proponent 2 includes a raft foundation system. Proponent 2 states, that the inclusion of a crawl space, lightweight structural fill and a raft slab in the design results in an unloading effect of up to 35 kPa throughout the entire building footprint. Therefore, the net increase in stress on the site is a maximum of 20 kPa, or approximately 80% lighter than the Centennial building preload. Preloading of the site to this small stress is not required to meet the settlement criteria.     66  2.2.3 Proponent 3 Proponent 3, offers the same solution that proponent 1 and 2 regarding the number of floor included in its design. Proponent 3 also suggests to leave part of level 4 for the IPU unit.  The rectangular-shaped building plan is oriented north/south and has a central elevator core. The allocation of functions to building levels is as follows:  It is explained by proponent 3 that the IHSC Building is aligned and connected to the Centennial Building and the Strathcona building via links at level 1 and bridge links at levels 2 and 3. According to proponent 3, level 1 is the main public access route to many parts of the campus. The front drop off from Pandosy Street is an extension of the Centennial building main entrance. Staff entry is through a designated entry point   Proponent 3 also indicates that level 2 has all three critically related care areas: OR suites, CSICU and PARR. Each department is contained in its own area with direct links. Also it is indicated that Level 3 is a support floor with MDR and mechanical space. The MDR is located on the same floor as Centennial building, MDR and ORs. The mechanical space allows for service space directly over the OR    67  Figure 2.6 is a rendering of the building presented by proponent 3.          Figure 2.6 Proponent 3 exterior rendering (Pandosy and Rose Avenue)   68  Functional areas per type of room are presented in Table 2.8  Space description Net area (m2) Pre Op and level II recovery area 1,057 Surgical procedures area 1,996.1 Post anesthesia recovery room (PARR) 369 .Administrative and staff facilities 383.1 Cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) 402.7 Medical device reprocessing (MDR) 1,292.1 Total programmed space 5,481.2 Table 2.8 Proponent 3 functional area  Proponent?s 3 gross areas, excluding crawl space and courtyard areas are presented in Table 2.9:  Gross floor area Total building perimeter area m2 Total gross floor area: level 5 0 Total gross floor area: level 4 289.9 Total gross links floor area: level 3 78.8 Total gross floor area: level 3 4,042.8 Total gross links floor area: level 2 81.9 Total gross floor area: level 2 4,603.7 Total gross floor area: level 1 3,803.9 Total building area 12,901 Table 2.9 Proponent 3 gross building area    69  As shown in Table 2.8, proponent 3 satisfies the functional space requirement (4,798.5 m2). Also comparing the gross building area (Table 2.9) with the functional area, it is possible to calculate that the ratio is 0.42. In other words 42% of the total building is intended for functional areas. In terms of space a comparison between proponent 3 and the indicative design it is presented later in this chapter.  Regarding the soil mitigation, proponent 3 indicates that the strategy consists of the use of vibro-densification ground improvement and preload. The preload phase will occur over approximately eight months from late October 2012 to early July 2013 (8 months).The foundation system selected by proponent 3 is a raft foundation (as suggested by the geotechnical report).   70  2.3 Proposal analysis 2.3.1 Structure (RFP 3.2.3.4) This item relates to the structural system for the facility, including the following: ? Proposed soil preparation strategy; ? Site preparation, ground improvement, and preload including expected vibration and settlement effects on adjacent buildings and infrastructure; ?  Foundation system including bearing assumptions for footings and rafts, pile capacity, foundation walls, drainage, expected total and differential settlement, and any required shoring and underpinning of existing structures; ? Design load criteria including floor and roof dead and live loads, and environmental and seismic loads; ? Floor and roof framing systems including member sizes, columns and walls sizes and layout, grid dimensions, and any special features. Include a statement on expected floor deflection and vibration characteristics including exterior edge conditions; ? Lateral load resisting system including design criteria, system type, system layout and member dimensions, foundations, and any special features including seismic joints; ? Features that facilitate flexibility, adaptability to future change, and expandability; and features that address durability.   71  2.3.1.1 Structure- requirements (RFP 3.2.3.4) The project involves the demolition of the existing Pandosy building as well as the North-East portion of the existing Strathcona building in order to construct the IHSC building with a larger footprint. It is indicated in the geotechnical report that the existing ground surface at the IHSC building is flat and presently at approximately elevation. 345.0 m.  It is indicated in the RFP that the IHSC Building will cover the existing Pandosy building?s footprint plus the asphalt parking, driving lanes, and some of the landscaping to the east. The IHSC Building is bordered to the North by the new Centennial building, to the West by the existing Strathcona building, to the East by Pandosy Street, and to the South by Rose Avenue and the new Clinical Academic Campus (CAC) building/parkade.   As pointed out in the geotechnical report, due to the proximity to existing structures, and the differential loading across the building foundation, the suggested foundation system for the IHSC Building would involve a reinforced concrete raft foundation. According to the report, a raft foundation has structural qualities to reduce the effects of post-construction differential settlement under static conditions as well as ground movements under seismic conditions. It is also specified that in order to reduce the post construction differential settlement of the raft foundation of the IHSC building, the building area would require preloading.  With respect to potential effects on adjacent buildings and installations, the geotechnical report estimates that the post-construction settlements of the IHSC building and adjacent buildings due 72  to preloading and the long term building loads would be approximately as indicated in Figure A7 Indicative design - Post construction settlements in Appendix A of this study.  These estimated settlements are due to the long-term consolidation of the compressible silt and sandy silt layers. Figure A8-indicative design - Load configuration, shows how the loads would be distributed, and also indicates that the additional load due to densification would be 55 KPa. Based on the load distribution, the geotechnical report indicates that the 2-storey portion of the IHSC building should be preloaded to a height of 1.5 m above the design floor level, and the 5-storey portion of the IHSC building should be preloaded to a total height of 3.5 m above the design floor level. The preload duration would be in the order of 9 months.  Regarding the structural systems, for the main building, the indicative design indicates that suspended floors and main roof (future floor) would be cast-in-place concrete flat slab construction. Building lateral seismic and wind loads would be resisted by reinforced concrete shear walls or structural steel bracing located at stair and elevator cores and at exterior walls. Where possible, shear walls and bracing should be avoided within interior spaces in order to leave flexibility for future changes. As indicated in the RFP the minimum primary structural support grid will be 9mx9m to accommodate flexibility in the layout of the facility.  Also it is indicated in the RFP that roofs not designed for a future floor may be structural steel, concrete slab or heavy timber construction. Structural steel roofs can be part of the building design and massing strategy to reduce settlements of adjacent buildings. Structural steel open web joists will not be used for the design of roofs or floors. 73  A crawl space will be provided below the ground level occupied floor spaces. The depth of the crawl space will generally match the existing Strathcona building crawl space but not less than 1200 mm clear. The purpose of the crawl space is to allow services distribution and reduce building development loads causing settlement.  The RFP specifies that if the design included the use of a raft slab, the raft slab in areas beyond the crawl space would be recessed a minimum 1000mm below finish grade.  2.3.1.2 Assessment of innovation (RFP 3.2.3.4) 2.3.1.2.1 Proponent 1 The proposed soil preparation strategy indicated by proponent 1 consists of using vibro-compaction ?stone column? techniques to densify the liquefiable sand layers followed by placement of preload over the building footprint. On completion of preload treatment, sub-excavation of the existing near surface site soils will be carried out to accommodate the crawl space and underlying mat foundation, with use of light-weight fill in areas without crawl space. The preload will consist of pitrun sand and gravel, placed in horizontal lifts no thicker than 0.5 m and track packed. Based on the structural design, the recommended preload height is in the order of 3.5 m. The preload height and duration would be designed to reduce the post construction settlements from the underlying soft clay, loose silt and/or loose sand layers beneath the proposed building footprint to the tolerable limits .According to proponent 1, the total settlement under the 3.5 m preload height is in the order of 300 mm. The overall design arrangement is detailed on Figure C1, Appendix C - Conceptual preload plan. 74  Ground densification using vibro-compaction techniques would involve installation of stone columns to a minimum depth of 12 m below the main floor elevation. Preliminary layout of the stone columns is detailed in Figure C2, Appendix C Conceptual stone columns ground improvement layout.  It is proposed by proponent 1, that ground densification will be carry out before preloading as each stone column would act as a drainage path facilitating the dissipation of excess pore water pressures from the fine-grained soils. It is anticipated that, with the stone columns in place, the preload duration could be in the order of 5 to 6 months. And the overall duration of the ground consolidation would be 11 months. In addition, densification prior to preloading is anticipated to reduce the ground vibrations induced during installation of the stone columns. The effect of preloading will be complemented by the additional excavation of the existing ground surface to accommodate the crawl space.   According to proponent 1, stone column installation would result in some vibrations, although these are usually tolerable and will be monitored to confirm that the specified ground vibration limits are not exceeded. Stone columns located adjacent to the existing buildings will be pre-drilled, if required, to control subsequent vibrations during stone column installation. The foundation preparation work, in particular the preloading operations, are expected to cause settlement beneath and surrounding the building. According to proponent 1, it is anticipated that the settlement criteria can be achieved using the foundation preparation plan described above with the exception of the high-rise portion of the Strathcona building where the tolerances may 75  be exceeded due to the proximity of the preload treatment along two faces of the existing building.   Regarding the foundation systems, it is indicated by proponent 1 that the IHSC building would be supported on a raft slab. Long term settlements as the building is being constructed and after it is fully operational are estimated in the order of 100 mm at the building centre and 40 mm around the perimeter.  It is explained by proponent 1 that it is anticipated that the groundwater table will remain below the crawlspace floor elevation. However, to protect against the event that the groundwater table should rise above the crawl space floor, an appropriate waterproof membrane will be applied on the outside of the foundation walls as well as using water stops at joints between the different concrete elements. Permanent sump pits would be installed within the raft slab with the top of the raft slab sloped to promote drainage to the sump pits. The base of the excavation for the proposed IHSC building is at least 1.5 m lower than the underside of the existing Strathcona building foundations.   Temporary support of the excavations may be required at least locally around the perimeter of the site, where the excavation perimeter is close to existing buildings, buried utilities and other facilities which must be protected from loss of support or maintained in service. Development of a vertical excavation perimeter up to about 3.5 m height can be provided as a cantilevered wall system. (Figure C3, Appendix C Proponent 1- Conceptual shoring).  76  Proponent 1 indicates the structural foundation is a continuous raft slab which sits on top of the soil after ground densification and preloading. The raft slabs support the building columns and shear walls and provides the finished floor surface of the crawlspace. The raft slab also supports concrete foundation walls which support the perimeter of the level 1 floor slab and retain the soil outside of the crawlspace. The layout of the raft slab, foundation walls, building columns and shear walls are shown is Figure C4, Appendix C Proponent 1 ? Structural plan, foundation/crawl space. The foundation walls typically follow the shape of the level 1 building facades. By doing so, foundation walls are able to provide load-bearing support of the facades directly down to the raft slab foundation. The raft slab is 1200 mm thick extending over the footprint of the building to provide support to all of the building columns and shear walls. The raft slab receives the building loads from the columns and shear walls, and distributes those loads to the soil below through bearing. Compared to other foundation solutions, such as isolated spread footings, the raft slab drastically reduces the potential for differential settlement within the building due the continuity and stiffness that it inherently provides. This continuity and stiffness also allows the raft slab to spread the building loads over larger areas, which engages more soil reactions and helps to reduce overall building settlements.  Design floor, roof and environmental gravity loads used by proponent 1 to predict building settlements are shown on each of the respective structural floor plan sheets Figure C5 to C10 in Appendix C. The southern half of level 4 serves as an unoccupied roof and the potential future condition where supports an IPU expansion.   77  The typical concrete floors are comprised of reinforced cast-in-place concrete flat slab with drop panels at the columns. Reinforced concrete columns support the concrete flat slabs from the foundation to level 4. From levels 1 through 4, the standard grid spacing is typically 9 m x 9 m in accordance with the RFP. In the crawl space, the column grid is reduced to 4.5 m x 4.5 m, with the added columns extending from the top of the raft slab to the underside of level 1.   Proponent 1 explains that the additional columns allow the level 1 slab thickness to be reduced, which reduces the loads on the foundations. The typical columns are either 550 mm x 550 mm square or 625 mm diameter round.  Proponent 1 indicates that the steel framing at mechanical penthouse is part of the initial building construction. As a result, they will be constructed integrally with the concrete structure below, with anchor rods cast into the level 4 slab in accordance with standard construction procedures.  The potential future IPU expansion is not part of the initial construction, so that portion of level 4 initially serves as roof space. To most easily and flexibly accommodate both the initial and potential future condition, the level 4 would be designed and constructed to allow all column anchorage for the future IPU to post-installed, with no embedded plates or anchor rods provided in the initial construction.   The roof over the mechanical penthouse on level 4 is comprised of 76 mm thick concrete over 76 mm composite steel deck supported by wide flange beams and columns. The concrete deck 78  allows roofs to be comprised of structural steel with no minimum depth of concrete topping. A small portion of the mechanical penthouse roof area is used to house elevator machine rooms. The primary benefit of switching to structural steel framing for the penthouse is to reduce structural building weight and ease the burden on the foundations.  Regarding the lateral force resisting system, proponent 1 offers a ductile reinforced concrete shear wall system which extends the full height of the structure, from the raft slab foundation up to the top of the steel framed structure. Concrete floor slabs serve as structural diaphragms which distribute to the lateral loads to the concrete shear walls. The concrete shear walls are 450 mm thick and are located around the elevator and stair shafts, and at the North edge of the building to help maximize the future flexibility of the interior floor areas. The shear wall locations are shown on each respective plan, Figure C11 Proponent 1- shear wall elevation. The primary column grid is a 9m x 9m, which accommodates the current layout while also provide large available spaces for future modification. Additionally, proponent 1 indicates that the roof area of the level 4 concrete slab is designed to accommodate a future expansion which would convert it to be the floor of a future IPU expansion.   2.3.1.2.2 Proponent 2 Regarding the structural systems, proponent 2 indicates that preloading of the building footprint is not required based on the proposed structural design Figure C12 to C17 of Appendix C.  Proponent 2 explains that the inclusion of the crawl space, lightweight structural fill and a raft slab in the design results in an unloading effect of up to 35 kPa throughout the entire building envelope, therefore, the net increase in stress on the site is a maximum of 20 kPa, or 79  approximately 80% lighter than the Centennial building preload as shown in Figure C18, Appendix C Proponent 2 - Structure typical section. According to proponent 2, preloading of the site to this small stress is not required to meet the settlement criteria outlined in the project agreement.  It is also indicated by proponent 2 that vibrations induced by the demolition and construction work are not expected to exceed peak particle velocities of 13 mm/s based on past experience and the possibility of damage to surrounding structures is considered highly unlikely.  Proponent 2 specified that settlement of adjacent structures is estimated to be less than 19 mm. Column and/or mud jacking of the eastern portion of the Strathcona building will be undertaken to ensure that the building settlement will be limited to 19 mm.  With respect the light weight fill it is indicated by proponent 2 that the construction of the raft will require shoring of the existing strip foundation bordering the new IHSC. Conventional shoring with pre-tensioned soil anchors and steel reinforced shotcrete will be provided where necessary to support the existing foundation. Settlement monitoring of the Strathcona building would also be undertaken as part of shoring work.   Regarding foundation systems, proponent 2 pointed out that foundations would be comprised of a 750 mm thick reinforced concrete raft, with local thickening to 1200 mm at stair and elevator shafts. With respect to the roof and floor framing systems it is said that the building structure will be comprised of the following elements: 80  ? The primary structural grid is 9.0 m X 9.0 m with smaller secondary grids at the building perimeter and at one interior location. ? Columns are typically 500 mm X 500 mm (700 mm X 700 mm in the crawlspace). ? Ground floor suspended slab is a 275 mm thick concrete flat slab. ?  Upper floor slabs are 250 mm thick concrete slabs with 2100 X 2100 X 250 mm thick drop panels (total thickness = 500 mm) at the columns. ? The mechanical penthouse roof and the roof over the future expansion are steel structures, with steel columns; 75 mm deep steel decking and wide flanged steel beams and girders. ? Elevator and stair shaft walls are designed as shearwalls. Elevator shafts will typically be 450 mm thick and stair shafts will be 300 mm thick. ? Slab deflections under long term creep plus live loads are expected to be less than L/480. ? Deflections at building edges are expected to be less than 15 mm after the installation of exterior wall components. ? Floor vibrations due to walking and light machinery are not expected to be a concern as heavy concrete slabs have demonstrated excellent performance in this regard. Large mechanical equipment will be mounted on vibration isolators and the floor slab at the emergency generators will be isolated from the remaining floor plate. ? At the northwest corner, 250 mm slabs with 500 mm deep are provided to permit the structure above level 1 to cantilever 3.4 meters beyond the column line.   81  2.3.1.2.3 Proponent 3 According to the recommendation in the RFP, the design proposed by proponent 3 has a 9 m by 9 m structural bay size. Proponent 3 indicates that the IHSC building is a cast-in-place concrete two-way slab structure, with concrete shear walls and column elements. Figures C19 to C27 Appendix C show the proposed floor and roof structure framing, expected size of columns and other structural elements, the type of foundation, slab thickness and layout of lateral system including the proposed location and expected thickness of walls or other lateral resisting elements.  As indicated in the geotechnical report, liquefiable Class F soil conditions dictate a raft slab foundation for the IHSC building. In order to mitigate settlement and liquefaction conditions, proponent 3 indicates that the site would be subject to preloading and vibro-densification. Proponent 3 indicates that according to the geotechnical report pre-loading/densification of the site will improve the Fa and Fv values to that of Site Class D. However, the site class will remain as Class F due to potential liquefaction below the densified soil.   It is indicated by proponent 3 that the site will be preloaded to an approximate height of 3.5 m above the crawl space slab elevation for a duration of approximately seven months. The site will require vibro-densification of the sand and silt layers to a depth of 12 m prior to construction.  Proponent 3, also indicates that a setback from the Strathcona building will alleviate the need for underpinning and will help mitigate the effects of vibration and settlement on the existing Strathcona building. The expected settlement of existing buildings does not exceed the following 82  limits: 40 mm at the North edge of the UBC parkade, 40 mm at the South edge of the Centennial building, 19 mm at the east face of the high-rise portion of Strathcona, 40 mm at the East face of the low-rise portion of Strathcona building, 20mm at the east face of the low-rise portion of Royal building, and 10 mm at the South and East faces of the high-rise portion of Royal building.  Regarding the foundation system proposed by proponent 3, it is indicates that a raft slab type foundation will be used over the entire IHSC building footprint. The allowable bearing capacity and subgrade modulus of the improved soils is 150 kPa and 16,000 kN/m3. The raft foundation is expected to be 600, 1200 and 1500 mm deep rafts to distribute the seismic loads.   The foundations of the new building will be designed in a way that the long-term settlement does not exceed 50 mm and the differential settlement does not exceed 25 mm in any structural bay. Concrete foundation walls of 200 mm thickness will be constructed around the perimeter of the building from the raft slab to the underside of the main floor suspended slab.  With respects to the floor and roof framing systems, proponent 3 indicates that the mechanical penthouse roof will be structural steel to reduce overall building weight and minimize settlements of adjacent buildings and which will allow the future IPU structure to be constructed.  It is indicated that level 1 will be 150 mm thick concrete two-way flat slab without drop panels. The remaining floors and roof will be 250 mm thick concrete two-way flat slabs with 3 m x 3 m x 83  200 mm drop panels, except for the mechanical area on level 3 that will consist of a 300 mm thick concrete two-way flat slab with 3 m x 3 m x 250 mm drop panels. Within the footprint of the future IPU area, the floor will have an additional 25 mm concrete cover for future flexibility for a total thickness of 275 mm.   The floors and roof are supported on 600 mm x 600 mm concrete columns on a 9 m x 9 m grid spacing, while level 1 has additional 450 mm x 450 mm concrete columns on a 4.5 m x 4.5 m grid spacing. A crawl space will be provided below the ground level floor spaces. The depth of the crawl space will generally match the existing Strathcona building crawl space but not less than 1200 mm clear. The purpose of the crawl space is to allow services distribution and reduce building development loads causing settlement.  In order to accommodate future change in programs and equipment within the building, proponent 3 indicates that the IHSC building structure will be built using two-way slabs and concrete columns, eliminating the requirement of load bearing walls within each floor.   2.3.1.2.4 Comparison between indicative design and proponents In terms of differences in the structural system between the indicative design and the proposals, it is possible to identify significant differences. One of the most relevant is that all proponents suggest a reduction in number of levels in comparison with the 5 story building from the indicative design.   84  Proponent 1 indicates that Level 4 will be left to build the future IPU unit, placing the mechanical and electrical room in level 3. Proponent 2, places the mechanical room in part of level 4, leaving space for the future construction of the IPU unit. Proponent 3 also offers a different distribution compared with the indicative design, leaving the fourth level to place the future IPU unit.   It is possible to say that all proponents suggest an idea to improve and make more efficient the design. By reducing 1 level, the weight transferred to foundation is less, therefore the size of foundation is less as is probably the overall cost of the foundation construction.   Another important source of innovation is the difference between the indicative design and the proposals regarding the soil condition mitigation. As indicated, the geotechnical report suggests that preload treatment should be undertaken. It is indicated that the two story portion of the IHSC building should be preloaded to a height of 1.5 m above the design floor level, and for the 5 story portion of the building the height should be 3.5 m above the design floor. And it is indicated that the preload duration should be approximately 9 months. Regarding this issue, only proponent 2 offers a different solution indicating that preloading is not necessary since the inclusion of the crawl space, lightweight structural fill and a raft slab in the design results in an unloading effect of up to 35 kPa throughout the entire building envelope. Therefore, it is indicated that the net increase in stress on the site is a maximum of 20 kPa, or approximately 80% lighter than the Centennial building preload. By using this approach proponent 2 assumes the risk of not following what is suggested by the geotechnical report, but is able to offer a significant reduction in the construction duration as well as overall cost.  85  Table 2.10, helps to characterize each proposal, and compare the structural system designs  Metrics Units Indicative Design Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent 3 Number of levels including future IPU Number 5 4 4 4 Soil mitigation strategy Type Preloading Stone columns and preloading Densification Preloading and vibro-densification Soil mitigation duration Month 9 5-6 2 8 Type of foundation Type Raft slab Raft slab Raft slab Raft slab Table 2.10 Comparative metrics  In terms of soil mitigation and type of foundation it is possible to see that all proponents seek to reduce the height of the building as strategy to reduce the weight of building and therefore reduce the load transfer to the foundation. As mentioned before, there are no differences in terms of the type of foundation selected by the proponents; as suggested by the geotechnical report, all proponents choose a raft foundation system.  The reduction in time and the significant difference in terms of duration of the preloading phase can be considered as an important innovation. It is mentioned in the IHSC Project report (2012), that the early delivery of the facility results in a significant cost savings. As well, the accelerated construction schedule will provide IHSC patients full access to cardiac care facilities much earlier than anticipated, a benefit not priced out in the value for money analysis. Table 2.11 contains a comparison in terms of functional space between the indicative design and the three proponents. 86   Total net m2 Space description Indicative design Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent 3 Pre Op and level II recovery area 945.5 985.8 1,057.0 1,057.0 Surgical procedures area 1,701.1 1,779.80 1,756.8 1,996.1 Post anesthesia recovery room (PARR) 315.5 342.8 373.2 369 Administrative and staff facilities 376.6 386.7 382,1 383 Cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) 371.0 386.4 402,7 402.7 Medical device reprocessing (MDR) 1,088.8 1,125.1 1,134.6 1,292.1 Total functional area 4,798.5 5,006.6 5,106.4 5,481.2 Table 2.11 Total functional area  Table 2.12 contains a comparison of proponents design in terms of gross area (not including crawl space and courtyard).  Gross floor area m2  Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent 3 Total gross floor area: Level 5 144 0 0 Total gross floor area: Level 4 798 1,117.2 289.9 Total gross links floor area: Level 3 117 117.3 78.8 Total gross floor area: Level 3 4,194 4,032.2 4,042.8 Total gross links floor area: Level 2 46 73.3 81.9 Total gross floor area: Level 2 4,614 4,808 4,603.7 Total gross floor area: Level 1 3,261 4,014.2 3,803.9 Total building area 13,174 14,162 12,901 Table 2.12 Total gross floor area   87  From Table 2.11 it is possible to observe that the minimum functional area required are met by all proponents regardless of the shape of building. Proponents 1 and 2 indicate in their proposals functional areas very close to the indicative design (200 m2 and 300 m2 of difference respectively).   In terms of gross area Table 2.12 indicates the differences between each proponent. It is possible to conclude that proponent 2 is the one with the largest gross floor area. In comparison with proponent 1 and 3, proponent 2 designs, the gross floor area is around 1000 m2 larger. This difference is relevant since it would be possible to assume that the larger is the building the more expensive it is. However, other variables (e.g envelope complexity) may mitigate this cost. Nevertheless, the research team did not have access to proponent or indicative design capital cost estimates.   One way to compare the efficiency of the layout is to compare the ratios between functional space and gross area. 1. Proponent 1: 38% 2. Proponent 2: 36 % 3. Proponent 3: 42 %  In terms of functional areas, proponent 2 design delivers the lowest percentage which means that is the proponent that needed a larger construction in order to accommodate the functional space required in the RFP. However these percentages need to be complemented with other factors such as the layout of the building. 88  Figures 2.7 through 2.9 shows the floor plan design per level for the indicative design and each proponent?s design. These figure provides insight into the relative complexity of the building forms proposed by the three proponents as well as the indicative design and relate to metrics as associated with constructability/buildability.  Although proponent 2 offers in its design the largest gross floor area and lowest functional/gross area ratio, it offers the simplest configuration in terms of layout/building form. The difference is substantial in terms of complexity of the layout between proponent 2 and the other two proponents as well as the indicative design. According to the concept of massing indicated in the guide Building Planning and Massing (The Centre for Sustainable Building and Construction (CSBC), 2010), in terms of efficiency of design, the use of less perimeter area means using fewer materials. The reason is that too many jogs and changes in the massing can lead to significant increases in the building perimeter as well as construction effort involved, which means more fa?ade materials to enclose the building and therefore, larger facade costs.    89                        Figure 2.7 Level 1 floor plans INDICATIVE DESIGN LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 1 DESIGN LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 2 DESIGN LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 3 DESIGN LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE 90                    Figure 2.8 Level 2 floor plans INDICATIVE DESIGN LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 1 DESIGN LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 2 DESIGN LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 3 DESIGN LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN PANDOSY STREET PANDOSY STREET PANDOSY STREET PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE ROSE AVENUE ROSE AVENUE ROSE AVENUE 91                     Figure 2.9 Level 3 floor plans INDICATIVE DESIGN LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 1 DESIGN LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 2 DESIGN LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN PROPONENT 3 DESIGN LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE PANDOSY STREET PANDOSY STREET PANDOSY STREET ROSE AVENUE ROSE AVENUE ROSE AVENUE 92  2.3.2 Project schedule (RFP 3.1.1) This item relates to the project schedule and details the duration and sequence of the main activities carried out for each proponent.   2.3.2.1 Project schedule-requirements (RFP 3.1.1) The indicative design specified a total construction period of 44 months (The subsequent discovery and abatement of hazardous materials adds three months to the construction schedule). No schedule had been prepared for the indicative design with a level of detail comparable to what was required of proponents.  For this item, proponents were requested to deliver at least the following information: ? Design period o Design user consultation groups o Major submittal dates and review timeframes. ? Mock-ups o Provision of mock-up rooms, including a detailed description of schedule, location, scope and method of development ? Equipment o Selection of main equipment packages o Procurement of main equipment packages o Installation of major equipment o Commissioning/demonstrations/training   93  ? Construction Period o Site establishment and mobilization; o Demolition schedule and phasing/plans; o Preload and ground improvement; o Design development, including user consultation and design review activities; o Demonstrate the extent to which the Authority?s user group process will be incorporated; o Major construction stages; o Securing approvals, permits and licenses; o Main equipment packages (including proposed timing around Authority-supplied); o Utility relocations and/or protection; and o Anticipated service commencement date (not to exceed February 29, 2016). ? Commissioning/demonstrations/training o Commissioning; ? Deficiency review period ? Operation period o Major rehabilitation events.   94  2.3.2.2 Assessment of innovation (RFP 3.1.1) 2.3.2.2.1 Proponent 1 Table 2.13shows some important finish dates included in the schedule presented by proponent 1:  Activity Finish 1 Financial close (effective date) 16-Jul-12 2 Demolition permit 16-jul-12 3 Pandosy demolition 13-Feb-13 4 Densification complete 8-Jan-14 5 Structure complete 9-Oct-14 6 Envelope complete 31-Dec-14 7 Interior complete 24-Sept-15 8 Commissioning 01-Feb-16 9 Service commencement 29-Feb-16 Table 2.13 Proponent 1 important finish dates  Proponent 1 also explained that the construction documents phase would begin upon the completion of the design development phase. Regarding the mock-ups it was explained that they would be constructed parallel to and in conjunction with the user consultation process in two stages; first would be 1:1 paper mock-ups and then fully constructed and fit out mock-ups. The initial 1:1 scale paper and preliminary room mock-ups would be constructed off-site in a warehouse environment in Kelowna.  95  The proposal indicates that the paper mock-ups would consist of full scale 1:1 printed floor plans laid out in an appropriate open building in Kelowna. The initial 1:1 paper mock-ups would include a Cardiac OR including scrub bay and patient holding stretcher bay, pre-op/stage 2 bay prep, PARR bay including isolation room, CSICU patient room including isolation room, MDR process areas, patient/service elevators, and team care stations. The Constructed mock-ups would be fully built in the IHSC building onsite. These mock-ups include the actual materials, finishes, millwork, services, equipment and furniture. The fully constructed mock-ups would include a cardiac operating room with profusion room, scrub bay and patient holding stretcher bay, operating room with scrub bay and patient holding stretcher bay, a pre-op/stage 2 bay, a level 2 room, isolation room in PARR, a CSICU isolation patient room, care stations, medication room, soiled holding room and nourishment station, and bariatric washroom. Mock-ups would be built as soon as the re-shore for the concrete suspended slabs is removed.  With respect to the construction period, proponent 1 explained that the schedule includes two weeks for the site establishment and mobilization, immediately after financial close. Site establishment would include enclosing and securing the site with fencing; installing erosion and sediment control; tree protection; mobilizing site office trailers including a first aid trailer; installing construction and temporary way-finding signage; and implementing safety measures and procedures as determined by the site specific safety plan. This phase would also include the mobilization of staff for the demolition phase including safety, supervision and traffic control. According to the schedule, the demolition of the Pandosy building would take approximately 24 weeks and is on the critical path of the schedule. 96  With respect to the preload and ground improvement, as explained previously, the pre-foundation treatment for the proposed IHSC would consist of using vibro-compacted stone columns followed by the placement of 3.5m high preload material. It is explained by proponent 1 that by installing the stone columns prior to the preload, the stone columns will act as wick drains, reducing the overall duration of the preload from the nine months suggested in the geotechnical report to five-to-six months. Ground consolidation is dependent on the completion of the building demolition and on the critical path.   The construction of the substructure includes excavation, shoring of the excavation, raft slab and level 1 concrete slab. The raft slab foundation will be poured in two parts, the north half followed by the south portion. Following the raft slab construction, the foundation walls, stair and elevator core walls will be formed and poured to the underside of level 1 and finally the suspended slab for level 1 will be constructed. The IHSC is primarily a cast-in-place concrete superstructure from levels 1 to 4 with a steel structure above level 4 for the mechanical penthouse on the north half of the building. The concrete structure will be built floor by floor beginning with concrete columns, stairwell and elevator core walls to the underside of slab followed by suspended slabs   97  2.3.2.2.2 Proponent 2 Table 2.14, shows some of the important finish dates extracted from the schedule presented by proponent 2.  Activity Finish 1 Financial close (Effective date) 18-Jun-12 2 Demolition permit 10-jul-12 3 Pandosy demolition 4-Oct-12 4 Densification complete 14-Dec-12 5 Structure complete 7-Aug-13 6 Envelope complete 6-Dic-13 7 Interior complete 12-Mar-14 8 Commissioning 23-Oct-14 9 Service commencement 15-Jan-15 Table 2.14 Proponent 2 important finish dates  According to proponent 2, the schematic design would start immediately following financial close. The schematic design would be drafted and submitted to the Authority for formal review and comment. These comments would be incorporated into the documents and the schematic design would be finalized, allowing the design development phase to commence.   98  Proponent 2 specifies that mock-ups would be constructed and reviewed in the early stages of the Project in order to allow sufficient time for the authority to complete a review. Once the reviews were completed, the required changes and adjustments could be made and details incorporated into the construction documents.   With respect to the construction process, proponent 2 indicated that prior to any work being started on-site, the work area would be fenced and secured, including signage and information. Once the Site had been defined and secured, the temporary construction offices, facilities and services would be brought on to site and placed.  Prior to demolition, a pre-conditions survey of the site and surrounding buildings would be performed, including a hazardous materials study of the existing site. The main structure of the Pandosy building would be demolished and the bus drop-off would be relocated to the front of the Clinical academic building.  Proponent 2 specifies that the construction of the facility would take place in two phases (phase 1 and 2) and defined the major construction phases as follow: ? Excavation: Excavation would commence as soon as a sufficient amount of the site has the ground improvements completed, allowing enough area for excavation to proceed safely. Excavation would continue as the ground improvements are completed in preparation for the raft slab construction. 99  ? Structure: Structure would begin once the excavated area has been prepared to receive the raft slab. The structure is a key component in ensuring that the outlined schedule is achieved. ? The concrete structure would be constructed level by level. A tower crane will be used during the construction of the structure  ? Envelope: Envelope construction would start on level 1 as the structure is completed at the roof level. The envelope will then be completed in a similar fashion as the structure, level by level ? Interior Finishes: Interior finishes will also start on level 1 and follow the completion of the envelope up the building.  ? Mechanical/Electrical: As the envelope is completed at each level, the mechanical/electrical systems would begin to be roughed in ?  Commissioning will take place as the various systems become 100% complete during the final three months prior to occupancy.  2.3.2.2.3 Proponent 3 Table 2.15, shows some of the important finish dates extracted from the schedule presented by Proponent 3.  Activity Finish 1 Financial close (Effective date) 29-Jun-12 2 Demolition permit 29-jun-12 2  Pandosy demolition 31-Oct-12 3 Densification complete 5-Jul-13 100   Activity Finish 4 Structure complete 15-Jan-14 5 Envelope complete 10-Jul-14 6 Interior complete 16-Jun-15 7 Commissioning 30-Sept-15 8 Service commencement 30-Sept-15 Table 2.15 Proponent 3 important finish dates  According to proponent 3, the demolition phase will take approximately five and a half months starting at selection of  preferred proponent in April 2012 until late October 2012. The extent of the on-site work required prior to financial close is limited to the hazardous materials assessment of the Pandosy building. It is explained that a hazardous material assessment would be performed for the Pandosy building at the start of June immediately following the building becoming unoccupied. The demolition would start with the removal and disposal of the asbestos material proceeding immediately following financial close.  According to proponent 3, the preload phase would occur over approximately eight months from late October 2012 to early July 2013. The preload and lock block installation is anticipated to take three weeks.  Preload induced settlement is anticipated to take seven months. Vibro-densification ground improvement work would proceed following the removal of the preload material. The work would be performed with two drilling rigs and is anticipated to take five to six weeks to complete. 101  Proponent 3 broke down the project construction by the following major constructions stages and key systems as follows: ? Demolition and site preparation ? Structure ? Envelope ? Interior ? Equipment rooms and systems ? Elevators ? Links to existing buildings ? Site utilities ? Site finishes ? Commissioning and completion  The commissioning process for the building systems, including the life safety testing and compliance team demonstrations, is anticipated to start nine months in advance of the target service commencement date.  2.3.2.2.4 Comparison between indicative design and proponents In terms of differences with the indicative design, it is possible to conclude that proponent 2 is the one who presented the shortest time of construction by a significant margin, and therefore the one with a more innovative proposal. The reason is that proponents 1 and 3 offer soil preparation based on preloading the site for several months, while proponent 2, as explained earlier, offers an 102  alternative solution for the soil preparation that does not require preloading of the site, allowing the reduction of the construction period. This time saving has important implications for capital costs, as well as providing more benefits for the target user audience of the facility.  The original construction schedule for the indicative design was 44 months. The subsequent discovery and abatement of hazardous materials added three months to the construction schedule of the indicative design and selected proponent.  Shown in Table 2.16 are several schedule metrics that help to compare and visualize some durations. Metrics Units Indicative design Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent 3 1 Financial close (Effective date)  Jun 2012 Jul 2012 Jun 2012 Jun 2012 2 Project duration  months 44 43 31 38 3  Soil strategy mitigation months 9 5-6 2 8 4 Service commencement  02/29/16 2/29/16 01/15/15 09/30/15 Table 2.16 Main activity durations  Table 2.17 shows a comparison of several milestones for each proponent, which are also shown in form of bar chart in Figure 2.10 With this information it is easy to visualize the differences in terms of duration of the main activities. As mentioned before, proponent 2 presents the earliest finish date for the densification process achieved by the densification methodology proposed. This activity is critical since it occurs early in the project and accounts for the difference between 103  the commencement day for each proponent. In terms of the indicative design the RFP does not suggest specific milestones, except the date for service commencement.  Milestone Indicative Design Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent 3 1 Financial close (Effective date) Jun-12 16-Jul-12 18-Jun-12 29-Jun-12 2 Demolition permit  16-jul-12 10-jul-12 29-jun-12 2  Pandosy demolition  13-Feb-13 4-Oct-12 31-Oct-12 3 Densification complete  8-Jan-14 14-Dec-12 5-Jul-13 4 Structure complete  9-Oct-14 7-Aug-13 15-Jan-14 5 Envelope complete  31-Dec-14 6-Dec-13 10-Jul-14 6 Interior complete  24-Sept-15 12-Mar-14 16-Jun-15 7 Commissioning  01-Feb-16 23-Oct-14 30-Sept-15 8 Service commencement 29-Feb-16 29-Feb-16 15-Jan-15 30-Sept-15 Table 2.17 Proponents milestones  104   Figure 2.10 Milestones chart105  2.3.3 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification (RFP 3.2.4.3) This item relates to the strategy proposed by each proponent about how they planned to obtain LEED gold certification and also indicated the energy target utilization for the IHSC building. (Comparable information was not available for the indicative design).  2.3.3.1 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification-requirements (RFP 3.2.4.3) As indicated in the RFP, all proponents were requested to deliver a strategy to obtain LEED gold certification for the facility. Also proponents were required to provide the following information: a) Anticipated narrative and summary of the proponent?s LEED gold certification strategy. b) A description of the proponent's plan to apply for and obtain available BC Hydro power smart new construction program or other funding or incentives for the authority. c) A description of the details of the proponent?s energy management plan, including accountability mechanisms. d) A description of the details of the planned energy performance of the facility. e) Provision of a design and construction regulated energy target and proposed agreed proportions of energy for the facility as determined by the energy model using LEED.  2.3.3.2 Assessment of innovation-energy efficiency and LEED gold certification (RFP 3.2.4.3) 2.3.3.2.1 Proponent 1 Proponent 1 proposes to target 43 points for LEED gold certification, with the score to obtain that level of certification being 39 to 51 points.   106  Proponent 1 described some strategies to achieve LEED gold certification as follows: ? Construction activities: From the start of construction to occupancy the aim would be to reduce the amount of materials thrown into the waste stream, reduce harm to the surrounding environment and provide both construction workers and users with a good indoor air quality environment. In order to achieve the proposed idea, waste management including the correct disposal and recycling of all construction materials would be implemented to reduce unnecessary trips to the landfill. An indoor air quality management plan would be in place during construction and prior to occupancy.  ? Building/Site: Proponent 1 offered to achieve a high level of energy efficiency first through the use of passive measures based on an understanding of the local climatic conditions and second, through the use of durable building materials. The implementation of the plan consisted of an analysis of the Kelowna climate using analytical software, the results of which identified the sun angles during all four seasons-summer, winter and both shoulder seasons, shadow effects of the existing neighboring buildings and the proposed building and all seasonal temperatures of the region. The information gathered in this analysis was used to place and proportion the window arrangement and solar shading devices, which keeps out unnecessary heat gain and glare while providing as much day lighting as possible into the interior of the building. In addition to these initial measures, proponent 1 explains that the composition of wall and roof assemblies would be designed to achieve further building energy efficiency and exterior materials would be chosen on the basis of their durability as well. Proposed by proponent 1 is the use of metal panels, stone fa?ade, wood soffits, decorative timber columns, and concrete construction for the exterior of the building.  107  ? Users/occupancy: In order to provide alternative transportation options, some of the solutions proposed by proponent 1 include secure, covered bike lockers located near the main IHSC entrance with access to shower and changing facilities provided near the ground floor staff area for cyclists. A clear pedestrian pathway would be provided from the site to the newly relocated bus stop. An electrical vehicle refueling station will be provided within 200m of the new building.  Regarding the planned energy performance, proponent 1 indicates that the IHSC would achieve a minimum of 6 LEED energy points under LEED Canada NC Version 1.1. Also indicates that this performance will be achieved through the following improvements to the building: ? Improved glazing U-values (1.8 W/m^2-C). ? Improved roof & crawl space insulation (RSI = 6.7). ? Building overhangs. ? Improved boiler efficiency with condensing boilers and low-temperature heating hot water loop. ? Improved chiller efficiency. ? Reduced lighting power densities for non-medical lighting. ? Use of occupancy sensors in all applicable spaces. ? Low-flow fixtures to reduce domestic hot water usage. ? Airflow setbacks in operating rooms when rooms are not in use to reduce fan and reheat energy. ? Reduced fan power due to normal operation of two redundant AHUs in parallel at 50% flow. 108  ? Variable flow primary pumping arrangement on chilled water & heating hot water systems. ? Heat recovery chiller operation to recover heat from IT/electrical spaces as well as exhaust air flows, and inject that heat into the heating hot water loop for year-round use in reheats coils.  Table 2.18 provides a summary of total energy consumed by year provided by proponent 1: Total energy summary Proposed building energy (MJ) Electricity 10,680,543 Natural gas 8,032,247 Total 18,712,790 Table 2.18 Proponent 1 energy target  2.3.3.2.2 Proponent 2 Proponent 2 explained that their proposal was compliant with LEED gold certification requirements. In its proposal, proponent 2 planned to achieve 41 points in order to obtain Gold certification.   109  Some of the strategies presented to achieve the 41 point are: ? Sustainable sites: an erosion and sedimentation control plan would be implemented to minimize site impacts and would be monitored throughout the different phases of construction.  ? Water efficiency: Water efficiency throughout the building will be ensured through the proper specification and installation of low-flow fixtures that will provide an anticipated 40% water use reduction over a base line building condition. ? Energy and atmosphere: During the hot summer months, the cooling plant for the facility would utilize a chilled water system consisting of centrifugal chillers optimized for cooling and one heat recovery chiller optimized for heating. This unit would extract heat from exhaust air to preheat ventilation air brought into the building. Similarly, the evaporative cooling towers would utilize a closed pipe system to capture and reuse heat within a glycol to water heat exchanger. During the fall and winter months, the heating plant; which is comprised of high efficiency condensing heating water boilers, would only be used when needed. The first priority within the system is to use the reclaimed energy from the heat recovery systems and heat recovery chiller before operating the boilers. ? Materials and resources: The design includes dedicated space on each floor for the storage and collection of recyclables; including paper, cardboard, plastic, glass and metal. These would be processed as part of the existing recycling program on the campus. Similarly during construction, a construction waste management plan would be implemented to divert at least 75% of construction waste, demolition and land clearing debris from landfill disposal into various recycling streams. 110  According to proponent 2, the primary tool for energy management would be the Building Management System (?BMS?). The BMS would be used as a tool for minimizing energy consumption in two ways: ?  By actively controlling and monitoring the amount of energy used so that systems would operate as designed.  ? By continuously evaluating the demand on facility infrastructure such as HVAC equipment and electrical and plumbing systems.  Table 2.19 indicates are regulated energy target of proponent 2 Total energy summary Proposed building energy (MJ) Electricity 14,251,327 Natural gas 8,811,173 Total 23,062,500 Table 2.19 Proponent 2 energy target  2.3.3.2.3 Proponent 3 Proponent 3 anticipated that the LEED certification process would take 18 months, and proposed to achieve 42 points in order to obtain LEED gold certification.   In order to achieve its energy conservation objectives, proponent 3 committed to seek out opportunities for reducing energy usage and costs throughout the operation of the IHSC facility.   111  Some of the strategies proposed are listed below: ? Maintain all plant and system equipment, and control and manage systems and energy infrastructure in such a way as to minimize energy waste. ? Monitor and report on the energy consumption of the site at micro and macro levels and identify and implement opportunities to lower energy consumption in conjunction with the stakeholders and User Groups. ? Promote awareness of the responsibility for energy conservation to the stakeholders and individuals.  Proponent 3 offered an ?Energy management? system with the ability to monitor, manage and control a number of energy reducing strategies, which included: ? Heating and cooling water temperature control ? where the water temperature is adjusted slightly, commensurate with monitored internal conditions, to reduce loads. ? Crawl space heat minimization ? where the temperature of the crawl space is monitored carefully so that the fans associated with this area would be turned off when conditions allowed the crawl space temperature to be maintained without mechanical assistance. ? Lighting Control ? where the BMS is used to turn on /off lights based on time schedule control and daylight control. Note that minimum lighting levels for security would always be maintained as required. ? Occupancy schedule control ? where the IHSC facility?s occupancy schedules would be constantly monitored and adjusted according to the actual working hours, to reduce overall building energy use. 112  According to proponent 3, the primary electrical source of energy savings is in the lighting and ventilation fan designs. For lighting, energy efficient T5 and T8 lights would be used with high performing electronic ballasts. Occupancy sensors and daylight sensors would be used as appropriate to reduce lighting consumption when lights are not needed due to spaces being empty or well-lit naturally, respectively.  It is also quoted by proponent 3 that fan energy would be significantly reduced through the use of two supply fans in each air handling unit. In normal operation, each of these fans would blow half the total amount of air required for that unit. This would significantly reduce the required power to operate each air handling unit. Finally, most of the major fans and pumps, as well as the chillers, would include variable speed drives (?VSDs?). VSDs save energy by reducing the power required to run fans and pumps when full speed is not required. Most equipment spends more than 75% of its operational hours at part load, so these devices could provide considerable energy savings.  Approximately one third of the electrical energy use in the building as designed would be due to heating and cooling requirements. As such, according to proponent 3, the mechanical design is critical to energy performance.   The heating plant for the IHSC facility consisted of eight boilers. There are two condensing boilers for low temperature hot water, four steel tube boilers for domestic hot water and winter peak conditions, and two steam boilers for sterilization and humidification. The system was 113  designed so that the highest efficiency boilers would operate as often as possible and act as the first source of building heat.   Proponent 3 indicated that there are significant opportunities for free heat through rejection from the cooling system. Whenever possible, free heat would be used before space heating boilers to provide heating water to the IHSC Facility. It is estimated by proponent 3 that 160 tons of free heating would be available during peak cooling conditions.  The domestic hot water boiler has additional heat recovery features through the hot oil recovery heat exchanger that has been included in the system. According to proponent 3, this device provides pre-heat for incoming water to the domestic storage tanks  Table 2.20 indicates proponent 3 regulated energy target, Total energy summary Proposed building energy (MJ) Electricity 18,396,932 Natural gas 6,623,775 Total 25,020,707 Table 2.20 Proponent 3 energy target   114  2.3.3.2.4 Comparison between indicative design and proponents It is possible to conclude that all IHSC project proponents were aware of the importance of having a sustainable design and included strategies in order to achieve the minimum score to obtain the LEED gold certification. Proponent 1 presents the lowest energy consumption by a significant margin in comparison to the two other proponents, mostly because a significant reduction in electricity consumption. This reduction in consumption could be associated with the complexity of the design and the higher target score to achieve LEED that allow the building to be more efficient in terms of energy consumption.  On the other hand proponent?s 2 design is the most simple layout with the largest gross area. However the layout of the building proposed by proponent 2 (see Figure 2.11) maximizes southern and north exposure, which according to the Daylight guide for Canadian commercial buildings (Public works and Government Services Canada, 2002) allows the most daylight access and the best control of excess solar gain in the summer. Also indicated in that reference is that northern exposure is key to minimizing electric light use. Table 2.21, also shows the target energy consumption and the consumption per square meter for each proponent:  Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent 3 Electricity(MJ) 10,680,543 14,251,327 18,396,932 Natural gas(MJ) 8,032,247 8,811,173 6,623,775 Total(MJ) 18,712,790 23,062,500 25,020,707 Gross area (m2) 1,174 14,162 12,901 MJ/m2 1,420.4 1,628.4 1,939.4 Target score LEED gold 43 41 42 Table 2.21 Target energy consumption  115  2.4 Conclusions of the chapter The results obtained for each item come from an interpretation and the requirement for any accompanying judgments by the author of the documentation available. In some cases, others may interpret/judge aspects of the documentation reviewed differently.  After the developed of this chapter it is possible to conclude the following:  The following comments place the work performed in perspective: 1) This work study and assess the level of innovation from a process perspective, It is suggested to complement the results of this work, with the findings in terms of product included in Dalencon, 2013.  2) The work conducted was based on the RFP, indicative design and the three technical proposals received. 3) One important challenge was to choose and developed a proper definition of innovation to be used in this work. 4) Once a proper definition is selected, it is necessary is to find a way to apply it and assess the level of innovation (if any) included in each proposal. It is important to understand that having different ideas, methodologies or designs does not necessarily mean that they are attributable to innovation. 5) A considerable level of effort is required to identify innovation. For this endeavor, the indicative design is used as a starting point and the base to compare with. A set of metrics was defined in order to facilitate the characterization and comparison between proposals and indicative design. 116  6) Presented in Table 2.22 are some of the results obtained after the developed of Chapter 2. The results obtained for each item come from an interpretation and judging of the documentation available.    Metrics Units Indicative design Proponent 1 Proponent  2 Proponent  3  Process view      2.3.1.2 Structure       Gross building area m2  13,174 14,162.2 12,901  Net building area  m2 4,798.5 5,006.6 5,106.4 5,481.2  Number of levels n 5 4 4 4  Number of levels including future IPU n 5 4 4 4  Soil mitigation strategy Type Preloading Stone columns and Preloading Densification Preloading and vibro-densification  Soil mitigation duration Month 9 5-6 2 8  Type of foundation Type Raft slab Raft slab Raft slab Raft slab 2.3.2.2 Schedule       Finish dates for milestones Date      Project duration (From financial close to service commencement) Months 44 43 31 38  Speed of construction m2/ months  306 456.8 339.5  Service commencement Date 02/29/16 2/29/16 01/15/15 09/30/15 2.3.3.2 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification       Proponent energy target MJ Not available 18,712,790 23,062,500 25,020,707  Electricity usage MJ Not available 10,680,543 14,251,327 18,396,932  Natural gas usage MJ Not available 8,032,247 8,811,173 6,623,775  Target score LEED gold Score Not available 43 41 42 Table 2.22 Process summary metrics. 117  Chapter  3: Conclusions  3.1 Overview The primary focus of the work was threefold: (i) identify an extensive set of metrics for measuring preliminary design performance; (ii) determine if there were substantive differences amongst the various proponent proposals as well as the indicative proposal for the IHSC project as measured in terms of the metrics identified in (i); and, (iii) pass judgment on whether or not innovation, broadly defined, contributed to these differences. Chapter 3 is ordered as follow: ? Research objectives  ? Work methodology ? Research challenges ? Overview of conclusions ? Details of the process perspective study  ? The chapter concludes with a results analysis and recommendations for future research.  3.2 Research objectives As described in Chapter 1, the following points are specific objectives for this research are: 1. Identify studies and investigations available regarding the issue of innovation and the relationship between innovation and choice of procurement method; 2. Present a methodology that helps with the tasks of identifying and assessing innovation in project proposals, and which includes a set of metrics to facilitate the characterization of a project in terms of its process dimension and, 118  3. Try to recognize from a process perspective specific sources of innovation (if any), included in the proposals submitted for the IHSC project. The focus of the analysis is on construction duration, construction methodologies, and energy consumption.  3.3 Work methodology In addressing the foregoing objectives and related questions, the methodology employed consisted of the following steps (as stated here, the methodology is elaborated upon somewhat as compared to what is presented in the first chapter of this work, as some of the lessons learned have been incorporated): ? A thorough review and analysis of the literature available was performed. With the focus, on a public private partnership procurement mode, innovation metrics focused in constructability and buildability were sought. The literature review also examined experience related to the use of a P3 procurement mode in health care facilities in other countries (Australia, U.K and Canada) ? An extended set of performance metrics for assessing design performance, inclusive of the metrics of interest for the IHSC project as defined by the client was compiled; ? A large amount of information pertaining to the IHSC project was analyzed and used as base for the study. This information included: o RFP, including the indicative design o Score sheet o Technical proposals presented by the three proponent Information regarding capital and life cycle cost for the indicative design and proposals was not available for this study. 119  ? A basic premise adopted for the work is that innovation comes about in response to one or more of evaluation criteria as stated in the request for proposal, from constraints imposed by site conditions and client operating conditions (e.g. geotechnical conditions, and the need to maintain operation of other facilities in the healthcare complex while construction work is performed), the development of technologies (process) in other jurisdictions including international ones, prevailing regulations, and good or best practice guidelines compiled by healthcare providers and professional organizations. It is observed that constraints can generate innovation, which was the case for the IHSC  ? Adoption of a flexible definition of innovation for the purpose of this research was indispensable.  Based on Russell, Tawiah, and de Zoysa (2006); the following definition was adopted; ?The use of advanced technologies, methodologies, and clever ideas that result in a positive incremental change compared to the indicative design?. This definition is more flexible and broad to others found in the literature review which, for example, require that in order to have something declared as innovation, it must be adopted in one or more projects following utilization on a first project Gambatese and Hallowell (2011).The definition adopted in this study is more in line with that of Slaughter?s (1998) in which she indicates that one can characterize innovation according to whether it is incremental (small and based on existing experience and knowledge), radical (a breakthrough in science and technology), modular (a change in concept with a component only), architectural (a change in links to other components or systems), or system (multiple, integrated innovations). She reduces the foregoing to an operating definition of actual use of a non-trivial change and improvement in a process, product, or system that is novel to 120  the institution developing the change (Slaughter 1998). Her definition is reasonably compatible with that used in this work. Included in the definition used herein is the adoption of ideas from good practice guides, especially those compiled based on experience in other jurisdictions, academic studies, etc. ? i.e. an ?awareness? dimension. ? Once a definition of innovation was determined, the challenge was to find a proper way to identify innovation. For purposes of this study, the decision made was to search only for substantive differences amongst the indicative design and each proposal. After significant differences were found, then a judgment had to made in order to evaluate if innovation was the reason of those differences   3.4 Research challenges During the execution of this study several challenges were found. Some of the challenges are summarized as follows: ? A considerable level of effort is required to identify innovation. For this endeavor, the indicative design was used as a starting point and the base to compare with when a value for the metric of interest was available.  ? Since the IHSC is a multi-function health care building project comprised of a full range of building systems and subject to a complex regulatory environment, the assessment of innovation is complex and it is difficult to achieve a single innovation that has a major impact on project performance (this was in fact achieved for proponent 2 which affected NPVbase considerably because of a much reduced construction duration and smaller capital cost). Contrast this with a large scale civil, ?single? function infrastructure project like a bridge or highway, where fewer systems are present but where the scale of 121  repetitive processes can justify significant expenditures on novel process methods / technologies. Further, the evaluation of building projects involves a much wider breadth of knowledge than a civil infrastructure project. In addition to a solid grasp of geotechnical, structural, materials, and building science knowledge, other key knowledge areas include spatial planning, HVAC systems, security systems, conveying systems, and electrical systems. ? As mentioned earlier, for this study was not available information regarding capital and life cycle cost. ? This study is a pioneering one. As part of the extensive literature review performed, no academic or other research was identified that examined the details of competing proposals with a view to identifying reasons for differences in performance, including innovation. Judging the existence of innovation in a proposal is a non-trivial task, in part because there are many definitions and differences in views as to what constitutes innovation.  ? The process for assembling the results was a challenge. The process view did not have a detailed measurement system to use as based to identify innovation, and process view information (how different systems were to be constructed) was very limited. What has been attempted is to compile a fairly exhaustive list of metrics of relevance to measuring different dimensions of building performance, including the presence of innovation.   122  3.5  Overview of conclusions A summary of the findings obtained from this research are as follows  1. As stated previously, a wide variety of definitions of innovation was found during the development of this study. For purposes of this work, a flexible definition was stated and used. Very little information was available in terms of specific academic research conducted about methodologies for assessing the sources of innovation in the construction industry, and no study was found that examined and compared actual proposals submitted for a specific project. 2. The methodology adopted for this study involved a specific set of metrics and a definition of innovation that assisted with identifying significant differences amongst proponent proposals as well as with the indicative design. 3. In terms of ?innovative? ideas, one team was clearly superior on treatment of poor geotechnical conditions, which affected both project duration and capital cost. A different proponent demonstrated a high level of acumen with respect to space planning and efficiency of space, while another demonstrated markedly better energy consumption performance (see Table 3.1 for an overview of findings). In different ways, innovation was achieved, given the definition of innovation adopted, but innovation at best is a contributing factor to the substantive differences in performance detected. None of the ideas identified were revolutionary, or in the lexicon of Slaughter (1998), radical. Differences detected represented an attention to detail, and knowledge of what has been used by others in other venues (e.g. the use of light weight fill and over-excavation to reduce soil load).    123  Building Dimension Brief Description An area of potential innovation in IHSC? Building Physical Form (capital & life cycle cost) Shape & compactness Deals with the complexity of the layout and the building perimeter Yes- through simplification of the layout by reducing the number of jogs and changes in the shape consistent with known constructability principles. Proponent 2 distinctly superior. Space layout/efficiency metric Refers to the percentage  of functional space used over the total area Yes- through maximizing the functional space area relative to building area. Proponent 3 distinctly superior. Building Systems (capital and life cycle cost) Ground treatment/foundation Deals with soil remediation measures and foundation system elements Yes ? through determination of how to avoid a prolonged pre-load phase. Proponent 2 distinctly superior, including to the indicative design. Superstructure Deals with configuration /layout  of structure, type of structural solution ? materials used, etc.,  No ? design influenced most by client requirement of a 9m x 9m grid Exterior enclosure Wall & fenestration system used No ? design influenced most by client requirement e.g. use of wood Interior construction Partition materials, finishes, etc.  No  Conveying system & staircases Number, positioning and capacity of elevators, number and positioning of staircases No ? but some differences in numbers and positioning,   HVAC Heating, cooling and ventilation system plus energy costs Yes ? Proponent 1 distinctly superior in total energy use. No meaningful difference in LEED points. Hard landscaping See the criterion Enhance site development features No Table 3.1 Possible areas of innovation  4. It is clear, however, that selecting a procurement mode that allows competition on design and with respect to a well-executed indicative design leads to a more refined and responsive design. Whether or not the additional costs incurred in such a mode are compensated for design improvements is not absolutely clear ? for the case at hand, the benefits derived from the competitive process involved appear to substantially outweigh the incremental costs involved. 124  3.6 Details of the process perspective study  In this section, an elaboration of Table 3.1 in the form of Table 3.2 is provided in terms of all of the metrics examined with respect to the process dimension of the project. In essence, research results are compiled into a single table, along with some additional higher level metrics including normalization of some of the results to make clear relative performance either between the proponent proposals and the indicative design or directly between the proponent proposals.   3.6.1 Process perspective 3.6.1.1 Structure In terms of differences in the structural system between the indicative design and proponent proposals, it is possible to identify significant differences. First it is possible to conclude that all proponents suggested ideas to improve and make more efficient the design. Reducing the building height by 1 level results in a reduction of weight transfer to the foundation, leading to a capital cost saving. This reduction cannot be claimed as an innovation.  An important source of innovation is the difference between the indicative design and the proposals regarding soil condition mitigation. As indicated, the geotechnical report suggests that preload treatment should be undertaken. Regarding this issue, only proponent 2 offers a different solution indicating that preloading is not necessary and assumes the risk of carrying out a different strategy than the one suggested by the geotechnical report. By using this approach proponent 2 is able to offer a significant reduction in the construction duration with attendant savings in indirect construction costs and earlier delivery of the facility.   125  In terms of soil mitigation and type of foundation it is possible to see that all proponents adopt reduction in the height of the building as a strategy to reduce the weight of building and therefore reduce load transfer to the foundation. There are no differences in terms of the type of foundation selected by the proponents, as suggested by the geotechnical report all proponents chose a raft foundation system.   It is possible to conclude that the minimum functional area required in the RFP is met by all proponents regardless of the shape of building. Proponent 1 and 2 indicate in their proposals functional areas very close to the indicative design (200 m2 and 300 m2 of difference respectively).   In terms of functional areas, the design of proponent 2 delivers the lowest ratio between functional space and gross area (proponent 1: 38%, proponent 2: 36 %, proponent 3: 42 %) which means that proponent 2 is the one that needed the largest gross area of construction in order to accommodate the functional space required in the RFP. When comparing gross areas, it is possible to observe that proponent?s 2 design is around 1000 m2 larger than proponents 1 and 3. However, proponent 2 offers the simplest configuration in terms of layout which enhances constructability of the facility. The difference in terms of simplicity of the layout between proponent 2 and the other two proponents as well as the indicative design is significant. This difference is relevant since it would be possible to assume that the larger the building the more expensive it would be since it requires more fa?ade materials to enclose it. However, unit costs for a design with a simple configuration can be considerably less than designs with more variation in shape.  126  3.6.1.2 Project schedule In terms of differences with the indicative design, it is possible to conclude that proponent 2 is the one who presented the shortest time of construction by a significant margin, and therefore the one with a more innovative proposal. The reason is that proponents 1 and 3 offer soil preparation based on preloading the site for several months, while proponent 2 indicates that according to its design, preloading is not necessary and assumes the risk of proposing a different alternative than the one suggested by the geotechnical report. This strategy has important implications in terms of time reduction, savings for capital costs, as well as providing more benefits for the target user audience of the facility through earlier delivery.  3.6.1.3 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification It is possible to conclude that all IHSC project proponents were aware of the importance of having a sustainable design and included strategies in order to achieve the minimum score to obtain the LEED gold certification. Proponent 1 presents the lowest energy consumption by a significant margin in comparison to the two other proponents, mostly because of a significant reduction in electricity consumption. The research team was not in a position to judge if the significant saving in energy consumed and associated energy life cycle cost arose from one or more innovations, or just the adoption of leading edge practices. Warranted is more study with expert input on the design of the HVAC system in order to determine if significant innovation was present. It is observed on a life cycle cost basis that the difference between the best (proponent 1) and worst (proponent 3) designs is some $2.5 million (Table 3.2). This difference is of particular interest as the design for proponent 3 involved the smallest gross building area. Proponent 2 with a larger gross area consumed less energy. 127  3.7 Results analysis After comparison between the indicative design and each proposal, it is possible to say that all proponents satisfy the minimum requirements indicated in the RFP. In Table 3.2 it is easy to see the differences in terms of metrics between the indicative design and each proponent.   Areas of potential innovation were detected, including how best to accommodate poor soil conditions in a way to provide a significant reduction in schedule duration, and the application of constructability principles in terms of simplicity of form to reduce capital cost.   The winning proponent focused on speed and reducing capital cost, which combined with service delivery ?credits? earned plus energy cost resulted in a wining proposal. Attention to detail, awareness of the state-of-the-art, and knowledge of ideas tried in other venues contributed to the quality of all proposals, especially the winning one.  128  Metrics Units Distance for min. score Distance for max. score Indicative Design Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent  3 Area of potential innovation Process view         2.3.1.2 Structure         Total building area m2    13,174 14,162.2 12,901  functional area to meet client program m2   4,798.5 5,006.6 5,106.4 5,481.2  Compactness/efficiency metric (functional area/total area)    N/A 0.38 0.36 0.42 yes Number of levels No   5 4 4 4  Number of levels including future IPU n   5 4 4 4  Soil mitigation strategy Type   Preloading Stone columns Preloading Densification Preloading & vibro-densification  Soil mitigation duration Month   9 5-6 2 7  Soil mitigation duration relative to indicative design    1.0 0.61 0.22 0.78 yes Type of foundation Type   Raft slab Raft slab Raft slab Raft slab  2.3.2.2 Schedule         Project duration (From proponent selection to service commencement) Months   44 43 31 38  Proponent project duration relative to indicative design    1.0 0.97 0.70 0.86 yes Speed of construction m2/day   Not available 306 456.8 339.5  Speed of construction relative to the best proposal m2/day    0.7 1,0 0.74 yes Service commencement Date   29-Feb-16 29-Feb-16 15-Jan-15 30-Sept-15  2.3.3.2 Energy efficiency and LEED gold certification         Proponent energy target MJ   Not available 18,712,790 23,062,500 25,020,707  Total energy use relative to best proposal     1.0 1.23 1.34 yes Total energy use per m2 of functional space MJ/ m2    3,737.6 4,516.4 4,564.8 yes Electricity usage MJ   Not available 10,680,543 14,251,327 18,396,932  Electricity energy use relative to best     1.0 1.33 1.72 yes 129  Metrics Units Distance for min. score Distance for max. score Indicative Design Proponent 1 Proponent 2 Proponent  3 Area of potential innovation proposal Natural gas usage MJ   Not available 8,032,247 8,811,173 6,623,775  Natural gas usage relative to best proposal     1.21 1.33 1.0 yes Net present cost (NPC) total energy use*     4,972,916 6,332,794 7,420,698 yes Energy cost relative to best proponent proposal     1.0 1.273 1.493 yes Target score LEED gold Score   Not available 43 41 42  Table 3.2 Table of metrics-Process perspective Notes to table: ? Unit price used for electricity and gas, respectively, are $0.0144/MJ and $0.02276/MJ as per RFP. ? Discount rate of 7.5% used and 2.5% value used for CPI in NPV calculations ? Concession period of 30 years used, and assumption is end of period flows. ? All discounting done to start of operation. Small adjustment required to bring to award date of concession agreement. This would penalize proponent 2 slightly because of fastest design/construction delivery.   130  3.8 Future work Recommendations for future research include the following: 1) It would be useful for future researchers to provide more insight on how to identify and measure innovation. More work is required on creating metrics with which to assess the physical attributes of a design and how it will be used in operation. Included in these metrics is the interaction amongst various building systems and treatment of risk ? different designs, including systems may have quite different risk profiles. 2) The analysis of the designs examined in this research work was limited to assessing the proposals submitted. In the future, it would be useful to the extent possible to interview members of the proponent teams to gain insights on the thought processes and tradeoffs made in developing a design.  3) A question of some interest is as follows: It is reasonable to expect that a proponent?s proposal should be superior to an indicative design in all aspects, or in fact are tradeoffs involved?. One?s intuition suggests that the indicative design might be superior in terms of certain measures, but inferior in others given a meaningful level of effort to create an indicative design. 4) Finally, It is suggested that an comprehensive literature review should be conducted in order to complement the one included in this work focus on the practitioners literature.    131  References AMA Alexi Marmot Associates for the UK Higher Education Space Management Project. (2006). Promoting space efficiency in Building Design. Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2), 203?221. Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1986). Constructability: A primer. Austin, Texas. Cooper, R. (2005). Process management in design and construction. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management (Vol. 9). Oxford, UK?;Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Eaton, D., Akbiyikli, R., & Dickinson, M. (2006). An evaluation of the stimulants and impediments to innovation within PFI / PPP projects. Construction innovation, 6(1), 63?77. Emmitt, S. (2001). Technological gatekeepers?: the management of trade. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(1), 2?8. Fowler, Spees, & Solana. (2005). Building Cost and Performance Metrics?: Data Collection Protocol. Federal Energy Management Program, U.S. Retrieved May 8, 2013, from http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15217.pdf Gambatese, J. a., & Hallowell, M. (2011). Enabling and measuring innovation in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 29(6), 553?567. Garvin, M. J., & Bosso, D. (2008). Assessing the Effectiveness of Infrastructure Public-Private Partnership Programs and Projects. Public Works Management & Policy, 13(2), 162?178. Garvin, Michael J. (2003). Role of Project Delivery Systems in Infrastructure Improvement. Construction Research Congress. Gibson, G. E. J., Mcginnis, C. I., Flanigan, W. S., & Wood, J. E. (1996). Constructability in the public sector. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, (September), 274?280. Lam, P. T. I., Chan, A. P. C., Wong, F. K. W., & Wong, F. W. H. (2007). Constructability Rankings of Construction Systems Based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of architectural engineering, 13(March), 36?43. Leiringer, R. (2006). Technological innovation in PPPs: incentives, opportunities and actions. Construction Management and Economics, 24(3), 301?308. 132  Liddle, B. T. (1997). Privatization Decision and Civil Engineering Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(3), 73?78. McKee, M., Edwards, N., & Atun, R. (2006). Public-private partnerships for hospitals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(11), 890?896. Partnerships British Columbia. (2003). An Introduction to Public Private Partnerships. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/pdf/An Introduction to P3 -June03.pdf Partnerships British Columbia. (2004). Achieving Value for Money Academic Ambulatory Care Centre Project. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2004/PBCAACCVFM.pdf Partnerships British Columbia. (2005). Achieving Value for Money Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre Project. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files_2/documents/020705_PBCAbbotsford.pdf Partnerships British Columbia. (2008). Achieving Value for Money Kelowna and Vernon Hospitals Project. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files-4/documents/PBC_KVH_ProjectFINAL.pdf Partnerships British Columbia. (2009). Achieving Value for Money Fort St . John Hospital and Residential Care Project. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files-4/documents/fsjh_vfm_22dec09.pdf Partnerships British Columbia. (2010). Achieving Value for Money BC Cancer Agency Centre for the North. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files-4/documents/projectreportcentreforthenorthfinal.pdf Partnerships British Columbia. (2012). Interior Heart and Surgical Centre Project Report. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files-4/documents/PBCIHSC.pdf Public works and Government Services Canada. (2002). Daylighting Guide for Canadian Commercial Buildings, (August), 1?86. Rankin, J., Fayek, A. R., Meade, G., Haas, C., & Manseau, A. (2008). Initial metrics and pilot program results for measuring the performance of the Canadian construction industry. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(9), 894?907. Russell, A. D., Tawiah, P., & de Zoysa, S. (2006). Project innovation ? a function of procurement mode?? 1. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(2006), 1519?1537. Schumpeter, J. . (1961). The theory of Economic development: An inquiery into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. (Vol. 110). Oxford University Press, New York. 133  Slaughter, E Sarah. (2000). Implementation of construction innovations, Building Reseacrh & Information. Building Research & Information, 28(1), 2?17. Slaughter, E.S. (1998). Models of construction innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3), 226?231. Stoy, C., & Kytzia, S. (2005). Office building efficiency and capacity benchmarks. Facilities, 23(1/2), 16?30. Stoy, C., & Schalcher, H. (2007). Residential Building Projects?: Building Cost Indicators and Drivers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(2), 139?145. Taylor, R. (2002). Public Hospitals: Options for Reform through Public-Private Partnerships. Public Policy for the Private Sector. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from www.worldbank.org/html/pdf/notes/ The Canadian council for public-private partnerships. (2013). The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://projects.pppcouncil.ca/ccppp/src/public/search-project?pageid=3d067bedfe2f4677470dd6ccf64d05ed The Centre for Sustainable Building and Construction (CSBC). (2010). Building planning and massing (pp. 1?114). Singapore. Wall, A., & Connolly, C. (2009). The Private Finance Initiative. Public Management Review, 11(5), 707?724. Wong, F. W. H., Lam, P. T. I., & Shen, L. Y. (2004). A dynamic design management system for improving buildability of cosntruction. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 1(September), 185?194.       134          Appendices Source: drawings provided by Partnerships BC  135          Appendix A: Indicative design   136   Figure A1 Indicative design site plan   137   Figure A2 Indicative design level 1   138   Figure A3 Indicative design level 2   139   Figure A4 Indicative design level 3 140   Figure A5 Indicative design level 4 141   Figure A6 Indicative design level 1 alternate 142   Figure A7 Indicative design post construction settlements 143   Figure A8 Indicative design building load configuration 144          Appendix B: General description of proponent solution   145   Figure B1 Proponent 1 level 1 and 2 Pre op to OR    146   Figure B2 Proponent 1 level 2 OR to staff lounge   147   Figure B3 Proponent 1 level 1 and 2 Pre op to clean and cardiac OR to CSICU  148    Figure B4 Proponent 1 level 1 and 2 Pre op to OR 149    Figure B5 Proponent 2 level 1 Pre op to OR 150    Figure B6 Proponent 2 level 1 PARR to Pre op 151    Figure B7 Proponent 2 level 1 PARR to Pre op 152    Figure B8 Proponent 2 level 1 links 153    Figure B9 Proponent 2 level 2 links 154    Figure B10 Proponent 2 level 3 links 155          Appendix C: Structure   156    Figure C1 Proponent 1 conceptual preload plan 157   Figure C2 Proponent 1 conceptual stone columns ground improvement layout 158   Figure C3 Proponent 1 conceptual shoring, 159   Figure C4 Proponent 1 structural plan foundation/crawl space 160   Figure C5 Proponent 1 structural plan level 1 161    Figure C6 Proponent 1 structural plan level 2 162   Figure C7 Proponent 1 structural plan level 3 163   Figure C8 Proponent 1 structural plan level 4164   Figure C9 Proponent 1 structural plan future level 4 165   Figure C10 Proponent 1 structural plan level 5 166   Figure C11 Proponent 1 shear wall elevation 167   Figure C12 Proponent 2 structure foundation 168   Figure C13 Proponent 2 structure level 1 169   Figure C14 Proponent 2 structure level 2 170   Figure C15 Proponent 2 structure level 3 171   Figure C16 Proponent 2 structure level 4 172   Figure C17 Proponent 2 structure level roof 173   Figure C18 Proponent 2 structure typical section 174   Figure C19 Proponent 3 structure crawl and foundation space 175   Figure C20 Proponent 3 structure main floor level 176   Figure C21 Proponent 3 structure level 2 177   Figure C22 Proponent 3 structure level 3 178   Figure C23 Proponent 3 structure level 4 179   Figure C24 Proponent 3 structure roof and future plan 180   Figure C25 Proponent 3 structure connecting links elevations and sections 181    Figure C26 Proponent 3 structure shear wall elevations and details 182   Figure C27 Proponent 3 structure sections and details 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0165662/manifest

Comment

Related Items