You are on page 1of 77

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.

04 Page 1 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
DESIGN PROCEDURES MANUAL

Executive Summary


The Los Angeles Community College District (District) Proposition A/AA Bond Program (Bond Program)
Management team has developed this Design Procedures Manual to provide detailed procedures for
implementation of the Bond Program policy, compliance with design criteria, format, applicable codes, and
standards. This manual provides detailed design procedures for the Program Manager, College Project
Managers (CPMs), and all Architectural/Engineering consultants (A/Es) to follow so as to produce design
documents of a consistent quality which are equal to or better than the industry standard.

The procedures in this manual serve as supplementary procedural guidelines to implement the Bond Program
policies and procedures. The Bond Program requirements shall be adhered to in concert with these design
procedures. The Program Manager, CPM, and all A/E consultants will use this manual as the standard for
production processes of design activities. This manual also serves as the standard for measurement of
compliance with the design and production procedures of the Bond Program.

Development, review, editing, and preliminary approval of the design procedures were performed by the
Program Management Design Procedures Committee comprising representatives from the functional design,
project organizations and quality assurance. Updates and issuance of additional design procedures will be
through the same process. Endorsement of individual procedures by the committee will be acknowledged by
signature of the Program Director.





Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

Use of Design Procedures Manual
Purpose
This Design Procedures Manual contains design procedures developed for implementation of design policy.
The procedures contained herein will be implemented by the Program Manager, all College Project Managers,
(CPMs) and all Architect/Engineer consultants (A/Es) for use on all Bond Program projects.

It shall be the A/E’s Lead Architect/Engineer’s or Discipline Manager’s responsibility to ensure that each activity
is accomplished in compliance with the applicable design procedure and the process is maintained in
accordance with the governing standards and design criteria. Documentation of each activity and process shall
be maintained by the performing department for record keeping, auditing, and surveillance purposes. The
process shall not be overridden by any of the affected parties in the process chain unless written authorization
for deviation is obtained from the Design Procedure Committee. This written authorization must be maintained
in the project record files as evidence of authorization for a variance from procedure compliance.

Scope
These procedures shall be used as a standard to measure compliance with the design development processes.
Each activity may be measured against the applicable procedure in an audit or surveillance of the work. The
A/E’s Lead Architect/Engineer or Discipline Manager shall be responsible for recording compliance to these
standards. Recording compliance will also provide a structured mechanism for consistent design development
control. Each design activity will be carried out and documented in accordance with the directions of the
applicable procedure. Compliance with each procedure will result in documentation of responsibility and
accountability for design development.

These procedures document work flow and key decision control points. The process flow and structure of
detailed activities are described and key decision control and hold points are detailed in depth for each design
activity. The procedures for coordination are defined for each design activity. Interdepartmental coordination
and documentation will be adhered to as described in each procedure. All intradepartmental coordination and
approvals will be documented as defined in the appropriate procedure.
It is essential that the A/Es use the associated forms, checkprint stamps and design checklists to document
completion of these activities.

Quality Assurance will evaluate compliance and documentation of design efforts to the appropriate procedures.
Quality Assurance audits and surveillance will be implemented using the design procedures provided herein as
the basis of measurement.

Updates and Issues
Design Procedures Manual sections are developed, edited, and reviewed by a Design Procedures Committee
that, as a minimum, consists of representatives from the Program Manager’s Preconstruction, Construction,
Contracts, Specification, and Quality Assurance departments.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 2 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Summary
This Design Procedures Manual will serve as the standard for evaluation of quality for all Bond Program related
design activities. Individual projects will be monitored to provide assurance that each procedure is being
implemented and each process is being maintained effectively. The adherence to these procedures will be
monitored through the use of quality audits and surveillance process. Both the procedures and the subsequent
product will be assessed regularly to ensure that both the system and its subsequent product are equal to or
better than current industry standard.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 3 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual





Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

DES001. Design Calculations
Purpose
This procedure defines the requirements and responsibilities for developing, approving, and maintaining the
contract-specific design calculations prepared by A/Es.
Scope
The methods by which each design calculations shall be developed, reviewed, and approved are discussed in
this document. The development and review procedures have been established to provide guidelines for
uniform design calculations preparation; provide guidelines for clear and sufficient calculations detail; confirm
design calculations meet functional criteria and objectives; and provide records of design calculations, including
backup material traceable to their input.
Definitions
Refer to the Glossary of Terms presented at the beginning of this submittal.
General
The objective of this procedure is to ensure that design calculations are prepared, reviewed, approved and
maintained in accordance with procedures set forth herein and depicted in Exhibit DES001-1 Design
Calculations Process Flow Chart. This procedure will provide assurance that the end product delivered to the
District at the completion of the design phase is consistent, complete, accurate, and in compliance with design
criteria set forth by each contract.
Checking requirements extend to A/Es and their subcontractors. Because the engineering calculations
constitute legal documentation of a project, all calculation must be legible in an efficient, organized method
from initial concept to the final filing, signed and stamped by the licensed professional engineer who performed
the calculations.
Any revision made to calculations shall be indicated in numerical sequence. Voided or suspended calculations
should be marked “Void” or “Superseded” and signed by the person performing the revisions, and indicating
reason for voiding or superseding. A log shall be included in the calculation set to identify revision number,
dates of revision, and affected pages. The log is included as an exhibit to this procedure. The Program
Manager’s QA Staff will conduct spot audits and/or surveillance of the A/E’s calculations for compliance to the
requirements of this procedure.
Responsibilities
A/E Discipline Manager
The A/E’s Discipline Manager is responsible for the following:
1) Generates Design Calculations based on contract specific design criteria, codes and standards.
2) Maintains records of all calculations to reflect project design changes.
3) Initials and dates each original calculation page.
4) Ensures the accuracy and liability of design calculations.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 4 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 5 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan









Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
5.2 Discipline Checker
The A/E’s Discipline Checker is responsible for the following:
1) Performs review, verification and approval of the calculations before they are released from the
discipline.
2) Approves calculations by initial and date on front cover sheet.
5.3 College Project Manager
The CPM is responsible for the verifying the A/E’s calculations for compliance to requirements of
this procedure.
5.4 Program Manager’s Quality Assurance (QA) Manager
The Program Manager’s QA Manager is responsible for conducting spot audits and/or surveillance of
the A/E’s calculations for compliance to requirements of this procedure.
6.0 Procedure
6.1 Calculation Preparation
Each calculation set shall have a cover sheet conforming to the “Standard Calculation Cover” and a
“Calculation Description” included in this procedure. Each item of the calculations shall be identified by
its heading or title, located at the left hand margin of the calculation sheet and underscored. The
introduction may include the following:
6.1.1 Objective
This section contains basis for development of the calculations and reference drawings.
6.1.2 Design Basis (Design Inputs)
This section states all of the design input used to develop the calculation. Any computer codes used in
the calculation shall be listed in this section. This information shall be organized according to the
following four headings:
1) Criteria and Source - Reference the appropriate and controlling design requirements
documents.
2) Given or Known Data - Supply referenced sources that are available and consistently
referenced throughout the calculation.
3) Methods to be Used - Include special data and formulae, computer codes by name and
version, and specific codes and standards followed.
4) References - Show specific paragraph or section numbers.
5) Backup Material - Include all backup material and supporting data with the calculations.
6.1.3 Findings and Conclusions
Briefly state the results of the calculations.
6.1.4 Sketches
Sketches should be used freely in calculations. They shall be drawn to scale when feasible, and show
relevant dimensions. Sketches shall also show the feasibility of prescribed spacings and adherence to
required clearances to ensure the practicality of designs. Details that affect design computations shall
be sketched.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 6 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
6.1.5 Manual Computations
All manual computations shall be penciled neatly and legibly on appropriate 8-1/2 x 11 or 11 x 17
standard computation sheets which shall bear the letterhead of the firm performing the computations.
A filing system which corresponds to the calculation numbering system shall be developed and used.
All calculation sheets, including voided sheets, shall be kept in loose leaf notebooks.
6.1.6 Computer-Generated Calculations
Computer-generated calculations must also be checked, regardless of the software selected. Where
the computer program is being used for the first time by the user or for the first time on the Bond
Program, a manual check set of calculations shall be prepared for one routine iteration to verify
software. A sample set of order of magnitude manual computations shall be sufficient for routine
computer calculation previously used on the Bond Program. The validation shall be attached to the
“Computer Program Validation Sheet” included in this procedure.
Check for:
1) Input data - A check will be made that the correct values and units were input (e.g., 10,000
pounds versus 100,000 pounds, kips versus psi, inches of mercury versus feet of water and so
forth).
2) Output data - A check will be made on the “reasonableness” of the output (e.g., a column
diameter of four feet versus four hundred feet).
3) Proprietary and/or “Public Domain” Software - The checker will confirm the applicability of the
use of any software packages employed by the designer. Thus, the individual must be
knowledgeable of the capabilities and shortcomings of the software used for the application.
The check will also confirm the necessity of the use or non-use of portions of the software.

6.2 Intradiscipline Design Review and Check
The A/E’s Lead Architect/Engineer is responsible for the Intradiscipline Design Review and Checking
process, including coordination with the A/E to complete calculations during the pre-final phase.
Checking of calculations shall be performed by discipline managers or a designated competent
discipline individual other than the original designer. Checking is performed and check comments are
resolved prior to the pre-final design milestone.
The A/E’s Discipline Manager or a designated Discipline Checker performs a technical review and
checks the changes to the calculations for appropriate technical requirements, accuracy of technical
requirements, and compatibility with overall requirements; verifies that appropriate abbreviations,
definitions, codes and standards are included.
The Discipline Manager or a designated Discipline Checker marks items to indicate agreement or
disagreement. The Checker should use the following color code:
Yellow For agreement
Red For corrections
Green Notes to the designer
Blue Used by originator to circle corrections made
Black Used by checker to circle that correction was made
Upon completion of checking, the Discipline Manager or the designated Discipline Checker signs and
dates the checked calculation in the space designated as “Checked.”
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 7 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The original designer makes appropriate corrections to resolve the Discipline Managers or the
designated Discipline Checker’s comments. Any disagreement must be reconciled with the reviewer.
Upon completion and resolution of corrections, the A/E’s Discipline Manager or the designated
discipline checker initials and dates the cover sheet of the calculation.
Each individual page of a calculation shall reflect page number, revision number (when applicable),
originator initials and date, checker initials and date.
(Exception: Acceptance and checking of computer printouts will be signed only on the cover page by
originator and checker; the initialing and dating of each computer printout page is not required.)
6.3 Discipline Approval
The A/E’s Discipline Manager will review the calculations for completeness, accuracy and to ensure
they are sealed. When required, sign and date the cover when the calculations are complete.
6.4 Archival of Calculations
Upon discipline approval, calculations are released to A/E’s Lead Architect/Engineer to be copied and
one copy each shall be forwarded to the Program Manager and CPM. The original shall be filed in the
originating designer’s discipline. The CPM is responsible for verifying that the calculations have been
signed and dated by the original designer and checker.
6.5 Quality Assurance Verification
The Program Manager will conduct spot audits and/or surveillance of the A/E’s calculations for
compliance to requirements of this procedure. College Project Manager will verify and accept A/E’s
calculations.
6.6 Documentation of Verified Calculations
Once the calculations have been verified and accepted by CPM one copy is sent to the Program
Manager’s Document Control for archival.
Once the final design milestone submittal is accepted by the District, any subsequent changes in the
calculations must be revised and reissued under change control procedures to ensure consistent
design documentation.
6.7 Revisions
6.7.1 Revisions to Calculations
After the A/E’s checker has signed the calculation, any revisions, no matter how minor, should be made
neatly on the original calculations in a manner distinct from the original calculations. Revision status
should be indicated by numerical designation in sequence (1, 2, 3…) Annotation of the revision should
be made beside the parts of the calculations that are revised using a revision triangle. The revised
pages shall also be annotated on the “Calculation Description.” The revised calculations should be
routed in the same manner as the original calculations. Supplemental pages may be labeled as 17A,
17B, etc.
6.7.2 Processing Voided or Superseded Calculations
Voided or superseded calculations should be marked “Void” or “Superseded” by the calculation
originator, and a notation should be made to indicate (1) the number and date of the calculation that
supersedes it and (2) the reason it was voided or superseded. Each calculation set shall have a
revision summary page.
7.0 References
Not Applicable
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 8 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
8.0 Attachments
The following exhibits are included are included as part of this procedure:
Attachment Title

DES001-A Calculation Cover Sheet
DES001-B Calculation Description
DES001-C Computer Program Validation
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 9 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
ATTACHMENT DES001-A

CALCULATION COVER SHEET
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 10 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES001-A


EXAMPLE
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
PROPOSITION A/AA BOND PROGRAM
LOS ANGELES VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
ARTS, MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION BUILDING
Contract No. xxxx



STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS



FINAL SUBMITTAL

VOLUME 1



April 15, 2002
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 11 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Pr
Vo
De
ogram Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Pag
lume II, Additional References
sign Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

ATTACHMENT DES001-B

CALCULATION DESCRIPTION
e 12 of 67






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES001-B


COLLEGE: JOB NO.: SHEET NO.: OF
CONTRACT NO. & NAME: BY: DATE:
CHECKED: DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVED: DATE:
CALCULATION DESCRIPTION





PURPOSE:





DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS:





REFERENCES:






REVISION RECORD
NO. DECRIPTION

BY DATE CHECKED DATE APPROVE
D
DATE


Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 13 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
ATTACHMENT DES001-C

COMPUTER PROGRAM VALIDATION
Page 14 of 67






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES001-C

COMPUTER PROGRAM VALIDATION


Program Name
Revision or Version Number






The above computer program has been validated by manual calculations or by comparison with a
previously validated computer program. Validation data is attached.



Name

Title


Department
A copy of this data sheet shall be maintained on file by the responsible Engineering Discipline
Manager.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 15 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual






Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
DES002. Specifications Development
1.0 Purpose
This procedure defines the requirements and responsibilities for preparation of project specifications by
the A/E from the LACCD Proposition A/AA Bond Program Master Outline Specification.
2.0 Scope
The methods by which each document shall be developed, reviewed, and approved are discussed in
this document. The development and review procedures have been established to provide guidelines
for uniform design document preparation; coordination between specifications and drawings; and to
provide records of specification development.
3.0 Definitions
Refer to the Glossary of Terms presented at the beginning of this submittal.
4.0 General
The Master Outline Specifications are issued by the Program Manager and are a part of Volume II,
Program Management Plan. The A/E’s specification development procedure shall be in accordance
with that depicted in Exhibit DES002.
Project specifications for a new contract design shall be prepared and developed by the A/E’s,
consistent with the CSI Manual of Practice for section numbering and page format, and as
comprehensive and complete as AIA Masterspec Specification sections. It shall be consistent with the
quality and standards specified in the Master Outline Specifications.
The Intradiscipline Design Review and Checking Process and Interdiscipline Review, shall be
completed by the A/E, prior to issuing the submittal for District, the Program Manager and CPM review
or release.
The table of contents for project specifications is established by completion of the Design Development
Phase. Specification sections are prepared and submitted at the 50% construction document
completion and 100% construction document completion Design Milestones. Design Review
comments are incorporated before documents are formally issued to the District, Program Manager
and CPM.
This process is applicable during the design and bid phases of contract development. After the
contract has been awarded to the contractor, the Change Control process shall be used.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 16 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual
17 of 67






Program Mana
Volume II,
Design Pro
gement Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04
Additional References
cedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan


Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

5.0 Responsibilities
5.1 College Project Manager
1) Overall responsibility for project specification coordination with the District, Program Manager
and A/E.
2) Request a set of selected Master Outline Specification Sections from the Program Manager
Specifications Department.
3) Ensure A/E’s Interdiscipline Review and Intradiscipline Review procedures and the resolution
of the review comments of the discipline’s specification sections prior to construction document
submittals.
4) Coordinates District, Program Manager, and third party design reviews.
5) Conducts design review meetings at the 50% and 100% construction document completion.
6) Provides a documented tracking system for design review comments and assures that
comments to specification sections are satisfactorily resolved and closed out in accordance
with the requirements of the procedure.
7) Ensures project specification are developed in accordance with this document.
8) Coordinates A/E’s submittals to Division of State Architect (DSA), California Department of
Education (CDE), and/or other governing agencies plan check and permit process as
applicable.
5.2 Project Lead Architect/Engineer
1) The Project Lead Architect/Engineer is designated by the A/E and is a licensed architect or
professional engineer acting as the sole point of contact for the A/E with the overall project
responsibility for each new contract.
2) Coordinates specification requirements from and among all Discipline Lead
Architect/Engineers and requests a set of Master Outline Specification sections from the
Program Manager through CPM and selects applicable sections.
3) Prepares project budget, schedules, monitor project progress development, assembles the
specification sections, and develops the construction document submittals.
4) Ensures all review comments from District, Program Manager, CPM, and third party are
responded to properly and incorporated, as applicable.
5) Conducts interdiscipline design review, documents and resolves with the Discipline Lead
Architect/Engineers any comments from the interdiscipline review process prior to the 50%
and 100% construction document design completion.
6) Ensures intradiscipline review is performed within each discipline and all comments are
resolved prior to the 50% and 100% construction document completion.
7) Works with CPM to prepare document for governing agencies review, plan check, and permit
process during design process and at 100% construction document design completion as
applicable .
8) Coordinates with all discipline Lead Architect/Engineers to resolve DSA, CDE, and all
governing agencies plan check comments and resubmittals.
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 18 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
5.3 Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer
1) The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer is designated by the A/E and is a licensed architect or
professional engineer acting as the lead architect/engineer for each design discipline of each
new contract.
2) The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer assigns work within the discipline and is responsible for
the development and technical content of proposed project specification sections for new
contracts and documentation reviews. The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer coordinates
references, codes, standards and incorporates text for specification development with other
departments and/or disciplines. The development of each specification section may be
delegated to the discipline designers. The responsible A/E’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer
coordinates technical requirements with the Program Manager through College Project
Manager.
3) Verifies that Intradiscipline Design Review and Checking process is performed and
documented by an independent checker before the 50% and 100% construction document
Interdiscipline Design Review.
4) Reviews and dispositions design review comments applicable to the discipline, and
incorporates appropriate comments into specification sections.
5) Develops and prepares project specification.
6) Prepares design submittals to governing agencies during design process as applicable.
7) Prepares the plan check submittal to DSA, CDE, and all governing agencies at 100%
construction document completion.
5.4 Discipline Checker
The A/E’s Discipline Checker checks specification and sections for accuracy and compliance to
applicable design criteria requirements, provides comments to the originator, and closes out checker
comments upon satisfactory resolution. The checker must be an individual other than the person who
created the design, and shall have an equivalent or higher level of knowledge.
5.5 Program Manager
1) Program Manager is responsible for the maintenance and use of the approved updated
Master Outline Specification documents.
2) Maintains the Master Outline Specification includes developing the proposed changes,
recording of proposed changes, proper incorporation and identification of approved changes,
dispositions, and distribution of the changes,.
3) Establishes and controls the configuration of the Master Outline Specification for the LACCD
Proposition A/AA Bond Program.
4) The Program Manager Specification Department provides the latest version of selected
applicable Master Outline Specification sections to the A/E through CPM, as applicable.
5.6 Program Manager Quality Assurance Manager
The Program Manager QA Manager is responsible for conducting spot audits and/or surveillance of
CPM and A/E specification section activity for compliance to requirements of this procedure.
6.0 Procedure
6.1 Specification Preparation
The Program Manager’s Specification Department maintains the latest version of Master Outline
Specification and provides them to the A/Es to prepare and develop the project specifications.
The CPM requests a copy of applicable Master Outline Specification sections from the Program
Manager and provides copies to the A/E ’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer.
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 19 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The discipline preparers of the project specification sections sign and date, identify the applicable
design phases and apply a “checkprint” stamp to the front page of each applicable specification
section.
At the 100% construction document design, the technical project specification shall be essentially
complete
6.2 Intradiscipline Design Review and Check
The A/E’s Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer is responsible for the Intradiscipline Design Review and
the Checking process, including coordination with all team members to complete markup of
specification during the design development phase.
Checking of specification sections shall be performed by a Discipline Checker other than the originator
of the marked-up changes. Checking is performed and documented, and check comments are
resolved prior to the 50% and 100% construction document design completion.
The A/E’s Discipline Checker performs a technical review and checks the changes to the specification
sections for appropriate technical requirements, accuracy of technical requirements, compatibility with
overall specification requirements; and verifies that appropriate abbreviation, definitions, codes and
standards are included and referenced in the text.
The Discipline Checker marks items to indicate agreement or disagreement of the mark-ups. The
Discipline Checker’s original should use the following color code:
1) Yellow For agreement
2) Red For corrections
3) Green Used for notes, questions, and clarifications between the originator and the
checker (These are not to be entered on the specifications).
4) Blue Used by originator to circle corrections made.
5) Black Used by checker to circle that correction was made.

A “Check Print” stamp is applied to each specification and upon completion of the review checking, the
checker signs and dates the checked specification in the space designated in the stamp as “Checked
By.”
The originator makes appropriate corrections to resolve the Discipline Checker’s comments. Any
disagreement must be reconciled with the Discipline Checker (i.e. comment withdrawn). On
completing the changes, the originator initials and dates the space designated in the check print stamp
as “Corrected By.”
Upon completion and resolution of comments, the Discipline Manager or designee initials and dates the
space designated in the checkprint stamp as “Reviewed by.”
Completed checked specification sections are maintained by the A/E as Quality Records until the
construction contractor receives a Certificate of Final Acceptance.
6.3 Interdiscipline Design Review
The A/E’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer is responsible for the Interdiscipline Design Review process
coordination.
The A/E’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer packages project specification and applies an
“Interdiscipline Review” stamp to the front page of each specification section. The stamp identifies
internal disciplines that participate in the review process.
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 20 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The A/E ’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer determines Interdiscipline Reviewers that are required to
participate in the Interdiscipline Review process for discipline’s specification sections and indicates the
reviewers by a check mark on the “Interdiscipline Review” stamp on the front page of the document.
Reviewers are limited to those interfacing disciplines or organizations that may be impacted based on
the judgment of the Lead Architect/Engineer.
The discipline specification sections are routed to applicable Interdiscipline Reviewers simultaneously.
The reviewers provide applicable comments on a review form and sign off on the review stamp, and
return their comments to the Project Lead Architect/Engineer. The Project Lead Architect/Engineer
maintains a list and status of all required reviewers, resolves reviewer comments and incorporates
appropriate comments. All comments shall be addressed by the Project Lead Architect/Engineer and
disposition noted adjacent to the reviewers comment using the Design Review Comment Form. (See
Attachment DES004 D).
Project Lead Architect/Engineers provide copies of technical project specifications to the CPM upon
completion of the Interdiscipline Review. The CPM forwards the copies to the District, Program
Manager, and third parties for review, as required.
6.4 Review and Responses
The CPM prepares a master distribution list to identify those individuals who will receive the contract set
for review. When the contract set has been distributed, it is considered to be in the “review” cycle.
The CPM includes the technical project specifications in the 50% and 100% construction document
completion submittals and prepares the transmittal letter to the reviewers in accordance with the
controlled reviewer distribution list.
At 100% construction document completion, specifications containing corrections and updates from the
50% construction document completion will be printed for review and comment.
At 100% construction document completion, project specifications will be submitted to the DSA for
review and comment.
At the Final Construction Document Submittal, the complete specifications will be printed for
verification.
Comments to the construction document submittals review packages shall be provided to the CPM by
the due date specified in the transmittal letter. The CPM provides a copy of design review comments
received from the District, the Program Manager, and third parties to the A/E’s Project Lead
Architect/Engineer for disposition and incorporation of comments, as applicable.
The CPM provides copy of plan check comments from the governing agencies to the A/E’s Project
Lead Architect/Engineer for disposition and incorporation of comments, as applicable.
The Project Lead Architect/Engineer provides copies of dispositioned comments to the CPM which
reflects status of comment resolution.
The CPM maintains a written status log of all comments to assure complete resolution. All comments
should be resolved prior to the next design phase.
All comments shall be resolved prior to the release of Final Construction Documents for printing.
6.5 Specification Assembly and Sign-off
Prior to Issue-for-Bid, the CPM obtains the seals of the appropriate A/E’s staff and subconsultants, if
applicable.
When the approved drawings and specifications have been plotted and assembled, the CPM will
circulate a submittal signoff sheet. This signoff sheet must be circulated and signed by each of the
responsible parties designated on the sheet before the set can be released for printing.
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 21 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Pr
Vo
De
ogram Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 22 of
lume II, Additional References
sign Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
9.0 Attachments
The following attachments are relevant to this procedure.
8.0 References
7.0 Summary
Program Manager Quality Assurance (QA) will conduct spot Audits/Surveillances of the CPM and A/E
on Project Specification submittals for compliance with this procedure and for completeness and
accuracy.
6.6 Quality Assurance Audit
Not Applicable

Attachment Title
II. Procedure DES004, Design Review
In order to maintain uniformity, Bond Program Master Outline Specifications are baseline controlled
documents.
The CPM prepares a master distribution list to identify those individuals who will receive the contract bid
set.
The CPM has primary responsibility for the release of the Final Construction Documents for printing
and distribution.
6.7 Printing and Distribution
DES004-D Design Review Comment Form
DES004-C Interdiscipline Coordination Review Sign-off Form
DES004-B Checkprint Stamp
DES004-A Request for Deviations to Baseline Documents
67

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
DES003. Drawing Development
1.0 Purpose
The objectives of this document are to set forth the procedures and guidelines by which the drawings
for the Bond Program will be developed, reviewed and approved.
2.0 Scope
The methods by which each document shall be developed, reviewed, and approved are discussed in
this document. The development and review procedures have been established to provide guidelines
for uniform design document preparation; provide guidelines for clear and sufficient drawing detail;
confirm design meets functional criteria and objectives; monitor compatibility with other design
documents; coordinate between drawings and specifications; and provide records of design
development.
3.0 Definitions
Refer to the Glossary of Terms presented at the beginning of this submittal.
4.0 General
Construction drawings will be developed and prepared in accordance with this procedure from
conceptual design, design development, 50% and 100% construction document completion, bid phase
and construction.
The design development process relies on controls and checkpoints in certain areas of its
development. These controls include checkprints, document checking records, design criteria
conformance checklist, design review documentation, individual discipline design checklist, submittal
sign-off sheets, design review comment verification reports, and QA audit/surveillance reports.
Recording of these controls and associated procedures shall provide a significant level of traceability for
each document prepared and submitted by the A/E.
All project design drawings to be submitted for review and/or construction shall be prepared in CADD
format unless written permission to deviate is provided from the Program Manager.
Each CADD drawing shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the
current version of the Bond Program CADD Standards.
5.0 Responsibilities
5.1 College Project Manager (CPM)
1) Responsible for initiating and being the focal point of managing schedules and budgets.
2) Organizes and maintains coordination and communication among the District, College, faculty
and staff, Program Manager, A/E, third parties, and governing agencies.
3) Follows the guidelines set forth in Section III of this submittal, the Design Criteria and
Standards/ Sustainable Design Manual and in discussion with Program Manager establishes
the number and types of drawings required at each submittal level.
4) Ensures A/E’s Interdiscipline Design Review and Intradiscipline Design Review procedures
and resolution of the review comments prior to construction document completion.
5) Coordinates District, DMJM/JGM Project Manager and third party reviews.
6) Coordinates plan check, permit, and resubmittal process.
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 23 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
7) Conducts design review meetings at 50% and 100% construction document completion.
8) Provides a documented tracking system for design review comments and assures that
comments are satisfactorily resolved and closed out in accordance with the requirements of
the procedure.
9) Ensures design drawings are developed in accordance with the requirements of the
procedures conducts audits and/or surveillance as required.
10) Coordinates submittals with Division of State Architect (DSA), and other governing agencies’
plan check, review, and permit process as applicable, including approvals from the College
User Group.
5.2 Project Lead Architect/Engineer
1) The Project Lead Architect/Engineer is designated by the A/E, and is a licensed architect or
professional engineer acting as the Project Lead Architect/Engineer, the sole point of contact
for the A/E with the overall project responsibility for each new contract.
2) Coordinates drawing requirements from and among all Discipline Lead Architect/Engineers.
3) Prepares project estimate, schedules, monitors project progress development, assembles the
drawing set and arranges for the design review submittals to CPM.
4) Ensures all review comments from District, Program Manager, CPM, and third parties are
responded to properly and incorporated, as applicable.
5) Conducts interdiscipline design reviews, documents and resolves with the Discipline Lead
Architect/Engineers any comments resulting from the interdiscipline review process prior to the
50% and 100% construction documents submittals.
6) Ensures intradiscipline review is performed within each discipline and all comments are
resolved prior to the 50% and 100% construction document submittals.
5.3 Discipline Lead Architect/Engineers
1) Assigns work within the discipline and is responsible for developing the design and technical
content of proposed drawings and sketches with respect to the design criteria of each contract
and documentation reviews. The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer coordinates references,
codes and standards and technical requirements with other departments and disciplines.
2) Verifies that Intradiscipline Design Review and Checking within the discipline is performed and
documented by an independent checker before the 50% CD and 100% CD Completion
Interdiscipline Design Reviews (Formally maintained checkprints are not required during
Design development and Interim Design milestones).
3) Reviews and dispositions Design Review Comments applicable to the discipline, and
incorporates appropriate comments into drawings.
5.4 Discipline Checker
The A/E ’s Checker checks drawings for accuracy and compliance to applicable design criteria
requirements, provides comments to the originator, and close out check comments upon satisfactory
resolution. The Checker must be an individual other than the person who created the design, and shall
have an equivalent or greater level of knowledge and experience.
5.5 Discipline CADD Leader
Drafting of drawings will be the responsibility of the discipline CADD leader. Design drawings must be
drafted in CADD format in accordance with the latest version of Bond Program CADD Standards.
CADD leaders will provide technical support in compliance with format and configuration requirements
and maintain records within their discipline.
5.6 Program Manager Quality Assurance Manager
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 24 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Program Manager QA Manager is responsible for conducting spot audits and/or surveillance of A/E’s
drawing activity for compliance to requirements of this procedure.
6.0 Procedure
Exhibit DES003-1, Drawing Development Flowchart, depicts the Drawing Development process.
6.1 Drawing Control Log
Within two weeks after initiation of the construction document preparation the Drawing Control Log
(DCL) will be developed by the A/E to identify drawings, the allocation of hours and weights for percent
complete.
The DCL will serve throughout the duration of the design process as the listing of drawings which will
be needed to adequately construct the facilities and/or systems to be built. This list will be developed
by A/E and approved by the CPM. The DCL will be updated monthly to show process of drawings.
6.2 Discipline Drawing Development
After the DCL has been initiated, each Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer will assign the design and
drafting tasks with a timeline to be carried out.
6.3 Drawing Coordination
As the design of each drawing develops, the plans, sections, and details will be coordinated within the
discipline. The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer will also coordinate drawing notes with the
specification sections.
6.4 Intradiscipline Design Review and Check
The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer is responsible for the Intradiscipline Design Review and
Checking process, including coordination to complete drawing markup during the design development
phase.
Checking of drawing shall be performed by a competent discipline individual other than the original
designers. Checking is performed and checker markups are resolved prior to the 50% and 100% CD
construction drawing submittal.
The A/E’s Checker performs a technical review and checks the drawings for appropriate technical
requirements, accuracy of technical requirements, and compatibility with overall requirements; verifies
that appropriate abbreviations, definitions, codes and standards are included using “Design Checklists”
and other discipline specific checklists.
Program Management Plan Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 25 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual
Rev.2_SEP.01.04 Page 26 of 67

Program Mana
Volume II,
Design Pro
gement Plan
Additional References
cedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan



Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The Checker marks items to indicate agreement or disagreement. The Checker should use the
following color code:

1) Yellow For agreement
2) Red For corrections
3) Green Used for notes, questions, and clarifications between the originator and the
checker (These are not to be entered on the drawings.)
4) Blue Used by originator to circle corrections made.
5) Black Used by checker to circle that correction was made.
A “Check Print” stamp is applied to each drawing and upon completion of checking, the checker signs
and dates the checked drawing in the space designated in the stamp as “Checked By.” An example of
the “Check Print” stamp is included as an attachment to this procedure.
The originator makes appropriate corrections to resolve the Checker comments. Any disagreement
must be reconciled with the Checker. On completing the changes, the originator initials and dates the
space designated in the checkprint stamp as “Corrected By.”
Upon completion and resolution of comments, the Discipline Lead or Checker initials and dates the
space designated in the checkprint stamp as “Reviewed by.”
Completed checked drawings are maintained by the Discipline as Quality Records until the
construction contractor receives a Certificate of Final Acceptance.
6.5 Interdiscipline Design Review
The A/E’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer is responsible for the Interdiscipline Design Review process
coordination.
The Project Lead Architect/Engineer assembles all discipline drawings and applies an “Interdiscipline
Review” Stamp to each drawing. The stamp reflects the identity of all internal disciplines that
participate in the Review process. Each Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer will sign the review stamp
to document that their discipline has reviewed the documents.
The Project Lead Architect/Engineer determines the interdiscipline reviewers that are required to
participate in the Interdiscipline Review Process for the drawings by a check mark on the
“Interdiscipline Review” stamp on the front page of the document. Reviewers are limited to those
interfacing disciplines or organizations that may be impacted based on the judgment of the Project
Lead Architect/Engineer.
The discipline drawings are routed to applicable interdiscipline reviewers simultaneously. The
reviewers provide applicable comments on the drawings and sign off on the review stamp, and return
their comments to the Project Lead Architect/Engineer. The Project Lead Architect/Engineer maintains
a list and status of all required reviewers, resolutions and incorporation of appropriate review
comments.
Project Lead Architect/Engineer provides one copy of drawings with mark-up interdiscipline review
comments to the CPM upon completion of the Interdiscipline Design Review.
The originator makes appropriate corrections to resolve the interdiscipline review comments. Any
disagreement must be reconciled with the Project Lead Architect/Engineer. On completing the
changes, the originator initials and dates the space designated in the checkprint stamp as “Corrected
By.”
The Project Lead Architect/Engineer provides three copies of drawings upon completion of
incorporating the interdiscipline review comments to the CPM for distribution.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 27 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
6.6 Discipline Approval
The A/E’s Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer will review and approve the revised drawings, and
checklist to be submitted.
6.7 File Locking and Plotting
When the drawings have been approved by the Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer, the approved
CADD drawing files will be forwarded to the Project Lead Architect/Engineer.
The Project Lead Architect/Engineer will initiate the file locking printing procedure before printing of a
milestone submittal. This process ensures that the drawings have positive configuration control and
cannot be manipulated or corrupted once approval for the current drawings has been obtained.
Drawings locked and plotted by the Project Lead Architect/Engineer will bear the words “Approved”
along the right edge with the plotting date. Positive configuration control is maintained by printing the
plotting date and design milestone level above the drawing title block. Each printing will be date
stamped according to procedures in the CADD Manual.
When plotting is complete, Project Lead Architect/Engineer will coordinate and arrange for the
milestone submittal.
6.8 Program Manager Quality Assurance Audit
The Program Manager’s QA team will conduct spots audits/surveillances of the CPM and A/E on
drawing submittals for compliance with this procedure at each design milestone.
6.9 Drawing Assembly and Signoff
At each design milestone, the CPM will circulate a submittal sign-off sheet when the approved drawings
have been plotted and submitted. This sign-off sheet must be signed by each of the responsible
Program Manager designees on the sheet before the set can be released for printing.
6.10 Printing and Distribution
When the submittal sign-off sheet has been completed, the contract set is released for printing and
distribution.
The CPM is responsible for coordinating the Program Manager and third party design reviews.
The CPM will prepare a master distribution list to identify those individuals who will receive the contract
set for review. When the contract set has been distributed it is considered to be in the “review” cycle.
6.11 Review and Responses
The CPM includes all drawings in the 50% and 100% construction document submittals and the
transmittal letter to the reviewers in accordance with the controlled reviewer distribution list. Reviewers
provide comments, as appropriate.
Comments to Construction Document Submittal Review packages shall be provided to the CPM by the
due date specified in the transmittal letter. The CPM provides copies of design review comments
received from the District, Program Manager and third parties to the A/E’s Project Lead
Architect/Engineer for disposition and incorporation of comments, as applicable.
Responsible Discipline Managers for the A/E shall provide copies of dispositioned comments to the
Project Lead Architect/Engineer which reflects status of comment resolution.
The A/E’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer coordinates and assembles the dispositioned comments to
the CPM for filing or distribution, as applicable.
Both the Project Lead Architect/Engineer and the CPM maintain a written status log of all comments to
assure complete resolution. All comments should be resolved prior to the next design phase.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 28 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Comments shall be resolved prior to Issue-to-Bid. Written Program Manager approval is required for
any unresolved comments prior to District release of Final Design and Issue-For-Bid Documents.
7.0 References
The following attachments are relevant to this procedure.
II. Procedure DES004, Design Review
Attachment Title
DES004-A Request for Deviations to Baseline Documents
DES004-B Checkprint Stamp
DES004-C Interdiscipline Coordination Review Sign-off Form
DES004-D Design Review Comment Form

8.0 Attachments
DES003-A Drawing Coordination Checklist
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 29 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
ATTACHMENT DES003-A

DRAWING COORDINATION CHECKLIST
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 30 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES003 A
Drawing Coordination Checklist
The following questions are representative of the type of inquiries Reviewers of the Construction
Documents should be pursuing. Additional inquiries should be developed and pursued as required.
1.0 Civil Checklist
1) Do existing facilities surveys and drawings of existing conditions show underground utilities
(power, water, sewer, gas, storm sewer, drainage systems, fuel lines, tanks and other
structures), above ground utilities and existing improvements (buildings, walkways,
easements, curbs, drives, docks and landscaping)?
2) Do site plans show the new work?
3) Does new construction interrupt existing/required services? Are the conditions for interruption
described?
4) Do site plans show the contract limits?
5) Are the limits of clearing, excavating and shoring shown?
6) Are the existing grades and elevations shown?
7) Are the existing site improvements, that will remain, clearly indicated?
8) Do the civil plans, landscaping plans, site electrical plans, site mechanical plans, site plumbing
plans and site architectural plans agree in regard to orientation elevations, construction limits,
improvement locations and interface points?
9) Are the existing street profiles, both horizontal and vertical, shown?
10) Are the locations of the public utilities (fire hydrants, streetlights, storm drains, traffic signals)
shown?
11) Are all new plants to be drought tolerant?
2.0 Structural Checklist
1) Do the dimensions agree with the architectural drawings?
2) Do the column and grid lines agree with the architectural drawings?
3) Do the column locations agree with the architectural drawings?
4) Do the beam and girder locations, heights, elevations and clearances agree with the
architectural drawings?
5) Do the foundation walls, shear walls, cross bracing locations and other structural components
agree with the architectural drawings?
6) Do the perimeters of the various floor footprints agree with the architectural drawings for each
type or variation of floor plan?
7) Do the top-of-floor elevations agree with those shown by the architectural drawings?
8) Do the top-of-steel and top-of-structure elevations compensate for the floor and roof
thickness?
9) Do the floor openings and depressed or raised floor areas coordinate with the other
disciplines?
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 31 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

P
Vo
D
rogram Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 32 of
lume II, Additional References
esign Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
3.0 Architectural Checklist
2) Do the site plans show and clearly identify the existing conditions and new work?
1) Do the property lines and dimensions of surveys and architectural site plans agree?
16) Do the structural drawing notes and specifications agree and coordinate with other sections of
the specifications?
15) Are mechanical openings coordinated with mechanical drawings, including thickness of
insulation, etc.?
14) Are the sections and details properly labels?
13) Do the expansion and control joints agree with the locations shown on the architectural
drawings?
12) Does the roof framing configuration agree with the architectural roof requirements and
perimeter roofline?
11) Do the column and beam lengths and depths shown by the drawings and sections agree with
those shown by the column and beam schedules?
10) Is the foundation system type (drilled piers, pad footings, spread footings, piles) consistent with
the soils report?
3) Do the site plans show setbacks, easements, and zoning requirements?
4) Is the new work property located on the site?
5) Do the overall building dimensions agree with the project requirements?
6) Do the secondary and tertiary dimensions total correctly within their respective grid and column
lines?
8) Do the building elevations agree with the conditions shown on the floor plans?
7) Do the floor plans show the individual conditions of each variable floor perimeter, i.e. different
basement levels, first floor or ground floor, mezzanine floors, second floor, typical floors, upper
level floors, penthouse floors?
9) Do the transverse and longitudinal building sections agree with the floor plans?
19) Do the reflected ceiling plans show soffit and fascia locations?
18) Are the architectural details coordinated with mechanical and electrical utility services
required?
17) Are the locations of these in agreement with the electrical and mechanical drawings?
16) Do the reflected ceiling plans show the electrical and mechanical trim and devices?
15) Do the reflected ceiling plans agree with the architectural floor plans?
14) Do the large-scale, partial floor plans agree with the small-scale floor plans?
13) Do the structural component locations agree with the structural drawings and the requirements
of the architectural conditions?
12) Do the wall sections, building sections, building elevations and floor plans agree in typical and
special locations?
11) Do the large-scale details agree with wall section conditions?
10) Do the individual wall sections agree with the building sections and floor plans?
[Check in particular: grade lines, door and entry locations, window and curtain wall locations,
setback and differing surface facets, roof lines and special design features such as canopies,
cornices, overhangs, parapets and screens.]
67

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
20) Do the finish schedules show room numbers, surface finishes, note special conditions and
indicate ceiling heights?
21) Are the finishes indicated by the finish schedule consistent with those shown by the drawings?
22) Do the door schedules show identification mark, size, type, style, frame type, rating, swing and
hardware set?
23) Do the door schedule dimensions match those shown by the plans, elevations and sections?
4.0 Mechanical/ Plumbing Checklist
1) Do the plumbing site plans show the new and existing utilities, such as domestic and fire
service water, power distribution lines, sanitary sewers; storm sewers, gas lines and fuel tanks
and lines?
2) Do the plumbing site plans show the connection points of the new services to the existing
utilities?
3) Do the plumbing fixtures shown agree with the type and model shown by the fixture
schedules?
4) Do the storm drainage and roof drainage systems agree with the locations, slopes and details
shown by the architectural drawings?
5) Do the architectural drawings provide enough clearance for the pipe joints, bends and
insulation in the chases and partitions?
6) Do the drawings provide enough clearance for pipe insulation and drainage slope above the
ceilings and below the floors?
7) Do the drain locations, piping and connections interfere with structural components or
foundations?
8) Do the floor plan configurations, levels and numbers agree with the architectural drawings?
9) Does the HVAC equipment and ductwork shown on each floor plan fit within the constraints or
the architectural design and the structural framing?
10) Do the above-ceiling and below-floor clearances provide enough clearance for the worst-case
duct intersection?
11) Do the structural drawings indicate the supports, rigging points or rails needed to remove
major equipment for maintenance?
12) Do the architectural drawings provide a path to the outside of the building for the maintenance
or replacement of major equipment?
13) Do the drawings provide adequate access space for equipment maintenance, including space
to remove the items that may need to be maintained away from the equipment or replaced?
14) Do the roof top equipment size, location and orientation agree with the architectural roof
plans?
15) Does the mechanical equipment shown on the drawings agree with the equipment schedules?
16) Are the vertical penetrations (ductwork, piping, equipment, supports, etc.) coordinated with the
architectural and structural drawings?
17) Does the HVAC ductwork fit considering reinforcing angles, insulation, room to assemble,
room for recessed lighting, ceiling suspension systems, etc?
18) Does the mechanical equipment schedules agree with the specifications?
19) Do the specifications agree with the HVAC automatic temperature control sequences or
operations on contract drawings?
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 33 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Program Ma
Volume II, A
Design Proc
L
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
P
nagement Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04
dditional References
edures Manual
os Angeles Community College District
rogram Management Plan
5.0 Electrical Checklist
6.0 Fire Protection Checklist
2) Do the electrical site plans show the outdoor electrical equipment in the proper locations?
1) Do the electrical site plans agree with the civil and architectural site plans?
25) Do the locations of diffusers, registers, sprinkler heads and other mechanical trim agree with
the architectural reflected ceiling plans?
24) Are the damper locations shown as required for smoke and fire ratings?
23) Do the fire sprinkler system equipment, piping and head layout coordinate with other
mechanical systems?
22) Does the mechanical design include the fire sprinkler system?
21) Are the horizontal penetrations coordinated with the architectural and structural drawings?
20) Do these control sequences agree with the electrical switchgear schedules for
Hand/Off/Automatic (HOA) switches, etc?
3) Do the electrical floor plan configurations, levels and numbering agree with the architectural
drawings?
4) Do the major pieces of electrical equipment fit within the allocated spaces?
5) Do the drawings provide sufficient clearance between major electrical equipment and other
equipment for the building for safety and maintenance?
6) Do the structural drawings show supports for the major electrical equipment?
7) Do the architectural and electrical drawings agree regarding space provided for electrical
equipment, panels, risers, transformers and other equipment?
8) Do the panel schedules show all the circuits indicated by the drawings?
9) Do the fixtures and pieces of equipment have circuits assigned? Do any electrical panels
penetrate fire rated assemblies?
2) Do the fire protection plans show the points of connection of new services to existing facilities
and entry to the facility?
1) Do the fire protection plans show new and existing fire service water mains and reflect water
flow test data (static pressure, residual pressure, flow and date and location of test)?
13) Are the voltages shown for mechanical equipment coordinated with mechanical schedules and
specifications?
12) Do the electrical floor plans show power, telephone and other terminal locations?
11) Do the lighting fixtures shown on the floor plans agree with the lighting fixture schedule?
10) Do the fixture and equipment loads match the voltage and phasing shown by panel
schedules?
3) Are there standpipe riser and fire main riser diagrams and do they agree with the architectural
drawings?
4) If the facility is to be provided with sprinkler protection does the sprinkler layout agree with the
architectural drawings?
5) Do the sprinkler drawings include the water supply and design criteria and are the remote
areas identified?
6) Do the sprinkler drawings show the location of the 2” drain and is there sufficient drainage
capability to accommodate that and the other sprinkler system drains?
Page 34 of 67

Prog
Volu
Desig
ram Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04
me II, Additional References
n Procedures Manual
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
4.0 General
3.0 Definitions
2.0 Scope
1.0 Purpose
This review occurs when the drawing level and project specifications are approximately 50% to 60%
complete. A detailed cost estimate is prepared. Intradiscipline and Interdiscipline Design Reviews are
performed and review comments are resolved and incorporated. The document set will be submitted to
CPM for review. The CPM will submit the document set to the District, Program Manager and third
parties for review.
4.1.3 50% Construction Document Review
This review takes place at the “design freeze” point for design where the documents are approximately
30% complete. This is the point all the major design criteria elements, design features of all disciplines,
equipment and engineered systems are defined. Diagrammatic drawings are prepared to illustrate
fundamentals of major design systems including civil, landscape, architectural, structural, mechanical,
and electrical systems, etc. as may be necessary. Master Outline Specification Sections are selected,
developed, and prepared. The document set will be submitted to CPM for review. Distribution is limited
to appropriate parties providing design elements or coordination of such elements. The design will be
presented to the Program Manager in a workshop on criteria and concepts.
4.1.2 Design Development Review
The review establishes project functional requirements and all governing agencies requirements that
will affect the design. Three or more conceptual design solutions are investigated, prepared, and final
recommendations are made. The document including analyses, calculations, sketches, rough order of
magnitude (ROM) cost estimate, and a written scope of work will be submitted to the CPM for review.
4.1.1 Schematic Design (Preliminary) Review
The standard design reviews for the Bond Program campus projects are as follows:
4.1 Design Reviews
The design review procedure is an integral component of the design process. The A/E will have a
review team composed of designated discipline checkers with the approval of the CPM. The primary
purpose of these reviews will be to evaluate the document for accuracy, completeness, code
compliance, coordination and verification of interfaces between disciplines and affected third parties.
Refer to the Glossary of Terms presented at the beginning of this submittal.
For each contract the A/E will perform internal review and submit work products or deliverables for
formal Design Review to the District, Program Manager (as required), third parties, and CPM as the
work progresses. These Design Reviews include Schematic and Design Development packages for
limited reviews, 50% and 100% Construction Document Reviews, Final Design Review, and Issue-for-
Bid submittal and Addenda..
This procedure will be the basis for evaluation of design progress by facilitating periodic formal reviews
of design.
DES004. Design Review
Page 35 of 67

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
4.1.4 100% Construction Document and Division of State Architect (DSA) Reviews
This review occurs when project specifications and cost estimates are essentially complete, but the
Bidding and Contract Requirements are not. Intradiscipline and Interdiscipline Design Reviews are
performed and review comments are resolved and incorporated. The document set will be submitted to
the CPM for distribution. The CPM will submit the document set to the District, Program Manager, and
third parties for review. In addition, the CPM will submit the entire package to DSA, and any governing
agencies for plan check and permit process. A design review meeting may be held if necessary.
4.1.5 Final Design Review
This review occurs when final verification and resolution of design review comments. The drawings
project specification, and cost estimates should be 100% complete, checked, and approved. The
Program Manager’s QA Manager will audit completeness of the documentation. Distribution is
restricted to the District, Program Manager, CPM, and A/E’s Project Lead Architect/Engineer for final
coordination of design inputs.
4.2 Design Submittals
4.2.1 Issue-for-Bid Submittal
At this time, the document set is ready for advertisement. It includes a complete set of construction
drawings and Project Manual that have been approved by the District and Program Manager as ready
for advertisement. The Project Manual includes Bidding, Contract Requirements and Project
Specifications. Each document has been signed, dated and wet sealed by the Architect/Engineer who
in charge of the work and a completed sign-off sheet by the designated CPM.
4.2.2 Addenda
At this phase of the project, any changes to drawings or specification must be added or modified by
addendum during bidding. They are reviewed by the Discipline Lead Architect/Engineers, Project Lead
Architect/Engineer, Quality Assurance and the CPM, as a minimum. A supplemental design review
shall be conducted when there is a change in design direction or scope of work or new design input.
5.0 Responsibilities
5.1 College Project Manager
1) Initiates and is the focal point of managing the review process.
2) Organizes, facilitates, and maintains coordination among the District, Program Manager, A/E,
third parties, and governing agencies.
3) Following the guidelines set forth in the Bond Program Design Criteria and in discussion with
the Program Manager, establish the submittal requirements required at each submittal level.
4) Develops and maintains a Master Distribution List, specifying those persons who will receive
specific design milestone submittal(s) for review.
5) Develops a documented tracking system for design review comments and assures that they
are satisfactorily resolved.
6) The CPM’s QA Manager is responsible for conducting audits and/or surveillance of the A/E’s
design document activity for compliance to requirements of this procedure.
5.2 Project Lead Architect/Engineer
1) Provides for sole point of contact for the of A/E with overall project responsibility.
2) Coordinates A/E in-house design effort.
3) Ensures the deliverables in compliance with the Bond Program Design Criteria and Standard
Submittal requirements presented in Part III of this submittal.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 36 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
4) Work with the CPM to prepare design package submittals for the District, Program Manager,
third parties, and governing agencies for review.
5) Distributes Program Manager dispositions and resolves all review comments.
6) Maintains the documentation of all review comments and resolutions.
5.3 Discipline Lead Architect/Engineers
Reviews and dispositions design review comments applicable to the discipline, and incorporates
appropriate comments into design documents.
5.4 A/E Discipline Checker
The A/E’s Checker reviews design documents for accuracy and compliance to applicable design
criteria requirements, provides comments to the originator, and closes out check comments upon
satisfactory resolution. The Checker must be an individual other than the person who created the
design, and shall have an equivalent or greater level of knowledge.
5.5 Program Manager Quality Assurance Manager
The Program Manager QA Manager is responsible for conducting spot audits and/or surveillance of the
CPM and A/E’s design document activity and documentation activity for compliance to requirements of
this procedure.
5.6 Third parties
Situations will arise where “third parties” will have review responsibilities. This occurs when the
property of a third party will be modified or added to by District construction work; when materials to be
provided by a third party are to be incorporated in the work; or when a third party will assume
ownership of the completed work.
6.0 Procedure
The CPM’s Document Control Coordinator will log the submittal and then forward the submittal to the
CPM’s QA Manager to distribute for review. Information entered will include the appropriate submittal
description, identification number, dates, and comments. The CPM QA Manager will review the
submittal and determine who the reviewers are. If the submittal requires input from a third-party
agency, the Lead Reviewer will handle coordination of the third party’s review of the submittal. The
CPM QA Manager will then send a copy of the submittal review request and the submittal package to
the appropriate reviewers.
6.1 Document Development
The CPM shall notify the Program Manager, A/E and third parties of planned milestone submittal dates,
thus initiating the Design Review process.

A/E Discipline Leads shall be responsible for organizing their work within the disciplines as well as
interdiscipline coordination of design documents.
6.2 Document Check
Intradiscipline checking and interdiscipline review, as applicable to the design completion level, shall be
completed prior to sending design milestone reviews. Requirements for these activities are defined in
the procedures for development of drawings, calculations, and specifications.
The A/E Project Lead Architect/Engineer shall route a submittal sign-off sheet to all Discipline Lead
Architect/Engineers starting at 50% construction document submittal prior to sending the submittal
package to the CPM for printing and distribution for design milestone reviews.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 37 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The College Project Manager prints and distributes design review packages including applicable
drawings, specifications, and cost estimates from the A/E to District, the Program Manager, third parties
and governing agencies for review and comment.
At completion of Final Design Review, a Submittal Sign-off Sheet is routed to the Program Manager for
approval to reflect that documents are ready for printing and distribution for Issue-For-Bid.
6.3 Program Manager Quality Assurance Audit
The Program Manager QA Manager will audit sampled documents, review checklists for conformance,
and conduct random verification of document sets before acceptance and signoff.
6.4 Resubmittals
When a resubmittal is received, it shall be forwarded to the original reviewer, whenever possible, with
the original submittal and original comments attached. The review of the resubmittal shall focus on the
evaluation of the original submittal comments. Additional comments to the original submittal shall be
avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Resubmittals will be processed using the same procedures, with the exception that resubmittals need
not be re-reviewed by third parties when their original comments have been incorporated in the
resubmittal. If the resubmittal contains new material, the third party’s review is required.
6.5 DSA Document Review
The review-approval-closing plan for the Division of State Architect (DSA) is covered by the procedures
in the Program Management Plan Volume II, PM/CM Campus Operations.
6.6 Design Review Comment Reports
When comments have been resolved and dispositioned, the Program Manager Quality Assurance
team will audit the incorporation of design review comments by sampling drawings from the contract set
to ascertain the percentage of comment incorporation. This report is forwarded to the District, the
Program Manager, CPM, and the A/E.
6.7 Distribute Document Set
The Sign-off Sheet will be routed by the CPM to the Project Manager for final approval for printing and
distribution of the Ready-for-Bid submittal.

The set is then printed and distributed according to the Master Distribution List.
6.8 Contract Document Review
The CPM will specify in writing to the reviewers the final date to submit design review comments for
incorporation into the contract.
Design review comments must be provided to the CPM on the Design Review Comments Form prior to
the due date to ensure review response and incorporation.
The College Project Manager will forward the design milestone review comments to the A/E’s Project
Lead Architect/Engineer for distribution and disposition.
The Project Lead Architect/Engineer provides copies to the responsible Discipline Lead
Architect/Engineers for disposition, maintains the central file for the comment sheets, and maintains a
tracking system to assure disposition and resolution status.
Comments will be centrally filed and monitored until dispositioned. The Project Lead Architect/Engineer
will respond in writing to design review comments received and forward them to the College Project
Manager. The CPM will set a date for a design review meeting to resolve any comments in question.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 38 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
6.9 Design Review Comment Resolution Meeting
A design review meeting will be held by the CPM subsequent to the 50% Construction Document
Submittal to give each Design Milestone reviewer and the A/E an opportunity to resolve those
comments made during the design review.
The purpose of this meeting is to expedite the design review process by giving reviewers the chance to
make certain that their concerns are addressed or given sufficient reason why their comments cannot
be incorporated into the design.
Comments are discussed until a resolution has been agreed upon by all parties involved. This helps
the College Project Manager, A/E and design milestone reviewers to facilitate efficient responses to
comments.
6.10 Incorporation of Design Review Comments
When comments are resolved, the A/E will be directed to revise design drawings, specifications, and
cost estimate accordingly. Each Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer will have primary responsibility for
completing comment incorporation for their discipline set of documents.
The disciplines will update documents and complete the design review comment sheets to record each
comment and its disposition.
7.0 References
Not Applicable
8.0 Attachments
The following exhibit is included in this procedure:
Attachment Title
DES004 A Request For Deviations to Baseline
DES004 B Checkprint Stamp
DES004 C Interdiscipline Coordination Review Sign-off Form
DES004 D Design Review Comments Form

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 39 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

ATTACHMENT DES004-A

REQUEST FOR DEVIATIONS TO BASELINE DOCUMENTS
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 40 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan





Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 41 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan


ATTACHMENT DES004-B

CHECK PRINT STAMP
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 42 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES004-B


CHECK PRINT
A/E Company Logo
Name Date
CHECKED BY
CORRECTED BY
BACK CHECKED BY
REVIEWED BY



Check Print Stamp

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 43 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 44 of 67
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
ATTACHMENT DES004-C

INTERDISCIPLINE COORDINATION REVIEW SIGN-OFF FORM

Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES004-C


A/E Company Logo
INTERDISCIPLINE COORDINATION REVIEW SIGNOFF
CONTRACT NO. & NAME
DESIGN MILESTONE: DUE DATE:
REQ’D DISCIPLINE SIGNATURE DATE COMMENTS
CIVIL
LANDSCAPE
STRUCTURAL
ARCHITECURAL
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
PLUMBING
FIRE/PROTECTION
QUALITY

The above noted contract has been routed for interdiscipline review, and such review has been
acknowledged by the department signatures.


1.
A/E’s Lead Architect/Engineer Date


2.
College Project Manager Date
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 45 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
ATTACHMENT DES004-D

DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS FORM
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 46 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES004-D




DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS FORM


Reviewer Organization Discipline Sheet of
Project Contract # Contract Title Submittal Drawing
Subset
Date
Ref# Critical Spec. Section
and Page #
Comments

Response By: Action By:

















/ /
Initials Responder’s Name (Please Print) Organization




Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 47 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

DES005. Cost Estimating
1.0 Purpose
This Procedure defines the types of Cost Estimates prepared by the Bond Program, the Program
Manager, CPM, and Architect/Engineer design consultants (A/Es), their uses and bases and the
general procedures for their development. Its objective is to produce reasonably accurate estimates of
Bond Program contract costs, suitable for the various needs, in a consistent uniform manner, organized
and standardized in methods and format to facilitate review and checking.
2.0 Scope
This Procedure applies to any cost estimating of the Bond Program, regardless of status of design,
construction and procurements. It defines the estimates and estimating requirements which apply to
the Program Manager, CPM and A/Es when they prepare cost estimates or change order proposals.
3.0 Definitions
Refer to the Glossary of Terms presented at the beginning of this submittal.
4.0 General
The estimating of first costs is a necessary part of cost control procedures, the evaluation of alternative
design choices toward a most cost-effective selection, and the support of contracting and construction.
The Program Manager must facilitate the preparation of accurate and consistent cost estimates at all
stages of design development. To help accurate and consistent cost estimates, all such estimates are
to be performed by a qualified cost estimator under the Architect/Engineer’s direction. The CPM
maintains estimating guidelines as a reference for all estimates to help assure the quality of his work
and that of others authorized to make cost estimates.
5.0 Responsibilities
For any Cost Estimate prepared by the A/Es, the Chief Estimator is responsible for the completeness
and accuracy of the work. The CPM is responsible for assuring that all Architect/Engineers cost
estimating is under the scrutiny of and following the guidelines of the Program Manager.
6.0 Procedure
6.1 General Considerations
The Chief Estimator of the A/E oversees the preparations and review of all cost estimates prepared by
the Project Estimator. The general procedures which apply to cost estimating so performed by the A/E
or on its behalf include:
All drawings, specifications and other information needed by Estimating to perform milestone estimates
are expected to be presented on time, in accordance with approved project schedules.
All questions, correspondence, and telephone contacts relating to estimating are to be directed to the
attention of the Project Estimator with Chief Estimator’s approval.
All estimates shall be transmitted to the Chief Estimator for review and approval before presentation to
the CPM, and the transmittal shall be in the format defined below.
A written narrative will accompany each estimate submitted for review, highlighting the details of the
estimate differences from the previous estimate.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 48 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
In order to minimize confusion and to avoid misunderstandings, the presentation format will be
consistent with earlier estimates submitted.
Unless otherwise directed, it is assumed that all estimates generated are confidential.
6.2 Types of Estimates
The various types of cost estimates prepared by the estimators are presented and described below.
6.2.1 ROM Estimates
A ROM Estimate describes a hypothetical installation and seldom becomes the basis for conceptual
designs. It can be used to reject a project or project elements, but it is seldom adequate for positive
acceptance. It may indicate the desirability of expanding an estimate to a higher level of detail.
Cost Development- Facility systems and permanent equipment costs are based on historical costs of
similar projects. Indirects and mark-up costs shall be estimated using factors.
Information Required for Cost Development- Includes facility description, geographical location,
layout drawing or sketch of the facility and all design information available.
6.2.2 Conceptual Design Estimates (Optional)
These are estimates of projected total first cost, to approximately the 10% level of design completion.
A Conceptual Estimate describes a facility that might be built rather than one that will be built. Such
estimates are typically those associated with alternative designs. It is suitable to indicate feasibility but
it is not adequate for financial planning. It may indicate the desirability of expanding the estimate to a
higher level of detail.
6.2.3 Preliminary Design Estimate (Required)
These are estimates of projected total first cost, to approximately the 30% level of design
completion.
A Preliminary Design Estimate is generally considered suitable to determine design feasibility and to
assist in establishing a financial program for the project. Trade-off studies have typically been
completed for alternative design solutions and the preferred solutions have been selected.
Cost Development - Costs are based on the preliminary design drawings that are available and on
historical costs of similar projects. Quantities that can be identified shall be taken off. Detailed spread
sheet estimates shall be prepared; Unit Prices shall be prepared for all items of work. Quotations shall
be obtained for the most significant material, subcontract, and permanent equipment items. Site visits
may be required.
Information Required for Cost Development - Includes preliminary civil-structural and architectural
design drawings, a written description of the soil conditions indicating the type of foundations, accurate
site drawings, and the outline specifications. For other disciplines (e.g., plumbing, HVAC, fire sprinklers,
electrical, fire alarm systems) requiring estimates, preliminary design and general arrangement
drawings are required.
6.2.4 Other Design Milestone Estimates (Required)
These are estimates of projected total first cost, to approximately the 60%, 90% and 100% (Final
Design) level of design completion.
A Definitive Milestone estimate is developed from information pertaining to the project that will actually
be built; the estimate is generally suitable for the end use that the estimate initiator may designate.
Cost Development-Project cost is based on quantity takeoffs and vendor and subcontractor
quotations. A detailed cost estimate shall be prepared for all direct and indirect items. Site visits may
be required.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 49 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Information Required for Cost Development- Includes partially completed and fully completed
design drawings and specifications.
6.2.5 Final Design Estimate (Required)
A Final Design Estimate shall serve as a comparison to bid estimates submitted by contractors, to
assure the Program Manager and the District that the quoted prices and total cost are fair and
equitable.
Cost Development-Detailed quantity takeoffs and estimates of cost shall be prepared for all items of
work for the entire project. Detailed estimates of cost shall be prepared for the indirect items. Site visits
may be required.
Information Required for Cost Development- Included completed design drawings and
specifications and any bid document reference materials.
6.2.6 Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Estimate
A Life-Cycle Cost Estimate is required for LEED™ projects and/or when the CPM or Architect/Engineer
lead discipline desires to compare two or more alternative design choices where first-cost comparison
could lead to erroneous selection of a cost-effective solution. This estimate takes into account the
annual costs (O&M) related to each alternative as well as the initial cost. It is usually used during the
design phase.
Cost Development- The first cost is developed in the same manner as milestone estimates and must
be all-inclusive (not a partial cost of variable items).
Information Required for Cost Development- First-cost estimates require the same information as
that required for design milestone estimates. For the LCC portion, a good assessment of all operation
and maintenance costs over the life of the item (or for a lesser period assumed for LCC estimating).
Care must be taken to recognize only the future costs accruing to the District consistent with the first-
cost estimate.
6.2.7 Design Study or Trade-Off Cost Estimates
These design phase support estimates are similar to Design Milestone Estimates, but may be on ROM
or differential bases and not absolute of the total cost of each alternative under study. Care must be
taken to set boundaries for each alternative which are consistent, even though all required costs are not
being estimated.
6.3 Estimate Structure
All estimates shall be prepared and assembled in the CSI format:
1) Letter of transmittal
2) Basis of estimate
3) Estimate reconciliation
4) Estimate summary including CSI Division Summaries (includes general conditions)
5) Details of estimate per CSI Divisions including quantity and unit cost of labor, material,
construction equipment and subcontracts
6) Taxes
7) Contractor’s OH& P (%)
8) Bond & Insurance
9) Escalation
10) Contingency
6.4 Basis of Estimate
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 50 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The Basis of Estimate shall be prepared by the individual responsible for developing the estimate. The
Basis of Estimate give specific information related to the estimate and shall consist of the following:
1) Scope of Estimate - Provides the general parameters of what the estimate covers i.e. scope of
work)
2) Drawings - The architectural and engineering drawings on which the estimate is based.
3) Specifications -The specification on which the estimate is based.
4) Estimate Format - The format on which the estimate was based (all estimates shall be in
accordance with the current CSI format).
5) Quantities - Of all items of work including material, labor, equipment and subcontracts.
6) Labor and Labor Burden -Indicates what the labor and labor burden costs include and the
effective date of the labor rates; discusses unusual burdens, such as premium pay for
overtime work.
7) Materials - Indicates how material pricing was performed for the estimate.
8) Sales Tax - Indicated by percent.
9) Subcontracts - Indicates what costs are included in the subcontract work.
10) Construction Equipment -Indicates whether owned or rental rates were used.
11) Escalation - Indicates present-day cost to the date of escalation (month and year).
12) Construction Schedule - Indicates start and finish dates and sequence of activities if pertinent
to the estimate.
13) Cost Exclusion - Provides a list of any items not included in the estimate that may become an
District expense.
6.5 Estimate Reconciliation
A reconciliation shall be made to the previous estimate, and shall include an explanation of any
significant cost changes. Preparation of the estimate comparison shall be the responsibility of the
estimate preparer. Comparison (reconciliation) to the current budget shall be the responsibility of the
CPM.
6.6 Estimate Approval and Summary
All estimates must be approved by the A/E’s Chief Estimator prior to release. Also, a summary of the
estimate is required. This is usually a one-page summarization of the details of the estimate in CSI
format.
6.7 Details of Estimate
All estimates shall be prepared on standard estimate detail sheet forms in a spreadsheet format, and
presented in a clear and concise fashion to facilitate review. The Program Manager’s Chief Estimator
has the authority to allow deviations from this rule, if circumstances so dictate. The detail sheets will be
subdivided by items or categories of work including material, labor, construction equipment and
subcontracts based on the design and specifications.
6.8 Indirect Cost
Indirect costs may include all costs that can readily be charged to the contract, but cannot be charged
to direct cost. Costs normally in this category are usually shown as line items on the Estimate
Summary.
6.8.1 Contractors’ Overhead and Profit Including Construction Plant
For order of magnitude, conceptual, preliminary budget and definitive estimates, contractor’s overhead
and profit percentage adders may be used. Profit percentage adders shall be evaluated for each
contract based on the judgment of the individual preparing the cost estimate and considering such
factors as the size of the contract, type of the work, current bidding climate, local practices, etc.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 51 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
6.9 Escalation
All estimates shall be estimated on current month and year dollars. An evaluation made to determine
what effect inflation and wage increases may have on the cost of a project extending sometime into the
future is calculated. Escalation shall be evaluated by separate computations for appropriated
categories of work from the construction schedule, using the annual compounded rate, as determined
by the latest forecasting cost data. These categories are: materials, direct labor (including fringe
benefits and employer statutory labor cost) and construction equipment.
6.10 Quotations
During the course of preparing construction cost estimates, up to the Definitive Level Submittal,
quotations shall be obtained for the significant material and subcontract items. All such quotations from
vendors and subcontractors shall be recorded on Vendor Quotation forms by the individual receiving
the quote, and shall be made part of the estimating job file. Pricing information of major permanent
equipment and certain specialty items shall normally be obtained by Lead Architect/Engineer for
incorporation in the estimate.
6.11 Labor Rates
The Program Manager Procurement Manager obtains and maintains the current prevailing wage rates
for the construction industry in the various local jurisdictions for the appropriate craft classifications. In
addition to the basis unit wage rates, the applicable fringe benefits and labor burden shall be included.
6.12 Quantity
A Quantity Survey shall always be initiated for bid estimates, design estimates, design milestone
estimates, and for other estimates. The performance of this task shall be the responsibility of the
individual preparing the construction cost estimate. Its purpose is to identify and calculate quantity
information from drawings and specifications. It shall be performed in a systematic manner and
subtotaled to correspond to the chart of accounts specification used for the estimate.
This task shall also include the identification and referencing of all quantities, including those insufficient
in detail or incomplete in any manner to carry out the performance of the survey in its entirety. A written
description indicating sufficient information to identify the item shall be used to facilitate review and
checking. All quantity sheets shall be filed in the estimating job file according to the format of the
estimate, e.g., chart of accounts, specification, bid items.
7.0 References
Acceptable District Cost Guides:
1.) R.S. Means Company, Inc. Tel. no. 1-800-334-3509
Building Construction Cost Data, Western Region
Latest Edition, P.O. Box 800 Kingston, MA 02364-800

2.) Saylor Publications, Inc. Tel. No. 1-800-624-3352
Current Construction Cost
Chatsworth, CA 91311
8.0 Attachments
Not applicable
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 52 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
DES006. Constructability/Maintainability (C/M) Review
1.0 Purpose
This procedure provides as a continuing effort to provide the highest level of quality and cost
effectiveness for assigned projects, constructability/maintainability (C/M) reviews during the planning
and design/engineering phases will be implemented to the greatest degree possible.
Properly conducted constructability/maintainability reviews will improve the overall quality of each bid
package. These reviews will utilize the Program Manager, CPMs and college staff with construction,
maintenance and operations experience.
2.0 Scope
For each contract the Architect/Engineer will perform internal review and submit work products or
deliverables for constructability/maintainability (C/M) review to the CPM. These reviews include Design
Development packages for limited reviews and 100% construction document completion design
reviews. Objectives will include the following:
1) Minimize and/or eliminate changes during the project construction phase.
2) Improve construction contractor productivity.
3) Produce more user-friendly procurement/construction specifications.
4) Enhance overall quality of the completed project and cost overruns.
5) Reduce the potential for project delays.
6) Promote construction safety/ security.
7) Minimize conflicts and/or disputes among project participants.
8) Reduce construction cost and the cost of future maintenance/operation.
3.0 Definitions
Refer to the Glossary of Terms presented at the beginning of this submittal.
4.0 General
The C/M design review procedure is an integral component of the design process. The C/M Review
Team will provide input to the responsible A/Es from the standpoint of design intent, constructability and
long term operation/maintenance. This will be accomplished through reviews of the construction
contract documents at specific stages of development. Obtaining feedback from the campus
operations/maintenance staff is very important, since they will ultimately have to live with the finished
project. Reviews will be scheduled by the CPM.
To minimize the impact of “unknowns” on bid prices, contract specifications will be reviewed for
ambiguities and language that unnecessarily exculpates or disclaims the risks associated with certain
unknowns (such as subsurface soil conditions). This review will also help to avoid adversarial
relationships developing during construction.
Proposed contract procedures for processing submittals will be carefully evaluated and compared to
those used successfully on other projects. If necessary, the C/M Review Team will outline an approach
that will maximize submittal processing efficiency between the construction contractor and the A/Es.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 53 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The basic design/engineering solution to the work will be analyzed. If required, comments challenging
the solution and/or the selection of materials will be provided with the objective of eliminating excess
costs while not diluting the quality or function of the project or project component.
4.1 Construction Sequence
The plans and specifications, along with mandated construction sequence assumptions will be
analyzed. Logical sequencing of construction and reasonableness of activity durations will also be
evaluated. The C/M Review Team will consider the need for interim milestones in the proposed
contract performance period and make recommendations accordingly.
The C/M Review Team will identify materials and equipment that may require long-lead procurement
time and assess the potential impact to the proposed construction schedule. If required, specific
recommendations for identifying and tracking critical long-leads items will be provided.
If necessary, the C/M Review Team will prepare a recommended construction sequence for possible
inclusion into the bid documents. The degree of contractor flexibility to alter the suggested sequence
will also be evaluated and, if necessary, specific criteria will be proposed.
4.2 Project Schedule
A draft specification that clearly establishes the criteria and requirements for a time-scaled Critical Path
Method schedule will be prepared by the CPM. Appropriate checkpoints and milestones will be
identified. The C/M Review Team may also provide criteria for schedule coordination with adjacent
contractors and all other parties.
4.3 Quality Provisions
The C/M Review Team will determine contract criteria that clearly defines the responsibilities of the
Contractor, the CPM staff and the A/E regarding construction quality assurance and quality control
requirements. Construction quality standards will be reviewed for adequacy of criteria and detail for all
of the various construction elements and materials included in the contract work.
Specified Contractor Quality Control Plan requirements will be reviewed to identify the various materials
and/or work-in-place that will require specific testing, as well as those that will be accepted by a quality
certification from the supplier/vendor.
4.4 Administration Procedures
Particular attention will be directed to progress payment procedures, especially where there is
significant early-on contractor investment. Other procedures may include payment for materials on
hand, wage rate reporting, safety/security procedures and permits.
The specifications for the project and all other related contract requirements will be reviewed to
determine compatibility with the established contract administration procedures.
4.5 Existing Conditions
All information/data concerning subsurface and/or work site conditions including quality and of as-built
information will be reviewed and analyzed for possible disclosure value to the bidders. If required,
recommendations for additions and/or modifications to the contract documents will be provided.

4.6 Claim and Dispute Resolution
Proposed and/or current procedures to settle claims and resolve disputes (or potential disputes) will be
reviewed for adequacy and objectivity.
4.7 Changes
Procedures for the issue of change notices and change orders will be closely reviewed and
recommendations will be made that favor fair and timely processing. Procedures that my result in
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 54 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
disputes will be identified. These will include contractor submittal processing and methods for handling
unforeseen conditions.
4.8 C/M Review Schedule
C/M design reviews will occur at 50% and 100% of milestone submittals.
5.0 Responsibilities
5.1 College Project Manager
The CPM initiates, manages and is the focal point of the C/M design review process.
5.2 Project Lead Architect/Engineer
1) Acts as sole point of contact of the CPM and has overall project responsibility.
2) Coordinates A/E in-house design effort.
3) Ensures the deliverables are in compliance with the Bond Program Design Procedures
Manual.
4) Works with CPM to prepare design package submittal.
5) Distributes, dispositions, and resolves all review comments.
6) Maintains the documentation of all review comments and resolutions.
5.3 Discipline Lead Architect/Engineers
The A/E’s Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer reviews and dispositions Design Review Comments
applicable to the discipline, and incorporates appropriate comments into design documents.
The Discipline Lead Architect/Engineers shall be responsible for organizing their work within the
disciplines as well as interdiscipline coordination of design documents.
5.4 Discipline Checker
The A/E’s Discipline Checker reviews design documents for accuracy and compliance to applicable
design criteria requirements including C/M, provides comments to the originator, and closes out check
comments upon satisfactory resolution.
6.0 Procedures Relating to A/Es
6.1 Document Development
The CPM shall notify the A/E’s and C/M Design Review Team of the planned milestone submittal
dates, thus initiating the C/M design review process.
6.2 Document Check
Intradiscipline checking and interdiscipline review, as applicable to the design completion level, shall be
completed prior to C/M review. Requirements for these activities are defined in the procedures for
development of drawings, calculations, and specifications.
The CPM prints and distributes the Design Review Package including the Design Review Comment
Form (Refer to Procedure DES004, Attachment DES004-D), applicable drawings, specifications, and
cost estimates from the A/E to a C/M Review Team consisting of senior personnel in design,
maintenance operations and construction.
6.3 Incorporation of Design Review Comments
When all C/M comments are resolved, the A/E will be directed to revise their design drawings,
specifications, and cost estimate accordingly. Each Discipline Lead Architect/Engineer will have
primary responsibility for completing comment incorporation for their discipline’s set of documents.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 55 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
The disciplines will update documents and complete the Design Review Comment Sheets to record
each comment and its disposition.
7.0 References
I. Procedure DES004, Design Review
Attachment Title
DES004-D Design Review Comment Form
8.0 Attachments
The following attachment is included in this procedure:
Attachment Title
DES006-A Constructability/Maintainability Checklist
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 56 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan


ATTACHMENT DES006-A

CONSTRUCTIBILITY/ MAINTAINABILITY
CHECKLIST
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 57 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
Attachment DES006 A


Constructability/Maintainability (C/M) Checklist
1) The following questions are representative of the type of inquires the C/M Review Team
should be pursuing. Additional inquires should be developed and pursued as required
2) Are areas available for both materials, form fabrication and laydown yards, equipment parking,
temporary field offices, recycling storage and handling, construction personnel parking and
purchased material/equipment storage? If areas can be secured without excessive cost
during the design/engineering phase, early construction efficiency can be greatly improved.
3) Will double handling of materials be necessary? Is there sufficient space for temporary
stockpiles?
4) Are utilities to be relocated clearly, shown in their new location on the plans and/or reference
documents? Do plans reference the same vertical and horizontal control which will be used for
other required contract work?
5) If local municipalities plan for associated utility extensions and/or improvements, are they
shown in the construction documents? Has this work been coordinated with contract
construction; is the stationing compatible?
6) Are all pay items in the bid tabulation shown in the specifications and/or the plans? If any
items are combined for payment is it clearly shown in the specifications? Conversely, is all of
the required work covered by pay items?
7) Are work areas accessible for the construction staff, material delivery and/or equipment
operation? Difficult access impacts productivity. In addition, difficult access routes frequently
result in unsafe working conditions. High volume haul routes with constrictions or bottlenecks
can impact both cost and schedule. Does trucking have a free flow through the site; can it
merge safely into traffic? Accessibility for major pieces of equipment and temporary facilities
can be critical. Is access available through adjacent properties?
8) What major construction activities “drive” the contract work?
9) Are the specified materials readily available for all features of the work?
10) Are designs configured to enable efficient construction? In this regard the desired result is to
have an exchange of ideas between construction and design/engineering staffs before final
design is started. The following factors should be kept up front in constructability deliberations.
Simplicity is a desirable element in any constructible design. Flexibility for the contractor to
select alternative methods and/or innovative approaches is also desirable. Sequencing of
installation is as much a design consideration as it is a procurement and/or construction
consideration. Designs that require special construction skills should be minimized in all
cases, along with ones that are very labor intensive.
11) Standardized details produce both cost and schedule benefits. Specific advantages include
increased productivity for repetitive field operations, volume purchase discounts, simplified
material procurement/management procedures and reduced design/engineering time.
12) Construction efficiency must also be considered in specification development. Common
problems associated with difficult to construct specifications include unrealistic tolerances
and/or requirements and impractical methods of measurement and payment.
13) Constructability is enhanced when:
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 58 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
a) Standard specifications offer clear-cut options (the less new specification writing required,
the better- and the probability of an error in rework is diminished)
b) Special Provisions are developed with full and early involvement of staff with appropriate
construction/maintenance/operations knowledge and experience.
c) The specifications are up-to-date and conform to latest construction industry standards
and methods.

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 59 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan

DES007. Sustainable Building Design Procedures
1.0 Purpose
The procedure generally defines the requirements and responsibilities that will the A/E to comply with
the sustainability requirements by the District. Those requirements are further defined in Part III,
Design Criteria and Standards, Procedure DCS003, Sustainable Building Design Principles and
Standards.
2.0 Scope
The District is committed to sustainable development including comprehensive energy efficiency
resulting in green buildings. These design procedures are separated into two categories: New
Buildings and Major Renovations. Those projects that are not included in these categories will still
have to incorporate as many green elements as possible into the design.
3.0 Definition:
3.1 New Building Projects:
Those projects that are to receive a structured application of the District’s sustainable building
standards and that must meet all of the following criteria:
1) Over 50% funding from Proposition A/AA
2) Building footprint over 7,500 square feet
3) Constructed project is an occupied structure
3.2 Major Renovation Projects
Major renovation projects are defined as either being interior, exterior or a combination of both interior
and exterior projects. All three must have more than 7,500 sq. ft. of floor area to be altered to be
defined as a major renovation project.
Interior “Major Renovation” projects - a modernization of the interiors within a building
Exterior “Major Renovation” projects - where major components of the exterior envelope have been
changed or altered significantly.
Combination Interior and Exterior “Major Renovation” Projects -modernization project that
involves both interiors and exterior components
4.0 Responsibilities
Architect/Engineer
The A/E’s team is responsible for the design of the facility and for implementing the sustainable
elements required for the project. For new building projects the A/E is responsible for obtaining from
the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) either the LEED ™ Certified Level or Silver Level of
Certification..
Commissioning Authority
The commissioning authority provides professional services in building commissioning activities, and is
hired directly by the District. The commissioning authority will work very closely with the A/E, the CPM,
Program Manager, and the District to ensure the performance of the building is achieved.
5.0 Procedure
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 60 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
5.1 New Buildings Projects
The A/E must ensure that the design and construction of the building achieves a LEED™ rating of
Certified Level or Silver Level of Certification. The A/E must have a LEED ™ accredited professional
as part of the design team. In order to achieve this level of certification some design strategies are
described in the Sustainable Building Design Principles and Standards Manual. The flow diagram
presented in Exhibit DES007-1 shows, in general, the process at conceptual stage of the project. This
ensures that all the sustainable features are incorporated into the design as early as possible in the
design process in order that an integrated solution is achieved.
5.1.1 Process for New Buildings
1) Ensure that new buildings projects comply with the definitions outlined for new construction.
2) The A/E team determines if the project is a sustainable candidate or not.
3) If the project is not a sustainable candidate, a detailed report is required to justify the decision
and shall be submitted to the board of trustee review committee and Program Manager for
approval.
4) If the report is approved, the A/E will continue with the conceptual design.
5) If the building project is a sustainable candidate and after the programming requirements are
assessed, the A/E team is to develop initial design concepts and alternatives by holding an
intensive charette. The design charette includes the College Design Team and is convened
by the College President. The process must include all the relevant design professionals and
college interested parties. These include College faculty and staff, CPM, LEED™ accredited
professional, commissioning agent, mechanical engineer, and architect. Discussions will
include implications of building orientation, shape, aspect ratio of the building, shading etc.
6) After the charette process, a short list of three alternatives with a preferred scheme is chosen.
All three are presented to the Board of Trustees’ Review Committee and the merits of each
option are discussed and approval requested to continue to the next stage.
7) If the preferred option is approved the A/E can proceed to design development.
8) If the preferred option is not approved, the process returns back to the design charette for
more discussions and development of design alternatives that address the specific concerns of
the District. This process continues until approval is given.
9) After approval from the Board of Trustee’ Review Committee the design progresses to the next
stage ,i.e. design development. The LEED ™ accredited professional shall be involved at all
stages of the process from conceptual design to approximately one year after occupation in
order to obtain certification for the building. However one of his/her greatest impact will be
during the conceptual design when the disciplines will offer design choices. Evaluation will
need to be made to trade off one design strategy with others in order that LEED ™ points of
between 26 and 36 points are achieved. The commissioning agent should also monitor and
offer technical solutions to the team to ensure the building and equipment performance will be
achieved.

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 61 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan


Exhibit DES007-1. Process for New Buildings Projects

“New Construction”
Building Concepts

Yes
No


Building
Initial Design
Sustainable
Non-Sustainability Report
Concepts and Alternatives
Candidate


Not Approved Design Charette
Board of Trustees
Committee Review

Approved

Board of Trustees
Committee Review

Construction Documents
Not
Approved
Approved

Design Development


Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 62 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
10) At a minimum, there shall be weekly meetings with the A/E to discuss and implement
sustainability elements to the design.
11) The A/E is responsible in obtaining either LEED ™ Certified rated building or a LEED ™ Silver
Rated Building. The design effort and cost associated in obtaining this certification will be
borne by the A/E.
5.1.2 Deliverables
In addition to the deliverables outlined elsewhere in the Design Procedures Manual, the following is
also required for sustainable projects.
Conceptual Design
1) Sustainable Candidate Report
2) LEED ™ Checklist developed from the Campus Design Charette
3) Design report that gives a short list of 3 alternative schemes accompanied with a completed
LEED ™ Checklist for each alternative. The number of LEED points must be between a range
of 26 to 36 points, inclusive.
4) Register the project with the USGBC. Registration-related fees will be paid by the District.
5) Provide site plan highlighting building location, fixed rail stations and bus lanes and indicate the
distances between them, drawn to scale.
6) Provide a design intent report and basis of design for the general HVAC, lighting, indoor
environment, energy efficiency, siting and environmental responsiveness of the facility.
7) Provide analysis, calculations, sketches, and rough order of magnitude cost estimate.
8) Provide a Life-Cycle Cost assessment for the alternative systems and select a preferred
system. This procedure shall be used for all major systems.
Design Development
1) Update and submit LEED™ check list to the Program Manager for review and comment.
2) Design document must incorporate the items in the LEED™ Checklist.
3) Provide diagrams of all major systems, equipment and detailed life-cycle cost.
4) Develop outline specifications.
50% Construction Documents
1) Update and submit LEED ™ Checklist to the Program Manager for review and comment.
2) Provide documentation to the USGBC to capture points as outlined in the Checklist.
3) Detailed Cost Estimate.
4) Develop specifications.
100% Construction Documents
1) Update and submit LEED ™ check list to the Program Manager for review and comment.
2) Provide documentation to the USGBC to capture points as outlined in the check list.
3) Should it be necessary, provide alternative/deduct packages.
4) Detailed cost estimate
5) Specifications
Final/Bidding Phase
Not required
Construction Phase
1) Submit value engineering proposals.
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 63 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan
2) Monitor and submit documentation to the USGBC to capture the points related to construction,
i.e. recycle content, site waste management plan, local/regional materials.
3) Obtain from the USGBC either a LEED™ Certified Level or a Silver Level certification and
plaque.
5.2 Major Renovation Projects
The flow diagram presented in Exhibit DES007-2 shows, in general, the process for major renovation
projects at conceptual stage.
5.2.1 Process for Major Renovation Projects
1) Ensure that the new building project complies with the definitions outlined for major renovation.
2) The A/E team decides whether that project is an exterior envelope renovation or an interiors
project. An exterior renovation project is one where 50% or more of the external envelope is
renovated. This includes walls, windows, doors etc.
3) For a major renovation project and after the programming requirements are assessed, the A/E
team shall perform initial design concepts and alternatives by holding an intensive charette
(See 5.1.1 - 5). All design members, including the sustainable specialist, commissioning
agent, mechanical engineer, lighting consultant, architect, etc. should be present so that such
issues as the external glazing system, the effect of day lighting, heat load, costs, etc. can be
evaluated and the best alternative chosen.
4) After the charette process, a short list of three alternatives and one recommendation is
presented to the Board of Trustees’ Review Committee for approval.
5) The design must exceed Title 24, Chapter 6 Energy efficiency requirements by 10% as
minimum.
6) If the recommendation is approved then the conceptual/preliminary design process continues.
7) If the recommendations are not approved by the Board of Trustees’ review Committee, the
process returns back to the design charette for more discussions and design alternatives that
addresses the District’s concerns.
8) For Interior projects, the A/E shall submit initial design concepts accompanied with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) checklist for Schools-Renovation and Repairs.
9) If the recommendation is approved then the conceptual/preliminary design process continues.
10) If the recommendations are not approved by the Board of Trustees’ Review Committee, the
process returns back to the A/E for more discussions and design alternatives that addresses
the District’s concerns.
5.2.2 Deliverables
Refer to Part II, DES004, Design Review, Section 4.0 of this submittal.

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 64 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 65 of 67
Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan


Exhibit DES007-2. Process for Major Renovation Projects

“Major Renovation”

Building Concepts

Interior Projects
No
Yes
50%
Only

exterior envelope
Initial Design
renovation
Concepts and Alternatives



Title 24 and
EPA IAQ* Checklists
Design Charette


Board of Trustees
Committee Review
Board of Trustees
Committee Review

Not Approved
Approved
Not
Approved
Approved
Construction Documents
Design Development

* EPA IAQ (Environmental Protection Agency Indoor Air Quality)

Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan






















ATTACHMENT DES007-A

LEED
TM
CHECKLIST
Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 66 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual
Version 2.1 Registered Project Checklist
Project Name
Yes ? No
City, State
Sustainable Sites 14 Points
Y Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control Required
Credit 1 Site Selection 1
Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment 1
Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1
Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1
Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1
Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Vehicles 1
Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity and Carpooling 1
Credit 5.1 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space 1
Credit 5.2 Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 1
Credit 6.1 Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity 1
Credit 6.2 Stormwater Management, Treatment 1
Credit 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof 1
Credit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof 1
Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1
Yes ? No
Water Efficiency 5 Points
Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1
Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1
Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1
Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1
Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1
Yes ? No
Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points
Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning Required
Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required
Y Prereq 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment Required
Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10
Credit 2.1 Renewable Energy, 5% 1
Credit 2.2 Renewable Energy, 10% 1
Credit 2.3 Renewable Energy, 20% 1
Credit 3 Additional Commissioning 1
Credit 4 Ozone Depletion 1
Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 1
Credit 6 Green Power 1
U.S. Green Building Council LEED Checklist LEED
TM
Green Building Rating System 2.1
Yes ? No
Materials & Resources 13 Points
Y Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required
Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Shell 1
Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell 1
Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% Shell & 50% Non-Shell 1
Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% 1
Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% 1
Credit 3.1 Resource Reuse, Specify 5% 1
Credit 3.2 Resource Reuse, Specify 10% 1
Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, Specify 5% (post-consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1
Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, Specify 10% (post-consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1
Credit 5.1 Local/Regional Materials, 20% Manufactured Locally 1
Credit 5.2 Local/Regional Materials, of 20% Above, 50% Harvested Locally 1
Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1
Credit 7 Certified Wood 1
Yes ? No
Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points
Y Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required
Y Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required
Credit 1 Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) Monitoring 1
Credit 2 Ventilation Effectiveness 1
Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1
Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1
Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1
Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints 1
Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet 1
Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber 1
Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1
Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Perimeter 1
Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Non-Perimeter 1
Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992 1
Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Permanent Monitoring System 1
Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1
Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1
Yes ? No
Innovation & Design Process 5 Points
Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1
Credit 2 LEED™ Accredited Professional 1
Yes ? No
Project Totals (pre-certification estimates) 69 Points
Certified 26-32 points Silver 33-38 points Gold 39-51 points Platinum 52-69 points
U.S. Green Building Council LEED Checklist LEED
TM
Green Building Rating System 2.1

Los Angeles Community College District
Proposition A/AA Bond Program
Program Management Plan



















ATTACHMENT DES007-B

EPA RENOVATION AND REPAIRS CHECKLIST














Program Management Plan Rev. 2_SEP.01.04 Page 67 of 67
Volume II, Additional References
Design Procedures Manual

Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects

The purpose of this Sustainable Check list is to promote sustainability throughout the LACCD campuses for
renovation projects. The Sustainable check list is to assist architects and planners to ensure minimum sustainable
measures recommended by the District are implemented for all renovation projects. Should any of the items outlined
cannot be met, then the design team must provide justification for non compliance. The completed sustainable
checklist must be presented to the Infrastructure Committee at end of Schematic Phase for approval for the project to
continue.

Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 1 of 8
ITEM
INCORPORATE
IN DESIGN
COST
OF
IMPACT
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE
DAYLIGHTING
1. Maximize the benefits of daylighting but minimize direct sunbeam
penetration.

YES

NO






2. Consider the use of light shelves

YES

NO



3. When possible use skylights to allow for day lighting for other than
perimeter space. Ensure that energy savings gains exceed
energy losses from increased solar load.

YES

NO








4. Lighting fixtures should be controlled by photocells, occupancy
sensors and connected to the Energy Management System.

YES

NO






5. 10 ft or greater for floor-to-ceiling heights in classrooms and
offices to allow daylight penetration and indirect lighting concepts.

YES

NO




ENERGY SHELL OF A BUILDING
1. The building shall be designed to maximize energy efficiency.

YES

NO

2. Provide operable windows for ventilation in each occupied
space, such as classrooms and offices.

YES

NO

3. At a minimum use insulation as follows: Roof – R30 and for
walls – R25

YES

NO

4. Use double pane high efficiency glazing to reduce heat gain
while still allowing daylight into the space.

YES

NO

5. Use passive or built-in exterior shading devices such as
awnings, overhangs, trees, thermal mass, berms etc. to
prevent solar heat gain entering through windows and doors.

YES

NO

6. Use sound-reducing glass on windows and glass doors facing
noisy streets.

YES

NO

7. Use exterior building shell materials whenever possible that
are recyclable and are manufactured within 500 miles of the
college.

YES

NO


Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 2 of 8
ENERGY SHELL OF A BUILDING (CONT.)
8. Use exterior building shell materials whenever possible that
have the least embodied energy.
YES NO

9. For roofing projects, the design team must use U.S. EPA Energy
Star™ compliant roofing and high emissivity roofing (initial
reflectance of at least 0.65 and three year aged reflectance of a
least 0.5 when tested in accordance with American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM) E903 and emissivity of at least 0.9
when tested in accordance with ASTM 408) for a minimum of
75% of the roof surface OR a green (vegetated) roof for at least
50% of the roof area. This will reduce heat load on building.

YES

NO

ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
1. Use T-5 fixtures if these cannot be used use T-8 Second
Generation and electronic ballasts in all non-dimming
fluorescent fixtures.

YES

NO

2. Use compact fluorescents in place of incandescent lights.

YES

NO

3. Use electronic ballasts with all dimmable switches.

YES


NO


4. In perimeter day lit zones use integrated photocell controls to
reduce number of lamps in operation.

YES


NO


5. For all spaces employ a comprehensive use of occupancy
sensors. These are to be used for both for lighting and
power. The power control shall be from a watt stopper inc
type of product that when the office space is vacant as
sensed by the occupancy sensor than the power strip turns
off task lighting, computer monitors, fans, printers, and other
equipment.

YES


NO


6. Use Energy Star light-emitting diodes (LED) where possible.
Unless otherwise required by code, use energy star LED exit
signs.

YES


NO


7. Offices shall have direct control of office and task lighting by
use of dimmable control.


8. Specify a color temperature of 3500K or less for florescent
lamps and specify a Color Rendition Index (CRI) of 90 or
higher.

YES


NO



Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 3 of 8
ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS (CONT.)
9. Provide Direct Digital Control (DDC) of primary equipment in
order to employ energy saving strategies and of terminal air-
conditioning unit’s e.g. variable air volume (VAV) terminals
and lighting panels for better control of individual spaces.

YES


NO






ENERGY EFFICIENT MECHANICAL AND VENTILATION SYSTEM
1. Maximize natural ventilation and daylighting in balance with
glare and energy use issues.

YES

NO






2. The HVAC system must be designed to maximize energy
efficiency.

YES

NO

3. Select mechanical systems with highest Energy Efficiency
Ratio (EER) ratings and low KW/ton available on the market.

YES

NO

4. The Energy Management System (EMS) will be a full DDC
system. The controls must be designed to account for the
maximum energy savings possible. These include but are not
limited to the following:

YES

NO

a) Upon opening of a window the corresponding air
conditioning terminal unit automatically shuts down.

YES

NO

b) Consider the use of “smart building” design such as one
in which when an occupant is no longer occupying a
space, the HVAC and lighting systems for that space shut
down automatically. One method is to use a combined
function motion detector, one signal to turn off the lighting
and the other to shut down the air conditioning terminal
unit.

YES

NO

c) The EMS software must be able to schedule automatic
changeover for run and standby machines.

YES

NO

d) Provide carbon dioxide (CO2) sensors that provide
outside air requirements on demand for those areas that
have a high occupancy levels.

YES

NO


Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 4 of 8
ENERGY EFFICIENT MECHANICAL AND VENTILATION SYSTEM (CONT.)
e) Consider the use of night purge which takes advantage of
nighttime cool dry air and exploits the thermal capacity of
the building by pre-cooling air for the next day.

YES

NO

f) Use the EMS for optimum start/stop that takes advantage
of the building’s thermal capacity and minimizes
equipment run time.

YES

NO

g) Use the EMS to provide chilled water temperature and
condenser water temperature reset.

YES

NO

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE BUILDING PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS
1. Establish a storage and collection area for recyclables at each
facility during construction and during occupancy.

YES

NO

2. Use locally made materials (within 500 miles radius)

YES

NO

3. Maximize the use of post-consumer recycle and post-
industrial recycled content material.

YES

NO

4. Use rapid renewable materials these include bamboo, cork,
linoleum flooring, sunflower seed board, wheatgrass
cabinetry.

YES

NO

5. Maximize the use of wood-based materials certified in
accordance with components, including but not limited to:
structural framing and general dimensional framing, flooring,
finishes, furnishings, and non-rented temporary construction
applications such as bracing, wood formwork where specified
and pedestrian barriers.

YES

NO

6. Incorporate re-used items, seconds, surplus, donations etc. in
order to reduce capital expenditure.

YES

NO

7. Minimize use of material (eliminate drop ceiling, etc.)

YES

NO

8. Select maintenance free materials.

YES

NO

9. Use innovative environmentally friendly products (e.g.
oxygena).

YES

NO

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1. Comply with the latest edition of American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 62 for air ventilation. Use 22 cfm of outside air per
occupant in all occupied spaces. Where there is a difference
between ASHRAE outside air requirement and the 22 cfm
use the most stringent requirement.

YES

NO


Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 5 of 8
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CONT.)
2. Meet operational, maintenance and record keeping
requirements of Cal/OSHA

YES

NO

3. Outside air intakes shall be at least 30 ft from temporary
and/or permanent sources of contamination.

YES

NO

4. Prevent accumulation of water under, in or near buildings.

YES

NO

5. Use high efficiency HVAC unit filters.

YES

NO

6. Provide CO2 controlled ventilation for high-level occupancies
e.g. classrooms, auditoriums, cafeterias, conference room
etc.
Perform a flush out prior to substantial completion and
occupancy.
Return ventilation system to normal operation following flush-
out period to minimize energy consumption.

Utilize “bake-out” protocol.


YES

NO

7. Air out materials and equipment before installation to
minimize off gassing during occupancy.

YES

NO

8. Use paint, carpet, adhesives, sealants and interior finishes
with low or no volatile organic compounds (VOC):

YES

NO

a) Carpet systems shall comply with the limits set by the
Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Indoor Air Quality
Test Program

YES

NO

b) Paints and coatings must comply with the VOC and
chemical compound limits of Green Seal requirements.

YES

NO

c) Composite wood or agrifiber products may not contain
any added urea-formaldehyde resins.

YES

NO

d) Adhesives shall comply with the VOC limits of South
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1168
(SCAQMD) and all sealants used as fillers must comply
with Bay Area Air Resources Board Reg. 8, Rule 51

YES

NO

9. Install permanent entryway systems (grills, grates, etc.) to capture
dirt, particulates, etc. from entering the building at all high volume
entryways.

YES

NO


Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 6 of 8
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CONT.)
10. Provide areas with structural deck-to-deck partitions with separate
outside exhausting, no air recirculation and negative pressure
where chemical use occurs (housekeeping areas, copying/print
rooms).

YES

NO

11. Provide drains plumbed for appropriate disposal of liquid waster in
spaces where water and chemical concentrate mixing occurs.
YES NO

WATER CONSERVATION
1. Use reduced water consumption fixtures including the
following:

YES

NO

a) Toilets 1.1 gallons per flush or less

YES

NO

b) Waterless Urinals 0 gallons

YES

NO

c) Restroom faucets 1.0 gallons per minute or less

YES

NO

d) Kitchen faucets 1.6 gallons per minute or less

YES

NO

e) Cafeteria faucets 1.6 gallons per minute or less

YES

NO

2. Use water-conserving appliances in cafeterias and kitchen
and/or laundry facilities.

YES

NO

3. Use condensing boilers or instantaneous point-of-use water
heaters on restroom, kitchen or cafeteria sink fixtures to
provide hot water on demand. Justify selection based on life-
cycle cost analysis.

YES

NO

4. Provide a gray water system.

YES

NO

5. Provide eco roofs (are roofs with vegetation) which absorb
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide stormwater
drainage control through absorption and slow release of
rainwater.

YES

NO

6. In order to control stormwater use cisterns, porous paving, on
site infiltration, and bioswales.
Goal - zero discharge.

YES

NO


Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 7 of 8
MAINTENANCE
1. Establish ways to measure performance of the facilities
during operation.

YES

NO

2. Design to minimize maintenance and life-cycle cost.

YES

NO

3. Recognize the need for on going maintenance.

YES

NO

4. Provide for on-going energy and indoor air quality
monitoring.

YES

NO

5. Provide training for maintenance and administrative
personnel.

YES

NO

RECYCLING SYSTEMS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Provide in the construction documents the following requirements:
1. Construction waste management plan is mandatory. During
construction sort wood waste, cardboard, scrap, metal and
drywall at a minimum.
Goal - zero landfill transport.

YES

NO

2. Install dual bin system of recyclables and trash at each
college for use during construction and occupancy.

YES


NO


3. Design to reduce waste. For example, size rooms in
multiples of commonly available materials (4 by 4’s, etc.).

YES


NO


4. Whenever feasible and practical, use materials that are
factory cut and finished to minimize waste, such as carpet
tiles instead of broadloom carpet.

YES


NO


5. Whenever feasible, approved removal of vegetation during
construction shall be mulched and stored on site for use as
ground cover after final grading.

YES

NO

6. Grind and reuse all concrete and asphalt.

YES

NO

7. Recycle all sheetrock.

YES

NO

8. Grind all wood waste or sell for fuel.

YES

NO


Sustainable Checklist for Renovation Projects


Districtwide Sustainable Checklist for Draft 07/ 22/04, Rev. 1
Renovation Projects

Page 8 of 8
EDUCATION
1. Incorporate cut aways, signage, clear panels, etc. to illustrate
sustainable building features.

YES


NO


NOTES:
Distribution Issue:

Issue with all Bids, RFP’s, etc.
Distribute to all existing A/E’s, CPM’s, Facility Managers, etc.