B08_Attachment_02_SEKI_332393_Final_SD_BOD_Report.pdf

o o o o o o o o o o o o o

SANITARY DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNIT CALCULATION (DFU UNITS PER IPC TABLE 709.1 / WASTE SIZE AND SLOPE PER IPC TABLE 710.1(1))

NUMBER OF

FIXTURE INSTANCES DFU UNITS TOTAL LOAD

DISHWASHER (RESIDENTIAL) 2 2 4

FLOOR DRAIN 3 2 6

KITCHEN SINK WITH WASTE DISPOSER, DISHWASHER OR BOTH 2 2 4

LAVATORY 3 1 3

SHOWER(S) (TOTAL GPM <5.7 - 12.3) 3 3 9

WASHING MACHINE (RESIDENTIAL) 2 2 4

WATER CLOSET - TANK (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) 3 4 12

TOTAL 42

A TOTAL DFU OF 42 REQUIRES A 4" LINE AT A 1/8" PER FOOT SLOPE

2 - BED UNIT

WATER SUPPLY FIXTURE UNIT CALCULATION (CALCULATIONS BASED ON IPC TABLE E103.3(2))

FIXTURE NUMBER OF COLD (WSFU) HOT (WSFU) TOTAL LOAD (WSFU) TOTAL COMBINED

INSTANCES LOAD (WSFU)

HOSE BIB 1 5 -- 5 5

DISHWASHER 1 0 1.4 1.4 1.4

KITCHEN SINK (PRIVATE) 1 1 1 1.4 1.4

LAVATORY (PRIVATE) 2 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.4

SHOWER (PRIVATE) 2 1 1 1.4 2.8

WASHING MACHINE (PRIVATE) 1 1 1 1.4 1.4

WATER CLOSET (TANK/PRIVATE) 2 2.2 0 2.2 4.4

TOTAL 17.8

A WSFU OF 17.8 IS EQUAL TO 22 GPM REQUIRING A 1" LINE TO LIMIT VELOCITY TO UNDER 10 FT/SECOND

WATER SUPPLY FIXTURE UNIT CALCULATION (CALCULATIONS BASED ON IPC TABLE E103.3(2))

FIXTURE NUMBER OF COLD (WSFU) HOT (WSFU) TOTAL LOAD (WSFU) TOTAL COMBINED

INSTANCES LOAD (WSFU)

DISHWASHER 1 0 1.4 1.4 1.4

KITCHEN SINK (PRIVATE) 1 1 1 1.4 1.4

LAVATORY (PRIVATE) 1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7

SHOWER (PRIVATE) 1 1 1 1.4 1.4

WASHING MACHINE (PRIVATE) 1 1 1 1.4 1.4

WATER CLOSET (TANK/PRIVATE) 1 2.2 0 2.2 2.2

TOTAL 8.5

A WSFU OF 8.5 IS EQUAL TO 22 GPM REQUIRING A 1" LINE TO LIMIT VELOCITY TO UNDER 10 FT/SECOND o

SEKI 332393 Replacement of Burned Structures | Site Visit Summary

S E Q U O I A A N D K I N G S C A N Y O N N A T I O N A L P A R K S | PMIS 332393 - 1 -

Site Visit Summary

SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Replacement of Burned Structures

PMIS – 332393

View of Building #448 at Wolverton site from the north

Site Trip – October 23-24, 2024

Site Visit Summary Report – November 7, 2024

S E Q U O I A A N D K I N G S C A N Y O N N A T I O N A L P A R K S | PMIS 332393 - 2 -

Site Visit Attendees:

Team Member Organization Attend Email Ref

Anthony Kowalski-Dewitt

Civil Engineer/Project Manager NPS-SEKI Yes Anthony_kowalski-dewitt@nps.gov AK

Linn Gassaway

106 Compliance Coordinator NPS-SEKI Yes Linn_Gassaway@nps.gov LG

Kelly White

Civil Engineer NPS-SEKI Yes Kelly_white@nps.gov KW

Elly Boerke

Project Manager / Environmental NPS-SEKI Yes Elly_boerke@nps.gov EB

Juanita Bonnifield

Branch Chief - Cultural Resources NPS-SEKI Yes Juanita_bonnifield@nps.gov JB

Christy Brigham

Chief Resources Mgmt and Science NPS-SEKI Yes Christy_brigham@nps.gov CB

Tom Warner

Natural Resources NPS-SEKI Yes Tom_warner@nps.gov TW

Rick Hall

Chief of Facilities NPS-SEKI Yes Rick_hall@nps.gov RH

Richard Malding

Housing NPS-SEKI Yes Richard_malding@nps.gov RM

Chris Strike

Park Ranger NPS-SEKI Yes Chris_strike@nps.gov CS

Rebecca Lund

Park Ranger NPS-SEKI Yes Rebecca_lund@nps.gov RL

Ned Aldrich

Facilities Manager NPS-SEKI Yes Ned_aldrich@nps.gov NA

Jessica Busman

Contracting Officer NPS-DSC Yes Jessica_busman@nps.gov JB

Elisabeth Jackson

Project Specialist NPS-DSC Yes Elisabeth_jackson@nps.gov EJ

Heather Davies (10/23/24 only)

Program Manager

NPS- Pacific West

Region Yes Heather_Davies@nps.gov HD

Kevin Kraxberger (10/23/24 only)

Civil Engineer Otak, Inc. Yes kevin.kraxberger@otak.com KK

Kyle Childers

Civil Engineer Otak, Inc. Yes Kyle.childers@otak.com KC

Danah Palik

Landscape Architect Otak, Inc. Yes Danah.Palik@otak.com DP

Samuel Zummach (10/23/24 only)

Structural Engineer JVA Yes szummach@jvajva.com SZ

Lexie Zimmerman

Mechanical Engineer 360 Engineering Yes lzimmerman@360eng.com LZ

Kit Davidson

Electrical Engineer AE Design Yes kdavidson@aedesign-inc.com KD

Liz Hallas

Architecture Principal

Anderson Hallas

Architects Yes elizabethhallas@andarch.com LH

Laine McLaughlin

Architecture Project Manager

Anderson Hallas

Architects Yes lainemclaughlin@andarch.com LM

Cristina Martin

Project Architect

Anderson Hallas

Architects Yes cristinamartin@andarch.com CM

David Miller

Documentation Specialist

Anderson Hallas

Architects Yes davidmiller@andarch.com DM

S E Q U O I A A N D K I N G S C A N Y O N N A T I O N A L P A R K S | PMIS 332393 - 3 -

DAY ONE - WOLVERTON SITE

(removed from scope for SD and from this summary for clarity)

DAY TWO - GRANT GROVE TREE HOUSE SITE

Site Visit Summary

Members from the Park, DSC, and design team met at the Tree House site at 1:00 pm and observed the site conditions surrounding building 1698, a residence that has more recently been used as a ranger office. The existing structure has been damaged by a falling tree and will be demolished in preparation for a NPS prototype residence on the same site. The scope of work indicates the new structure will be a modified version of a prototype that would contain two dwelling units, (1) one-bedroom unit and (1) two-bedroom unit.

Key Findings and Considerations

• The site is in the Lower Loop subdistrict (a Mission 66 employee housing development) of the Grant

Grove Village Historic District.

• The requested building prototype configuration, form and massing will be different than the residence that will be demolished.

• There was discussion of adding a single car garage on either side of the house so that each unit has a garage. The adjacent historic residences have attached one-car garages. As prototypes do not typically include attached garages and garage locations will greatly impact site layout, further study on this topic is needed, pending funding limitations/rules.

• Two or three trees on the east side of the house may need to be removed.

• A drainage culvert runs east of the house. Grade otherwise runs front to back, dropping off sharply past the building. There is also a culvert on the west side.

• There is an overhead transformer to the west of the structure. It is anticipated that the entire existing service would be demolished, and a new electrical service provided from the same overhead transformer.

• Two large propane tanks sit just south of the residence; a 1-inch line serves the residence. The propane tanks must be at least 10 feet away from the new structure, which should be achievable given that the existing house is over 30 feet from the propane tanks.

• The water and waste mains route behind the residence, and branch lines tap off the mains to serve the residence. The water lines also serve the adjacent homes and must remain in place. A 1-inch domestic cold-water line serves the residence. The waste line was not able to be observed, but it is assumed that the waste line is 4" and is sufficient for the replacement building.

• On the west side of the house is a utility road that leads to a maintenance yard where equipment is stored. The open area is used as a gathering space by the residents in Lower Loop, which was its original use, and used as snow storage in winter. This road does get plowed in the winter but in doing so, a large snow pile is often created on the west side of the house.

Decisions

• The prototype residence will be prepared for permanent residents, indicating occupancy and active services throughout the year, as opposed to any seasonal winterization considerations.

• No generator would be required for this location, but the Park requested a second heat source (such as wood stove) if the residence is only heated using electricity. If an all-electric solution is chosen, the gas line can be removed back to the main line and capped below grade.

S E Q U O I A A N D K I N G S C A N Y O N N A T I O N A L P A R K S | PMIS 332393 - 4 -

• The subject of attached garages was not resolved, but the possibility of locating access into a garage from the west has been dismissed due to snow removal considerations.

• The water entry will be provided with a backflow preventer per the prototype drawings. If it is determined to have separate fire and water lines to the building, a 1-inch water service is sufficient for the replacement building.

Next Steps

1. The new prototype location is within an existing historic district. A contextual analysis of the cultural and natural resources in the area, a predesign deliverable, will inform selection of prototype options during design.

2. The design team to test fit the proposed prototype configuration and detached garages on existing site within the same general footprint.

3. DSC to review if attaching a garage to the prototypes is permitted. Early indications are that the garages must be detached.

4. The design team will evaluate potential code impacts of attaching the garages compared to detached garages.

5. Park to clarify the intent of work on the culvert to the east of the house.

6. NPS to confirm if additional connectivity beyond a phone line is desired.

S E Q U O I A A N D K I N G S C A N Y O N N A T I O N A L P A R K S | PMIS 332393 - 5 -

APPENDIX B: BUILDING 1698 (TREE HOUSE) SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS

General Description

The existing wood-framed house was previously adapted from residential use into a ranger station use but likely did not undergo a formal code change in use. A tree fell on the residence and essentially crushed it in the middle. The house is no longer safe or occupiable and will be demolished.

Site Existing Conditions

• Access to the house is provided by Lower Loop Road and can be accessed easily from both directions, along a fairly level road.

• Topography at the site is generally flat, with a 5 to 6 ft drop behind the building.

• Garage collapsed due to fallen tree. Tree roots were cut to accommodate water line repair.

• A water meter was observed at the back of the residence.

• Sewer lateral for the house connects to a sewer main behind the residence. Two existing manholes were observed near an existing covered propane tank farm.

• Gravel access road and community area were observed on the northwest side of the building. Gravel road is used for snow removal and to provide access to a common area used for community gatherings.

• A drainage outfall and swale directly to the east of the residence. Outfall and swale will confine placement of building to the west. In addition to the drainage culvert, there are several trees to the east. Some of the trees appear to be tilting towards the house or appear to be safety hazards to the future house that is constructed. Tom Warner stated that 2-3 trees can likely be demolished and should protect the remaining trees in place.

• An existing fire hydrant was observed across Lower Loop Road to the northwest of the building.

• There are two large propane tanks directly behind the existing residence.

• The water and waste line route behind the residence and branch lines tap off the mains to serve the residence that serve the adjacent homes and must remain in place.

• On the west side of the house is a utility road that leads to…. This road does get plowed in the winter but in doing so, a large snow pile is often created on the west side of the house. For this reason, locating access into a garage from this direction has been dismissed.

Architectural and Structural Existing Conditions

• Architectural conditions are not documented because the building will be demolished. However, we will prepare a contextual analysis of the historic residences in the area to guide future design.

• Structural systems were not documented because the building will be demolished.

Mechanical Existing Conditions

• The mechanical system was not evaluated. The mechanical system will be all new per the prototype.

Building 1698 ("Tree House") on Lower Loop Road

S E Q U O I A A N D K I N G S C A N Y O N N A T I O N A L P A R K S | PMIS 332393 - 6 -

Plumbing Existing Conditions

• The plumbing systems within the residence will be fully demolished and all new per the prototype. Only the utilities were evaluated.

• There is a 1" gas line to the residence. The gas line routes above grade behind the garage then goes through a pressure reducing valve and meter before entering the residence. The future design of the replacement residence will be electrified, and gas will no longer be required for the future scope of work. The gas line can be removed back to the main line and capped below grade.

• There is a 1-inch domestic cold-water line to the residence. The water line routes below grade to the crawl space where is transitions from galvanized pipe to pex piping, with one main shut off valve at the transition. There was no backflow preventer on the service to the building. It is recommended to replace the galvanized piping back to the water main and provide a new water service sized for domestic water and fire sprinkler. The water entry will be provided with a backflow preventer per the prototype drawings. If it is determined to have separate fire and water lines to the building, a 1-inch water service is sufficient for the replacement building.

• The waste line was not able to be observed, but it is assumed that the waste line is 4-inch and is sufficient for the replacement building.

Electrical Existing Conditions

• The existing structure was fed via a 200A, 240/120V underground electrical service. There is a 15kVA overhead transformer approximately 55 yards to the west of the structure. It is anticipated that the entire existing service would be demolished, and a new electrical service provided from the same overhead transformer. It is unclear if demo contractor will be able to salvage existing underground conduit and feeders. Anticipate new at this point; AE Design will follow up with selected demo contractor at a later date.

• No generator would be required for this location.

• The park asked for a second heat source if the house is only mechanically heated using electricity.

• Phone lines enter on the west side of the building. There is a wireless dish on the east side of the building that was used for administrative purposes and is not standard for the Park housing. NPS to confirm if additional connectivity beyond a phone line is desired.

Value Methodology Report Grant Grove “Tree House” Replacement – Roof and Garage Alternatives

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

SEKI 332393 Burned Structures Housing Replacement at Site 1 Grant Grove

SEKI 332393 | Final VM Report | April 3, 2025

2 SEKI 332393

Foreword

This Value Methodology Report records the process by which a Value Methodology (VM) project team identified an Apparent Preferred Alternative for the roof and garage alternatives for the

SEKI 332393 Burned Structures Housing Replacement Project at Grant Grove. The project utilizes an NPS prototype building to replace the damaged Building 1698 with a new housing unit for NPS year-round staff. The VM addressed the preferred alternative based on factors agreed upon by the VM Team to best direct use of available funds.

This is to certify that the Value Methodology Study was led by the undersigned and was conducted in accordance with National Park Service value analysis principles and guidelines.

Elizabeth (Liz) Hallas, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C

Value Methodology Facilitator

Value Methodology Associate Certificate #202412101

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 3

Table of Contents

Foreword

Executive Summary

Project Overview

Summary of Alternatives

Summary of Choosing by Advantage Evaluation

Introduction

History and Background

Phase I: Information

Project Stakeholders

Phase II: Creativity

Considered but Dismissed

Common to All Alternatives

Alternative A – Baseline

Alternative B – Shedding Snow

Alternative C

Phase III: Evaluation

Choosing by Advantage – Evaluation Subfactors

Choosing by Advantage – Evaluation of Alternatives

Phase IV/V: Development/Recommendation

Choosing by Advantage – Cost/Benefit Graph

Reconsideration

Parking Lot Items

Appendix

Appendix A – Value Methodology Study Team

Appendix B – Value Methodology Agenda

Appendix C – Cost Estimates

4 SEKI 332393

Executive Summary

Project Overview

“Building Site #1: Former Ranger Operations Building (Quarters #1698)

This site is located in the Grant Grove area of Kings Canyon National Park and will include new construction of a modified three (3) bedroom NPS Prototype Building (half of the fourplex prototype). This will be a 2-unit building. This single prototype building will contain one 2-bedroom unit and one 1-bedroom unit, each with their own kitchen and bathroom. Demolition and hazardous material survey for Site #1 are not included in this project. This building will be for permanent employees.”

–SEKI PMIS 332393

At this site within a housing area for NPS employees, a falling tree damaged the existing structure, for some time for ranger operations, beyond repair. This presented an opportunity to replace housing lost nearby to a 2022 wildfire here, on a previously disturbed site utilizing emergency/disaster funding.

The project began in October 2024 with a kick-off site visit by several design team representatives, DSC team members, and SEKI park staff. At the site visit, two issues surfaced which would become the subject of the VM process:

First, garages should be provided for permanent employees. The garages were not specifically mentioned in the scope of services, but were present at the replaced housing as well as other nearby housing for permanent residents. The garages, also constructed using NPS prototypes, would be considered options in the construction contract.

Second, snow removal was noted as a primary facility maintenance concern for this housing area. The project team elected to study how roof design might alleviate snow removal and corresponding safety concerns.

The purpose of this Value Methodology workshop (VM), held at the beginning of the schematic design phase of this project, was to determine the roof and garage layout which provides the most advantages to NPS while best utilizing available funds. Following the VM, the project will move through the schematic design phase.

Summary of Alternatives In discussions with the DSC and park team, the design team developed and presented three alternatives for garage and roof design for the replacement building. The interior layout of the prototype residence was common to all three alternatives, which are depicted below:

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 5

Figure 1 – Summary of Alternatives slide as presented in the 3/6/2025 VM

Summary of Choosing by Advantage Evaluation The VM was held virtually as a Teams video call over one day. Please refer to the participants list and agenda in the appendix. The design team began by presenting the background and history of the project and site. Next, the team identified project stakeholders, reviewed each alternative, and determined relevant subfactors for the evaluation of alternatives based on NPS

Principles and Factors. Finally, the Choosing by Advantages (CBA) process led the team to an

Apparent Preferred Alternative.

Alternative B emerged as the Apparent Preferred Alternative as it provided the highest importance-to-cost ratio representing advantages to NPS.

6 SEKI 332393

Introduction

History and Background The Grant Grove “Tree House” (Site 1) is located the Grant Grove area of Kings Canyon National

Park. Although the adjacent buildings are contributing Mission 66 residences contributing to the

Grant Grove Historic District, the building to be demolished was a non-historic and non-contributing building within the district. Demolition of the structure is a separate project, expected to take place in summer or fall of 2025.

As part of the project background, the team sought to understand the project delivery method for this prototype residence. Beyond schematic design, this project will progress as a seed project under a new IDIQ for Modular Housing. Modular housing is constructed in a factory but does not involve a chassis.

Figure 2 – Project background as presented in the 3/6/2025 VM

Figure 3 – Lower Loop Subdistrict (Anderson Hallas Architects)

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 7

Phase I: Information

Project Stakeholders The project stakeholders list was developed during the VM by the Value Methodology Team.

Stakeholders Interests

Residents Snow removal, cost of rent, proximity to other amenities, functional living space, outdoor recreation space and parking.

SEKI Housing Interests High utilization of units, amenities provided (desirability for staff), accessibility (ratio across housing units), construction staging, impacts to other housing units/projects

Facilities Maintenance Snow removal, ease of maintenance, consolidating utility needs (heating/cooling, etc), incorporating solar, consistency with fire suppression approach across multiple housing projects

Cultural Resources Consistency with surrounding historic district

NPS Prototype Program Meet NPS housing prototype unit standards/codes, clearly delineate base vs options

Emergency Response Identifying multiple units

Phase II: Creativity

Considered but Dismissed The design team investigated the following approaches as a possibility and found that these interventions would be problematic and/or cost prohibitive.

• Unit types differing from those shown in the NPS Building 2 prototype

• 2-bedroom at east, 1-bedroom at west (to allow flexibility with parking for occupants)

• Attached garages (prototype limitations)

• Garage facing side service road (conflict with service activities, lack of driveway)

• Shifting building footprint south/east/west (due to grade/site constraints)

• Two story prototype (scope and prototype limitations)

Figure 4 – Considered but dismissed garage layouts (Anderson Hallas Architects)

8 SEKI 332393

Common to All Alternatives The alternatives evaluated during the VM workshop include certain elements which are common to all:

• Unit mix

• Residence floor plan (per prototype)

• Accessibility strategy

• MEP and fire suppression systems

• Covered entries

• Detached garages

• Driveway capacity

• Side doors

• Compliance with all ICC 2024 Codes

• Standing seam metal roofing

Alternative A – Baseline This alternative aligned closely with the prototype design and available options.

Figure 5 – Alternative A (Anderson Hallas Architects)

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 9

Figure 6 – Alternative A (Anderson Hallas Architects)

Figure 7 – Alternative A (Anderson Hallas Architects)

10 SEKI 332393

Figure 8 – Alternative A (Anderson Hallas Architects)

Alternative B – Shedding Snow Alternative B design featured roof forms that would shed snow away from walkways and driveways.

Figure 9 – Alternative B (Anderson Hallas Architects)

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 11

Figure 10 – Alternative B (Anderson Hallas Architects)

Figure 11 – Alternative B (Anderson Hallas Architects)

12 SEKI 332393

Figure 12 – Alternative B (Anderson Hallas Architects)

Alternative C This alternative added a third garage bay and introduced forward gables to direct snow away from entry doors.

Figure 13 – Alternative C (Anderson Hallas Architects)

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 13

Figure 14 – Alternative C (Anderson Hallas Architects)

Figure 15 – Alternative C (Anderson Hallas Architects)

14 SEKI 332393

Figure 16 – Alternative C (Anderson Hallas Architects)

Summary of Alternatives To prepare for the formal evaluation, this graphic employed icons to summarize the pros and cons of the alternatives while stimulating discussion of the criteria that differentiate them.

Construction costs and life-cycle costs were part of the conversation.

Figure 17 – Summary of Alternatives (Anderson Hallas Architects)

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 15

Phase III: Evaluation

Choosing by Advantage – Evaluation Subfactors After the presentation of alternatives, the VM team developed a variety of subfactors to consider as a component of each NPS Factor and Guiding Principle. Some proposed subfactors, listed below as ‘removed’, were eliminated during the evaluation because they did not seem to offer a measurable means of differentiation between alternatives.

Factor Criteria:

• Principle 1 – Invest in our Future o Factors are common to all alternatives – no factors were identified for evaluation

• Principle 2 – Invest in our Visitors o Factors are common to all alternatives – no factors were identified for evaluation

• Principle 3 – Invest in our Workplace o Factor A – Quantity of enclosed parking o Factor B – Ease of snow maintenance (removed) o Factor C – Safety of snow accumulation/snow shedding o Factor D – Maintenance of roof complexity (removed) o Factor E – Longterm O&M Requirements

• Principle 4 – Invest in our Heritage o Factor A – Consistency with historic district

Choosing by Advantage – Evaluation of Alternatives During the evaluation phase the VM Team considered each subfactor individually and used a graphic tool to demonstrate the relative advantage of each alternative. These graphics are included in this section along with some of the quantitative and qualitative discussion points for each subfactor and scoring.

The final step in evaluation, before calculating Cost Importance Scores, is to identify a paramount advantage. The Value Methodology Team voted for a subfactor which measures the most important benefit to NPS. The VM Team then calibrated the scores based on the paramount advantage as follows:

• Paramount Advantage (most votes): The most beneficial alternative can have a score of up to 100.

• Second Paramount Advantage (second most votes): The most beneficial alternative can have a score of up to 95.

• Third Paramount Advantage (third most votes): The most beneficial alternative can have a score of up to 90.

Note the subfactors shown on the following pages show the final scoring following the calibration based on the paramount advantage.

16 SEKI 332393

Subfactor 3A: Quantity of enclosed parking – Alternatives that scored high for this subfactor provided the lesser amount of enclosed parking, which adds to resident rent cost and construction cost. Alternative C provides garage space for three cars so provides the least benefit. Alternative A and B provide two single car garages and thus convey the highest benefit.

Subfactor 3B: Ease of snow maintenance (removed) – Alternatives that scored high for this subfactor reduced snow shedding onto walkways by providing more roof coverage.

Alternative A sheds snow onto the walkway to the front porch and provides no benefit.

Alternative B provided them sot roof coverage above walkways and so provides the greatest benefit. This factor was eliminated during the evaluation because it overlapped in criteria with subfactor C.

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 17

Subfactor 3C: Safety of snow accumulation/snow shedding – Alternatives that scored high for this subfactor improved operability of all doors during snow events and reduced possible slips, trips, and falls at the north entries with roof coverage. Alternative A provides the least roof coverage over the porch, rendering the front door ineffective during large snow events and thus provides no benefit. Alternative B provides the most roof coverage and limited shoveling required on the front façade, thus having the highest advantage. This subfactor was identified as the Paramount Advantage.

Subfactor 3D: Maintenance of roof complexity (removed) – Roof complexity, which would require more effort to maintain and repair, was scored here. Alternative C had multiple gables and thus no benefit. Alternative A ‘s simple gable roofs oriented the same direction and scored the highest. This subfactor was eliminated during the evaluation because it overlapped in criteria with subfactor 3E.

18 SEKI 332393

Subfactor 3E: Longterm O&M Requirements – Alternatives that scored high for this subfactor had more complex roof forms meaning higher reroofing costs and greater probability of snow intrusion, drifting and ice damming. The gable dormers of Alternative

C were more expensive for reroofing and were most likely for possible snow intrusion at damaged roof areas and scored the lowest. Alternative A has the simplest roof form, thus rating the highest. This subfactor was identified as the second priority Advantage.

Subfactor 4A: Consistency with historic district – Alternatives were scored on the how consistent the design was with the surrounding Lower Loop Historic Subdistrict considering roof shape and slope, massing, form, and compatibility with other character-defining features. Alternative C scored the lowest due to the two-car garage, which was atypical for the district, and the use of forward-facing gable dormers. Alternative A scored the highest for the simple gable roof form that speaks to the horizontal datum of the surrounding residences. This subfactor was identified as the third priority Advantage with 1 vote.

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 19

Phase IV/V: Development/Recommendation

Choosing by Advantage – Cost/Benefit Graph Scoring totals were tallied in the matrix which follows, where Alternative B emerged as the apparent preferred alternative with a total advantage score of 290.

The score totals in the matrix are used to calculate the relationship between importance and estimated cost. The resultant relationship is known as the Cost Importance Score, which is graphically represented in the Cost/Benefit Graph. An apparent Preferred Alternative is determined by comparison of Cost Importance Scores. Alternative B emerged as the apparent preferred alternative with an Importance Score of 290 and a Cost Importance Score of 107.3.

20 SEKI 332393

Reconsideration The following items were discussed during the reconsideration phase:

• Alternative A/B hybrid: The team discussed creating a hybrid option of the residence and covered porch of Alternative B and the garages of Alternative A. This was dismissed for the present due to the disadvantage of the garage roof shedding snow into the driveway, which was the one of the largest disadvantages identified between the alternatives.

• Covered parking between garage and house: Discussed by the Park team but assessed as not desirable and the proposed roof overlap between the garage and residence was sufficient.

• Two-bedroom unit as accessible: The team discussed making the two-bedroom unit accessible rather than the one-bedroom unit as was proposed in the alternatives. It was suggested the two-bedroom unit could be made with the accessible layout but without the ABA casework to provide future flexibility. Both options were discussed and dismissed. The Park provided direction to continue design with the one-bedroom unit as the accessible unit.

• Reconsideration of “approved” prototype options: overhanging porch roof and sliding glass door. Eric relayed items that are needed for defendable conditions such as safety, snow and ice shedding, extra interior light, etc. may be included as a part of the base design as design enhancements (rather than options). This nuance was further discussed along with the supplemental heat within the Parking Lot section of the VM.

• Inswing door swing at garages: The design team will further study flipping the garage doors to swing in to prevent snow from impeding operation of the door.

• Snow guards: The Park provided direction to pursue snow guards due to concern with edge protection of the roof. (There was less concern of snow shedding as the roof overhangs shed snow away from walkways.)

• Garage roofs – The Park expressed concerns the shed roof of the apparent preferred alternative was not visually compatible with the surrounding historic residences. The design team will proceed with Alternative B as the apparent preferred alternative and will explore ways to alter the shed roof to reduce visual impact to the historic district without removing subfactor characteristics that ranked Alternative B as the highest.

Parking Lot Items Several topics arose during evaluation which are adjacent to, but not within the scope of, this

VA:

• Supplemental heat: Assumptions by the design team for PD/SD include an electric heat pump system and a whole house fan for cooling. The Park expressed resident preference is to include a wood-burning stove to reduce electricity bills and provide heat during power outages. Eric noted a secondary heating system is an acceptable ask due to the remote nature of the site, possibly posing a safety risk if the building is without power for several days. Rick also requested a system with a filter could be provided to improve ventilation in proximity to wildfire. A wood-burning stove and filter will be included in the design.

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 21

• Fire suppression system: The Park expressed concerns about not providing a consistent fire suppression system that is utilized in other Grant Grove housing. The design currently proposes a 13D system, which is least restrictive system, permitted only for smaller residences. The design team will explore implications of switching to a 13R system, and present at a future bi-weekly project meeting for the final decision.

• Solar: Eric relayed prototypes are designed to allow for the use of a solar array on the ground or on the building. The array could be included as an option, but the base building layout can include space in the utility room for necessary items such as battery back-up.

The design team will do a high-level analysis for solar potential given the surrounding trees.

22 SEKI 332393

Appendix

Appendix A – Value Methodology Study Team

Appendix B – Value Methodology Agenda

Appendix C – Cost Estimates

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 23

Appendix A – Value Methodology Study Team

NPS Attendees

Anthony Kowalski-Dewitt, Deputy Chief of Maintenance and Project Liaison, NPS SEKI

Rick Hall, Chief of Maintenance, NPS SEKI

Elizabeth (Elly) Boerke, Branch Chief Environmental Planning and Compliance, NPS SEKI

Dave Fox, Deputy Chief Ranger, NPS SEKI

Juanita Bonnifield, Branch Chief of Cultural Resources, NPS SEKI

Linn Gassaway, Section 106 Coordinator, NPS SEKI

Richard (Rich) Malding, Kings Canyon Building, Housing and Grounds Director, NPS SEKI

Kelly White, New Solutions Civil Engineer, NPS SEKI

Kelly Roche, Park Ranger, NPS SEKI

Tom Warner, Forester, NPS SEKI

Paul Rothgery, Branch Chief in Design and Construction Division, NPS DSC

John Murphy Espinosa, Project Manager, NPS DSC

Eric Thuerk, Employee Housing Design and Construction Program Manager, NPS DSC

Jessica Busman, Contracting Officer, NPS DSC

William Wells, Employee Housing Design and Construction Program, NPS DSC

Anderson Hallas Architects

Liz Hallas, Principal and VM Facilitator

Laine McLaughlin, Project Manager

Cristina Martin, Project Architect

Maria McCann, Job Captain

Valerie Cooper, Job Captain and Preservation Specialist

Otak, Inc

Kyle Childers, Civil Engineer

Danah Palik, Landscape Architect

24 SEKI 332393

Appendix B – Value Methodology Agenda

Agenda

Grant Grove Tree House Replacement

PMIS: SEKI 332393, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks

Date: March 6, 2025

Location of Meeting: Virtual

(PDT/MDT)

9:00/10:00 Opening

Introductions

Review Agenda & Meeting Goals

9:10/10:10 Project Background – DSC and/or park team perspective

Prior Building Use/ Damage

Brief outline of funding and approvals process

9:20/10:20 Project Background – Design Team

Project Goals

Project Budget

Virtual Tour of the Site

Considerations of the Site/Site Analysis (Otak)

9:30/10:30 VM - Introduction

Stakeholders

9:45/10:45 Presentation of the Alternatives

Common to All

Alternatives 1-3

10:30/11:30 Subfactors Discussion

Subfactors

Attributes

CBA Scoring

12:00-1:00/1:00-2:00 LUNCH – 1 hour Break (Scoring)

VALUE METHODOLOGY REPORT 25

1:00/2:00 VM - Subfactors Discussion - Continues

Final Scoring and Costs

Importance/Cost Graph

Identify Apparent Preferred Alternative

Reconsideration Discussion

Next Steps/Schedule

3:00/4:00 VM Ends (official end)

Projected Attendees (accepted or tentative)

National Park Service - DSC

Jessica Busman

Brian Heitman

John Murphy Espinosa

Andrew Reese

Paul Rothgery

Erik Thuerk

William Wells

National Park Service – SEKI

Elizabeth Boerke

Dave Fox

Linn Gassaway

Bryceson Kawasaki-Yee

Anthony Kowalski-Dewitt

Robert Newsome

Kelly Roche

Kelly White

Tom Warner

Design Team

Elizabeth Hallas, certified facilitator

Kyle Childers

Danah Palik

Laine McLaughlin

Cristina Martin

Valerie Cooper

Maria McCann

26 SEKI 332393

Appendix C – Cost Estimates

AE IGE Checklist

Architect/Engineer (AE) to review and complete prior to each submission to NPS.

Class C Estimate

Has estimator reviewed NPS Estimating Requirements Handbook prior to starting estimate? Yes

Has estimator visited the project site and checked existing conditions, scopes of work, and other site visit requirements? Yes

Has a second estimator reviewed this estimate for accuracy and formatting? Yes

Has estimate been checked for formula errors throughout? Yes

Using the Wage Factor worksheet/tab, has State Wage decision been compared to Federal Wage decision and adjusted if needed? Yes

Have production rates have been reviewed and adjusted appropriately for this project? Yes

Have calls been made for pricing for large commodity items, i.e. asphalt, within the project area? Yes

Has AE firm conducted a quality assurance (QA) review and made appropriate adjustments to this estimate prior to submission NPS? Yes

NPS DSC IGE Class C | AE Checklist page 1 of 23

Basis of Estimate and Cost Summary - Project Information Park Acronym: SEKI

Park Name: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Project Title: Burned Structures Housing Replacement at Grant Grove

Park Management Information System (PMIS) Number: 332393

Design Phase: VM Alternatives

State: California

County work location: Fresno County

Database Name: ACC Proprietary Database

Database Year: 2025

Estimate Type: Class C Estimate

Current Estimate Date: 3/4/2025

Construction Start Date: 5/15/2026

Project Period of Performance (Months): 6

Architect/Engineer (A/E) Company: Anderson Hallas Architects

Estimating Company: ACC Cost Estimating

Estimator Name: Todd Slater

Estimate Reviewed By: Seth Pszczolkowski

Estimate Reviewed Date: 3/4/2025

Estimator Phone: 503-718-0075

Project Description (Scope of Work):

Site is the location of the former Ranger Operations Building (Quarters #1698), located in the Grant Grove area of Kings

Canyon National Park. The existing structure will be demolished. Demolition and hazardous material survey for this site are not included in this project This project envisions construction of a modified NPS Prototype Building (half of the Building 2 prototype) on the same site, in approximately the same footprint. The structure will contain one 2-bedroom unit and one 1-bedroom unit. The design also incorporates prototype options for detached garages.

Estimate Assumptions:

- Assumed project start May 2026 with 6 month duration.

- Assumed Pre-Manufactured with only a single custom unit.

Source of Cost Data:

ACC Proprietary Database - 2025

ACC maintains a cost database dedicated to NPS projects. Pricing is derived from current market conditions through continuous contact with materials suppliers, NPS contractors, and local non-NPS contactors. The database is able to adjust for local labor rates and productivity factors. ACC uses input from separate mechanical and electrical estimators as well.

Schedule Clarification: ACC has made its best guess at a project schedule.

Other Clarifications or Exclusions:

The American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act was enacted on December 27, 2020. In 2024, the total quantity of allowed HFC production and consumption will drop a further 30%.

The final rule, signed on Oct. 5, 2023, restricts the use of higher-GWP HFCs in new aerosol, foam, and refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pump (RACHP) products and equipment. The rule operates by prohibiting the manufacture and import of products that use higher-GWP HFCs, prohibiting the sale, distribution, and export of those products three years after the manufacture and import restriction, and prohibiting the installation of new RACHP systems that use higher-GWP HFCs. In summary, several of the HVAC systems typically used in NPS projects are required to change the refrigerant they use by

January 1, 2025. These changes may impact the cost of systems and the integration of these systems into buildings. In addition, there may be impacts to lead times for equipment.

Please note, that changes in refrigerants will continue to occur through 2029 as the AIM Act requires reduction of GWPs.

Documentation:

- Communication with local sales reps was conducted for specific materials pricing as warranted, to either update existing or include materials not priced.

Standard Clarifications:

• This estimate is the NET Construction costs of the project which includes direct cost of construction, location factor, remoteness factor, federal wage rate factor, historic preservation factor, design contingency, permitting, contracting method of procurement, testing, general conditions, bonds, permits and contractor overhead, profit, & escalation.

• This estimate does NOT include Gross costs which Includes Construction Contingency and NPS Construction management.

• This estimate does NOT include the Total costs of compliance, predesign, design, and supplemental services.

NPS DSC IGE Class C | Step 1 Basis of Estimate page 2 of 23 | 4/3/2025 5:24 PM

Project Specific Markups & Tax Allocations

Tax Allocations

• After verifying with the local tax jurisdictions and NPS tax requirements, enter X in fields which require project taxes. Material Labor Equipment Other

This will populate the appropriate taxes throughout the estimate. x

Project Specific Markups

• Refer to Cost Estimating Requirements Handbook > Chapter 4 Estimate Markups for guidance on this section.

• This chart shows how markups are applied at different phases of design.

• Add required markups in column C and specific descriptions in column D. These entries will populate throughout the estimate.

• Re-evaluate markups at each phase of design as details develop and added to the estimate. Adjust percentage as appropriate in individual CLINs.

Markups Percent

Description

Overwrite instructions to provide detailed description for each markup and how it was determined.

Class C

Conceptual

Class C

Schematic

Class B

Design

Development

Class A

Construction

Documents

A Park Location Factor (PLF): 31.90% A combination of the city cost index and remoteness to the Park Visitor Center. The Park Location Factor (PLF) is automatically inputted when the park acronym is inserted on the Price Schedule.

X X X

B Project Specific Remoteness: 5.00% Added cost of remoteness from the Park Headquarters to the project specific location in the Park. Use minimum 1% for every

10 miles for road access and estimators best judgement for other access issues, i.e. water only access.

X X X

C Federal Wage Rate Factor: 0.00% Using the attached Wage Rate Calculator wage rate needs to be adjusted. Applied to 60% of Other Cost. X X X

D State & Local Taxes: 6.75% Sales Tax applied to 40% of Other Cost. X X X

E Historic Preservation Factor: 0.00% (Approximate Range 5% to 10%) Based on level of work on historical resources X X

F Design Contingency: 20.00% This ranges based on ASTM E2516 Expected Accuracy Range/Tolerance for design contingency and estimators best professional judgement based on phase of design, complexity, and size of project.

X X X X

TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS

G Standard General Conditions: 18.95% (Approximate Range 4% to 20%) Standard field general requirements and conditions for duration of project, based on previous park projects.

X X

H Government General Conditions: 5.00% (Approximate Range 5% to 10%) Government requirements including, quality assurance and safety requirements. (See

Division 1 Specifications for guidance.)

X X

I Testing & Inspections: 1.00% (Approximate Range 1% to 3%) Soils, structural, material, and MEP (mechanical, electrical & plumbing) testing with inspection requirements.

X X X

J Permits & Fees: 1.00% (Approximate Range 0% to 2%) Wetlands, local fire requirements, sanitary, water, electrical local utility agency fees. X X X

SUBTOTAL NET CONSTRUCTION COST

K Home Office Overhead: 12.00% (Approximate Range 4% to 18%) Applicable for type and size of construction per previous park projects. X X X X

L Profit: 6.00% Can not exceed 10% per FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) requirements. X X X X

M Performance Bond: 2.00% (Approximate Range 1% to 2.5%) Construction bonding for contractor and subcontractors. The smaller the company the higher the rate.

X X X X

ESTIMATED NET CONSTRUCTION COST

N Contracting Method Adjustment: 12.00% Verify with project team which contracting method is to be used. 8A Competitive 12%. X X X X

O Inflation Escalation Annual Rate: 3.63% Aggregate Rate - Use 4% for 2025 & 3% for 2026 X X X X

CURRENT DATE TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION (Months): 17 Include construction start / finish dates with duration of work in months.

If no X is shown in a field, costs previously applied in the percentage need to be fully applied within the direct costs, either as actual activities or increases to individual unit costs and a 0% shown in the markups.

NPS DSC IGE Class C | Step 2 Markups page 3 of 23 | 4/3/2025 5:24 PM

Summary NET Cost Schedule Park Acronym: SEKI

Park Name: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Project Title: Burned Structures Housing Replacement at Grant Grove

Park Management Information System (PMIS) Number: 332393

Current Estimate Date: 3/4/2025

• Estimator to start estimate by completing gray cells with initial project information and CLIN titles per line item designated by NPS for the project.

• Information added on this worksheet will populated the rest of the template.

• Click on the CLIN to route to corresponding CLIN worksheet/tab.

Contract Line

Item Number

(CLIN)

Option Number

Contract Line Item Title Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Total Price

CLIN 1 Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #1 1,635 Square Feet (SF) 1,606 $2,625,856.03

CLIN 2 Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #2 1,635 Square Feet (SF) 1,652 $2,701,812.96

CLIN 3 Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #3 1,635 Square Feet (SF) 1,742 $2,847,407.77

NPS DSC IGE Class C | Step 3 Cost Schedule page 4 of 23 | 4/3/2025 5:24 PM

CLIN NET Cost Summary Project Title: Burned Structures Housing Replacement at Grant Grove Park Management Information System (PMIS) Number: 332393 Park Name: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Park Acronym: SEKI

Bid Item Number Bid Item Description Overall

Quantity Unit of Measure Total Material Cost Total Labor Cost

Total Equipment

Cost Total Other Cost

Total Direct

Construction Costs Total Markups NET Bid Item Total

NET Bid Item

Unit Cost

CLIN 1 Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #1 1,635 Square Feet (SF) -$ -$ -$ 923,128$ 923,128$ 1,702,728$ 2,625,856$ 1,606$ CLIN 2 Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #2 1,635 Square Feet (SF) -$ -$ -$ 949,831$ 949,831$ 1,751,982$ 2,701,813$ 1,652$ CLIN 3 Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #3 1,635 Square Feet (SF) -$ -$ -$ 1,001,015$ 1,001,015$ 1,846,393$ 2,847,408$ 1,742$

NPS DSC IGE Class C | CLIN Cost Summary page 5 of 23 | 4/3/2025 5:24 PM

Estimate Type: Class C Estimate CLIN Number: CLIN 1 Overall Period of Performance: 6 Overall Quantity: 1,635 Estimator Name: Todd Slater Go to

CLIN Title: Modified Building #2 Prototype - Alternate #1 Unit of Measure: Square Feet (SF) Current Estimate Date: 3/4/2025 Cost Schedule

Park Acronym: SEKI Individual CLIN Period of Asset Code: 4100 Building Estimate Reviewed By: Seth Pszczolkowski

PMIS Number: 332393 Performance (as needed): Facility Type: 4110 Office Estimate Reviewed Date: 3/4/2025

• No Allowances or Lump Sums can be used with Class B or Class A estimates. Estimate will be rejected if used.

• Rounding or Plug numbers are not acceptable. Estimate will be rejected if used.

• To the left of the Uniformat II WBS Codes (Work Breakdown Structure), click outline symbol + (plus) to show/expand groups required for the IGE and begin entering details. For full use of the worksheet, unprotect the sheet in the Review ribbon.

Uniformat II MATERIAL LABOR EQUIPMENT OTHER DIRECT CONSTRUCTION NET CONSTRUCTION

WBS Code Description Quantity Unit Material Cost/Unit Total Material Cost Labor Cost/Unit Total Labor Cost Equipment Cost/Unit

Total

Equipment Cost Other Cost/Unit

Total

Other Cost Total Cost/Unit Total Cost Total Cost/Unit Total Cost

A1010 Standard Foundations

MF-2004 Code Continuous Reinforced Footing w/ Stemwall 1635 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 56.89 $93,014 $ 56.89 $93,014

MF-2004 Code (2) Garage - Foundation - Assumed Cont. Footing w/ Stem Wall 660 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 40.00 $26,400 $ 40.00 $26,400

MF-2004 Code Description 0 Unit $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0

Subtotal Standard Foundations 1,635 SF $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 73.04 $119,414 $ 73.04 $119,414

A10 TOTAL FOUNDATIONS 1,635 SF -$ $0 -$ $0 -$ $0 73.04$ $119,414 73.04$ $119,414 207.75$ $339,674

A2010 Basement Excavation

MF-2004 Code Crawlspace Excavation/Haul 1635 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 7.35 $12,017 $ 7.35 $12,017

MF-2004 Code Description 0 Unit $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0

Subtotal Basement Excavation 1,635 SF $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 7.35 $12,017 $ 7.35 $12,017

A20 TOTAL BASEMENT 1,635 SF -$ $0 -$ $0 -$ $0 7.35$ $12,017 7.35$ $12,017 20.91$ $34,183

B1010 Floor Construction

MF-2004 Code Floor Framing 1635 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 24.55 $40,138 $ 24.55 $40,138

MF-2004 Code Roof Framing - Truss Roof - Assumed Prototype Typical 1635 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 36.06 $58,953 $ 36.06 $58,953

MF-2004 Code Porch Extention - Sister LVL 170 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 7.52 $1,278 $ 7.52 $1,278

MF-2004 Code (2) Garage - Roof Structure - Assumed Truss Roof/Sheathing/Standing Seam 660 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 70.45 $46,494 $ 70.45 $46,494

MF-2004 Code Description 0 Unit $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0

Subtotal Floor Construction 1,635 SF $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 89.82 $146,863 $ 89.82 $146,863

B10 TOTAL SUPERSTRUCTURE 1,635 SF -$ $0 -$ $0 -$ $0 89.82$ $146,863 89.82$ $146,863 255.51$ $417,755

B2010 Exterior Walls

MF-2004 Code Exterior Walls - Framing/Siding/Windows/Doors 1635 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 45.77 $74,833 $ 45.77 $74,833

MF-2004 Code (2) Garage - Exterior Walls - Assumed 2x6 Framing w/ Headers/Wood Siding 1351 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 33.50 $45,257 $ 33.50 $45,257

MF-2004 Code Description 0 Unit $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0

Subtotal Exterior Walls 1,635 SF $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 73.45 $120,090 $ 73.45 $120,090

B20 TOTAL EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 1,635 SF -$ $0 -$ $0 -$ $0 73.45$ $120,090 73.45$ $120,090 208.93$ $341,599

B3010 Roof Coverings

MF-2004 Code Roofing & Accessories 1635 Sf $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 19.26 $31,490 $ 19.26 $31,490

MF-2004 Code Description 0 Unit $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0

Subtotal Roof Coverings 1,635 SF $ - $0 $ - $0 $ - $0 $ 19.26 $31,490 $ 19.26 $31,490

B30 TOTAL ROOFING 1,635 SF -$ $0 -$ $0 -$ $0 19.26$…