Appendix_1_-_FMD_Standard_Reference_Document_Feb_2016.pdf

ATTACHMENT A

APPENDIX `1

CODE 220 STANDARD REFERENCE DOCUMENT

(SRD) FOR FACILITIES

February 2016

RFP NNG16557109R

CONTRACT TBD

MMiissssiioonn SSuucccceessss SSttaarrttss wwiitthh SSaaffeettyy

Supporting the New Age of Exploration

CCOODDEE 222200 SSttaannddaarrdd RReeffeerreennccee DDooccuummeenntt ((SSRRDD)) ffoorr FFaacciilliittiieess

GGSSFFCC QQuuaalliittyy PPoolliiccyy

WWiitthh CCuussttoommeerr ssaattiissffaaccttiioonn aass oouurr pprriimmaarryy ggooaall::

GGSSFFCC iiss ccoommmmiitttteedd ttoo mmeeeettiinngg oorr eexxcceeeeddiinngg oouurr CCuussttoommeerr’’ss rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss

WWee aacchhiieevvee eexxcceelllleennccee iinn aallll ooff oouurr eeffffoorrttss

PREFACE

The CODE 220 Standard Reference Document (SRD) for Facilities documents technical requirements for facilities constructed at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The document is to be used by all personnel in Code 220, including support service contractors, task-order Architect-Engineers, and others who are involved in the planning, design, construction, and operation/maintenance of facilities.

The basis and justification for the SRD is derived from the NPG 8820.2E Facilities Project Implementation Guide FFPPIIGG,, SSection 4.4.10 Standards for Specific Facilities, which states:

“Documenting the Center's standards and preferences for frequently occurring design elements (e.g., exterior and interior finishes, space planning, etc.) can significantly streamline the design process. The resulting standardization (sometimes referred to as “local specs”) will also simplify future remodeling, maintenance, and operational activities. The FPM must ensure the Center’s standards and preferences are included in the design requirements.”

The agency uses the NASA Directives System to publish and disseminate policy statements and procedures. NPDs, NASA Policy Directives state the WHAT is required to be done to accomplish the agency mission while the NPRs ( NASA Procedures and Guidelines were converted to NASA Procedural Requirement ( NPRs) on 12/05/03) defines HOW is it going to be accomplished. In the facilities world these statements are defined by NPD 8820.2A - Design and Construction of Facilities (Revalidated w/Corrections 11/13/03), the NPR 8820.2E – Facility Project Implementation Guide (FPIG) which was renamed in the Directive System to FPIR*. Compliance with these directives and procedures is mandatory in the agency. Familiarity with these documents is essential to the understanding and implementation of this Standard Reference Document.

*NOTE:

As this SRD revision is being released, the agency has an ongoing effort to redefine the FPIR into two documents. The FPIR will define specifically the required “how” elements and a separate document titled the Facilities Technical Handbook will provide general guidance for the implementation of facilities project.

SRD CHANGE/APPROVAL PROCEDURE

Required changes to the SRD shall be processed as follows based on the indicated criteria:

Administrative/Procedural changes received or generated by the Technical Policy Section shall be reviewed with the Section Head. A recommendation for action will be issued to all of the Branch/Office Heads for concurrence. Final approval shall be by the Chief of the Facilities Management Division (FMD).

Technical changes received or generated by the Technical Policy Section shall be reviewed by the Technical Policy Section Discipline Lead and the Technical Policy Section Head. A recommendation for action shall be submitted to the Planning Office Head, Engineering Branch Head, and the Construction, Operations, and Maintenance Branch Head for concurrence. Final approval shall be by the Chief of FMD.

To request a change, use form GGSSFFCC 44--3355 GGSSFFCC CCOONNFFIIGGUURRAATTIIOONN CCHHAANNGGEE//AAPPPPRROOVVAALL RREEQQUUEESSTT.

Submit the form to Code 224/Associate Branch Head.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codejx/NP&G.pdf http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codejx/NP&G.pdf http://msc-docsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov/GDMS_docs/forms/GSFC4-35.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. FACILITIES WORK EXECUTION

1.1. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES (CoF) PROGRAM

1.1.1. CoF Program Guidelines

1.1.2. Facility Project Management System (FPMS)

1.1.3. Procedure for NF1509/1510 Submissions to Headquarters

1.1.4. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

1.1.5. Economic Analysis

1.1.6. Use of Non-CoF Funds in CoF Projects/Fragmentation

1.2. CENTERED FUNDED (CF) PROGRAM

1.2.1. CF Program Guidelines

1.3. WORK REQUEST SYSTEM (WRS)

1.3.1. Work Request System

1.3.2. WRS Categories

1.3.3. Work Request in Support of UCS Related Work

2. CADD

2.1. CADD MANUAL

3. GENERAL TECHNICAL POLICIES

3.1. SAFETY 1st!

3.2. DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN GUIDELINE CRITERIA

3.3. TECHNICAL POLICY SECTION

3.4. DISCIPLINE COMMITTEES

3.5. FACILITIES PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE (FPIG)

3.6. LESSONS LEARNED INFORMATION SYSTEMS

3.6.1. FMD Lessons Learned Information System

3.7. A-E CONTRACTING

3.8. DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY

3.9. PRE-PROJECT PLANNING (P3)

3.10. FACILITY HAZARDS ANALYSIS

3.11. METRIC (SI) POLICIES

3.11.1. Basic Metric Policy (Historical Reference)

3.11.2. Department of Commerce Guidelines (Historical Reference)

3.11.3. Public Law 104-289

3.11.4. Determination for Waivers

3.11.5. Project Considerations

3.11.6. Drawings

3.11.7. Specifications

3.12. GUIDELINES FOR COST ESCALATION, SIES, AND CONTINGENCY FACTORS

3.12.1. Cost Escalation

3.12.2. Contingency

3.12.3. SIES

3.13. ENGINEERING BRANCH POLICIES

3.13.1. Design Schedules

3.13.2. Environmental Submission Procedures

3.13.3. Design Milestone Reviews

3.13.4. Safety and Environmental, and Security Divisions Review

3.13.5. Architectural Design Review Committee (ADRC)

3.13.6. ADRC Reviews

3.13.7. O&M Reviews

3.13.8. Constructability Reviews

3.13.9. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) Reviews

3.13.10. Distribution of Documents for Design Review

3.13.11. Review Periods

3.13.12. Reviewer Comments

3.13.13. A-E Review of Comments

3.13.14. Design Review Meetings and Comment Finalization

3.13.15. Annotated Review Comments

3.13.16. Final Design Document Approvals

3.13.17. Electronic Bid Sets (EBS)

3.14. DESIGN

3.14.1. Code Analysis

3.14.2. Drawings

3.14.3. Specifications

3.14.4. Calculations

3.14.5. Estimates

3.14.6. Design Quality Assurance Requirements

3.14.7. Proprietary or Single Source Systems

3.14.8. Cultural Resources Program

3.14.9. Goddard Operation Maintenance And Repair System (GOMARS)

3.14.10. Security

3.14.11. Outages

3.14.12. Use of Recovered Materials

3.14.13. Warranties

3.14.14. Space Numbering System

3.15. CONSTRUCTION

3.15.1. Preconstruction Conference

3.15.2. Progress Meetings

3.15.3. Construction Scheduling

3.15.4. Partnering Meetings

3.15.5. Submittal Register/Shop Drawing Log

3.15.6. Submittals

3.15.7. Construction Site Representatives (CSR)(or Inspectors)

3.15.8. Contractor Quality Control (CQC)/ Quality Assurance (QA)

3.15.9. Progress Payments

3.15.10. Safety

3.15.11. Work Freezes/Restrictions in Buildings 001, 003, 013, 014, 024, 031, and Site

Excavations 30

3.15.12. Work Freezes/Restrictions in Buildings 005, 007, 010, 015, 023, 029, and 032 .. 31

3.15.13. Work in Secure Areas

3.15.14. Work in Specialized Areas

3.15.15. After Hours Work and Lists

3.15.16. Outages

3.15.17. Excavation Permits

3.15.18. Hot Work Permits

3.15.19. Confined Space Entry Permits

3.15.20. Best Construction Cores

3.15.21. Removal of Best or Yale Hardware

3.15.22. Operational Readiness Reviews (ORR’s)

3.15.23. Punchlist

3.15.24. Operation and Maintenance Manuals

3.15.25. Commissioning of Systems

3.15.26. Acceptance

3.15.27. Warranties

3.15.28. Tracking of Warranties

3.15.29. ESPC/ESA Warranties

3.15.30. Project Closeout

3.16. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

3.16.1. RCM Program

3.17. GENERAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

4. NOT USED

5. MASTER PLANNING

5.1. GENERAL

5.2. LAND USE

5.3. BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

5.4. UTILITIES

5.5. TRANSPORTATION

5.6. LANDSCAPING

5.7. MASTER PLANNING REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

6. SITE & CIVIL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

6.1. GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6.1.1. Metric Units for Civil

6.2. SITE DEVELOPMENT

6.2.1. Building Siting

6.2.2. Entrances to GSFC

6.2.3. Forest Conservation Areas

6.2.4. Locating Underground Utilities

6.3. SURVEYS

6.3.1. Coordinate System

6.3.2. Control Points

6.3.3. Topographic

6.3.4. As-Built Surveys

6.4. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

6.4.1. Buildings

6.4.2. Utility Projects

6.4.3. Road Projects

6.4.4. Stormwater Management Impoundment Areas

6.4.5. Pond Embankments

6.4.6. Project > 2 Ha

6.4.7. Geotechnical Reports

6.4.8. Groundwater Study

6.4.9. Foundations

6.5. GRADING AND DRAINAGE

6.5.1. Grading

6.5.2. Drainage

6.6. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

6.6.1. Accessibility

6.6.2. Speed Limits

6.6.3. Streets

6.6.4. Parking Lots

6.6.5. Designated Parking for People with Disabilities

6.6.6. Provision for Fire Lanes/Fire Department Connections

6.6.7. Geometrics

6.6.8. Pavement Sections

6.6.9. Curbs and Gutters

6.6.10. Sidewalks, Ramps, and Stairs

6.6.11. Loading Dock, Trash Dumpster, and Service Vehicle Area

6.6.12. Traffic Control Devices

6.7. UTILITY TUNNELS

6.8. FENCING

6.9. LANDSCAPING

6.9.1. Lawns and Grassed Areas

6.9.2. Vegetation

6.10. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

6.10.1. Materials & Standards

6.10.2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design

6.10.3. Outfall Protection

6.10.4. Environmental Considerations

6.10.5. Manholes and Inlets

6.11. SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM

6.11.1. Collection System

6.11.2. Pumping Stations

6.11.3. Treatment and Neutralization Systems

6.11.4. Degreasers

6.11.5. Manholes

6.12. SITE & CIVIL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

7. ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA

7.1. BUILDING SITING

7.1.1. Site Planning Criteria

7.1.2. Campus Environment Criteria

7.1.3. Landscape and Parking Criteria

7.1.4. General Building Criteria

7.2. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

7.2.1. General Construction Materials

7.2.2. Primary Fire Extinguishing Systems

7.3. BUILDING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

7.3.1. Functional Layout

7.3.2. Economy and Energy Efficiency

7.3.3. Expandability

7.4. BUILDING EXTERIOR DESIGN STANDARDS

7.4.1. Exterior Design Considerations

7.4.2. Exterior Wall Criteria

7.4.3. Exterior Door Criteria

7.4.4. Exterior Building Signage

7.4.5. Below Grade Exterior Walls

7.4.6. Building Exterior Envelope Thermal Transmission/Vapor Barrier Criteria

7.4.7. Exterior Envelope Wind Load

7.4.8. Roofing Systems

7.4.9. Roof-mounted Equipment

7.4.10. Roof Specialties

7.4.11. Handrails and Guardrails

7.5. INTERIOR SPACE PLANNING STANDARDS

7.5.1. General Planning Concepts for General Office an Laboratory Areas

7.5.2. Exits and Exit Access

7.5.3. Medical Emergency Access/Observation Windows

7.5.4. Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities

7.5.5. Circulation Network/Elevators/Stairs

7.5.6. Drinking Fountains

7.5.7. Toilet Rooms

7.5.8. Janitor's Closets

7.5.9. Conference Rooms (Within Office Areas)

7.5.10. Administrative Levels and Space Authorizations

7.5.11. Laboratory Clean Rooms

7.5.12. Computer/Data Processing Rooms

7.6. STANDARD PLANNING MODULES

7.6.1. Plan Modules/Horizontal

7.6.2. Ceiling Heights/Vertical Modules

7.7. INTERIOR FLOOR, PARTITION, AND CEILING SYSTEMS

7.7.1. General

7.7.2. Floor Systems

7.7.3. Partition Systems

7.7.4. Ceiling Systems

7.8. INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES

7.8.1. Interior Design Standards

7.8.2. Finish Materials/Colors/Textures

7.8.3. Special Items, Finishes, and Treatment

7.8.4. Signage for Rooms

7.8.5. Signage for Common Areas

7.8.6. Exit Signs

7.9. HARDWARE AND ACCESSORIES

7.9.1. Door Hardware

7.9.2. Glazing

7.9.3. Toilet Accessories

7.9.4. Miscellaneous Building Accessories

7.10. MATERIAL CONVEYING SYSTEMS

7.10.1. Cranes

7.10.2. Accessibility Lifts

7.11. METRIC UNITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL

7.11.1. Metric Units for Architectural

7.12. ARCHITECTURAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

8. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

8.1. GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

8.1.1. Metric Units for Structural

8.2. LOAD CRITERIA

8.2.1. Design Basis

8.2.2. Minimum Dead Loads

8.2.3. Floor Live Loads

8.2.4. Special and Other Loads

8.2.5. Vibration

8.2.6. Reduction in Live Loads

8.2.7. Roof Live Loads

8.2.8. Snow Loads

8.2.9. Wind Loads

8.2.10. Soil Lateral Loads

8.2.11. Rain Loads

8.2.12. Seismic Loads and Design

8.2.13. Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Component Seismic Design Requirements

8.2.14. Road/Bridge Loads

8.3. STRUCTURAL MATERIALS AND DESIGN

8.3.1. Soils and Foundations

8.3.2. Concrete

8.3.3. Aluminum

8.3.4. Masonry

8.3.5. Steel

8.3.6. Wood

8.3.7. Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP)

8.4. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

8.4.1. Footings

8.4.2. Slabs-on-Grade

8.4.3. Structural Frame

8.4.4. Elevated Composite Floors on Metal Deck

8.4.5. Walls

8.4.6. Grating and Plate

8.4.7. Crane Runways, Rails, and Stops

8.4.8. Roofs

8.5. ECONOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

8.5.1. Steel

8.6. STRUCTURAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

9. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

9.1. GENERAL MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS

9.1.1. Mechanical System Identification

9.1.2. Energy Conservation Considerations

9.1.3. Asbestos Containing Materials-PACM and ACM

9.1.4. Mechanical Equipment Sound and Vibration Control

9.1.5. Mechanical Equipment Installation, Alignment and Balancing

9.1.6. Thermal Insulation of Mechanical Systems

9.1.7. Design Documentation

9.1.8. Instrumentation for Mechanical Systems

9.1.9. Pipe and Duct Penetrations

9.1.10. Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Systems (PV/S)

9.1.11. Mechanical Schematics Updating Policy

9.1.12. Metric Units for Mechanical

9.2. SITE UTILITIES

9.2.1. General Information

9.2.2. Domestic Water

9.2.3. Fire Protection

9.2.4. Steam Distribution System

9.2.5. Natural Gas Distribution System

9.2.6. Chilled Water Distribution System

9.3. HEATING AND REFRIGERATION PLANTS

9.3.1. Central Heating and Refrigeration Plant (Building 24)

9.3.2. East Campus Heating and Refrigeration Plant (Building 31)

9.3.3. Water Treatment

9.4. HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS

9.4.1. Design Criteria

9.4.2. HVAC System Selection and Design

9.4.3. HVAC System Equipment

9.4.4. Air Distribution Systems

9.4.5. Building Steam Systems

9.4.6. Building Chilled Water Systems

9.4.7. Building Hot Water and Dual Temperature Water Systems

9.4.8. Refrigerant Piping

9.4.9. Exhaust Systems

9.5. UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM (UCS)

9.5.1. General Information

9.5.2. Utility Control System (UCS) Program Manager

9.5.3. UCS Working Group

9.5.4. Scope of UCS Work

9.5.5. DDC Functions

9.5.6. EMCS Functions

9.5.7. Electrical Coordination with UCS

9.5.8. Plans and Specifications for UCS Work

9.5.9. Engineering Units for UCS Work

9.5.10. Standard Abbreviations, Unit Display, Point Names, and Display Arrangements

9.5.11. Metasys Alarms, Warnings, and Critical Systems

9.6. PLUMBING AND PROCESS PIPING SYSTEMS

9.6.1. Potable Water Piping

9.6.2. Sanitary Drain and Vent Piping

9.6.3. Plumbing Fixtures

9.6.4. Water Heating Equipment

9.6.5. Roof Drains and Rain Leaders

9.6.6. Natural Gas Piping

9.6.7. Compressed Air Systems

9.6.8. Laboratory or Process Gas Systems

9.6.9. Liquid Nitrogen Distribution

9.6.10. Process Vacuum Systems

9.6.11. Deionized or High Purity Water Systems

9.6.12. Process Cooling Water

9.6.13. Central Vacuum Cleaning Systems

9.7. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

9.7.1. Sprinkler Systems

9.7.2. Standpipe System

9.7.3. Special Fire Suppression Systems

9.7.4. Smoke Control Systems

9.7.5. Fire Pumps and Controllers

9.7.6. Trailer Fire Protection

9.8. MECHANICAL REFERENCES

10. ENERGY MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

10.1. ENERGY MANAGER

10.2. ENERGY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

10.3. FMD ENERGY CONSERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.4. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING (ESPC)/ENERGY SAVINGS

AGREEMENT (ESA)

10.4.1. ESPC

10.4.2. PEPCO ESA

10.5

MANDATORY EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.6. ENERGY REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

11. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

11.1. INTRODUCTION

11.2. GENERAL

11.2.1. Codes and Standards

11.2.2. Operation and Maintenance

11.2.3. Metric Units for Electrical

11.3. ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

11.3.1. Utility Power Source

11.3.2. Electrical Substations

11.3.3. Building Power Distribution

11.3.4. Emergency Power System

11.4. POWER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION

11.4.1. Direct Burial Cable

11.4.2. Power Ductbanks

11.4.3. Power Manholes

11.4.4. Medium Voltage Cables (5 kV, 15 kV, and 35 kV)

11.4.5. Secondary Unit Substations

11.4.6. Safety Switches

11.4.7. Transfer Switches

11.4.8. Panelboards

11.4.9. Motor Controllers

11.4.10. Building Compressed Air Systems

11.4.11. Conductors

11.4.12. Conduit/Raceways

11.4.13. Motor Efficiencies

11.4.14. Specialty Transformers

11.4.15. Power Distribution Units (PDU)

11.4.16. Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) Systems

11.4.17. Variable Frequency Drives

11.5. INTERIOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS

11.5.1. Design Lighting Levels

11.5.2. Lighting Conservation Measures

11.5.3. Energy Efficient Fixtures

11.5.4. Emergency Lighting System

11.5.5. Lighting Control

11.6. EXTERIOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS

11.7. GROUNDING SYSTEMS

11.8. LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS

11.9. SMOKE, FIRE DETECTION, AND ALARM SYSTEMS

11.10. SECURITY SYSTEM

11.11. TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM

11.11.1. Telephone Outlets

11.11.2. Data/LAN Outlets

11.11.3. Telecommunication/LAN Rooms

11.12. COMPUTER ROOM DESIGN GUIDELINES

11.13. SHORT CIRCUIT / PROTECTIVE DEVICE COORDINATION STUDIES AND ARC

FLASH HAZARD ANALYSIS

11.14. ELECTRICAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

12. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

12.1. GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

12.1.1. Environmental Engineer

12.1.2. Submissions by FMD Environmental Engineer

12.1.3. Safety and Environmental Checklist

12.2. NEPA COMPLIANCE

12.2.1. NEPA Requirements

12.2.2. Environmental Resources Document

12.3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

12.3.1. Regulatory Authority

12.3.2. Stormwater Management (SWM) - Regulations under COMAR 26.17.02

12.3.3. Submission to MDE

12.3.4. Stormwater Management Master Plan

12.3.5. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) - Regulations under COMAR 26.09.01

12.3.6. Submission to MDE

12.3.7. Plan Development

12.3.8. Dewatering

12.4. FOREST CONSERVATION

12.4.1. Regulatory Authority

12.4.2. Regulations under COMAR 08.19

12.4.3. Roadside Tree Regulations under COMAR 08.07.02

12.4.4. Cutting of Specimen Trees

12.5. WETLAND PERMIT / WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION

12.5.1. Regulatory Authority

12.5.2. Regulations

12.6. AIR QUALITY PERMITTING

12.6.1. Regulatory Authority

12.6.2. MDE Authority Under COMAR 26.11.01 - 26.11.24

12.7. OIL TANK PERMITTING

12.7.1. Regulatory Authority

12.7.2. Regulations

12.7.3. Closure of Existing Underground Storage Tanks

12.7.4. Criteria for Installation of New Tanks

12.8. ASBESTOS REMOVAL

12.8.1. Regulatory Authority

12.8.2. Coordination with Code 250

12.9. NOISE CONTROL

12.9.1. On-Center Noise

12.9.2. Noise Conveyed Off-Center

12.10. INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER

12.11. SOLID WASTE

12.12. ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

13. STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC FACILITIES

14. APPENDIX

14.1. REFERENCES

14.1.1. NPD’s, NPG’s, NPR's, STD’s, GPD’s, GPG’s

14.1.2. Facilities Budget Call Handbook

14.1.3. GSFC Relocation Guidebook

14.1.4

14.2. FORMS

1. FACILITIES WORK EXECUTION

1.1. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES (CoF) PROGRAM

1.1.1. CoF Program Guidelines

Code OJX Facilities Engineer responsible for GSFC The HQ Code OJX Facilities Engineer with functional responsibility for GSFC CoF Program is

Scott Robinson. In all matters relating to the CoF Program he shall be consulted prior to the formal submission of the FY( ) Performance Plan.

Statutory Limits Statutory limits for the CoF Program begin at $500K. For additional discussion and breakdown of fund and program information refer to the Code 220 FFaacciilliittiieess BBuuddggeett CCaallll HHaannddbbooookk..

Re-programming Authority FMD is authorized to vary the cost and scope of individual Minor Facility Projects (up to and including 25 percent of the AFPCE) within the APP (Approved Program Plan) as indicated in form 800/01. Projects cannot exceed statutory limits. For projects that have been re-programmed at the Center Level, a revised

NF1509/1510 shall be created. It is not necessary for HQ to approve the revised NF 1509/1510.

Cost and scope changes greater than 25 percent, new projects, and deletion of projects that were included in the APP must be approved in advance by the cognizant Mission Directorate and by Code OJX.

1.1.2. Facility Project Management System (FPMS)

FPMS was a project management and project reporting database system. The FPMS can be used to develop the NF1509 and NF1510.

NOTE:

The FPMS is no longer supported by the agency. Those who have access to it can still use it to generate NF1509 and NFS 1510, and NF1579. Other means of generating these forms are available in the P:Techpol/FORMS

1.1.3. Procedure for NF1509/1510 Submissions to Headquarters

The following addresses several of the NF1509/NF1510 data fields in FPMS, submission requirements to HQ, changes to NF1509/NF1510 not requiring submission to HQ, and FPMS Copy to History function. In all cases the Project Manager shall ensure that a signed (or unsigned for Sub A) hardcopy is on file in the Engineering Branch Office. Initial Budget Submission (by Planning Office):

Sub/Rev Block: A.

Approval Block: to be left blank.

35% Design Validation Submission (by Engineering Branch):

Sub/Rev Block: B.

Approval Block: Submitted: 220 Division Chief - Discrete Program, 224 Branch Head – Minor Program.

90% Design (Request for Construction Funds) (by Engineering Branch):

Sub/Rev Block: C.

Approval Block: Submitted: 220 Division Chief - Discrete Program, 224 Branch Head – Minor Program.

Concurrence: As needed.

OJX Concurrence: Scott Robinson file://gsfc-filesrvc.gsfc.nasa.gov/210share/210.I%20-%20Institutional/Code%20210.1/Randy's%20Contract%20Files/Active%20Contracts%20-%20Post%20Award/NAS5-00210%20-%20FaCETS%20-%20Parsons/Modifications/Local%20Settings/220Common/TECHPOL/SRD/Related%20Documents/Code%20220%20Facilities%20Budget%20Call%20Handbook.doc

Approved: same as OJX Concurrence (for Minor Program), Eugene Hubbard (for Discrete only)

Change to NF1509/NF1510 not requiring submission to HQ:

Cost and Scope change of a Minor Program project do not exceed 25% of AFPCE (statutory limits can never be exceeded).

Sub/Rev Block: D (in this example).

Approval Block: Submitted: 224 Branch Head - Minor Program.

NF1509 Copy to PM /Project File.

Change to NF1509/NF1510 requiring submission to HQ (by Engineering Branch):

Sub/Rev Block: E (in this example).

Approval Block: Submitted – Division Chief - Discrete Program, 224 Branch Head - Minor Program.

Concurrence: As needed.

OJX Approval: same as OJX Concurrence (for Minor Program), (Eugene Hubbard for Discrete only).

1.1.4. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

Beginning with the FY03 Program, a PPDDRRII ssccoorree sshheeeett shall be completed for:

All projects and recorded in the NF 1509.

1.1.5. Economic Analysis

NPD 8820.2E requires an economic analysis be done on Program Direct and Institutional Discrete level projects in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94. This economic analysis is required to support/justify the project approach. The Corp of Engineers ECONPACK software shall be used to create the analysis.

1.1.6. Use of Non-CoF Funds in CoF Projects/Fragmentation

CoF funded projects cannot be supplemented with other funds, including center funds, except as an outfitting effort. Project Managers shall consult with Engineering Branch Head if other than CoF funds are intended to be used in a CoF project.

1.2. CENTERED FUNDED (CF) PROGRAM

1.2.1. CF Program Guidelines

Statutory Limits

A statutory limit for the CF Program is $500K. For additional discussion and breakdown of fund and program information refer to the Code 220 FFaacciilliittiieess BBuuddggeett CCaallll HHaannddbbooookk..

1.3. WORK REQUEST SYSTEM (WRS)

1.3.1. Work Request System

The Engineering Branch, Code 224, manages the WRS. The WRS is a database used as a tool in the execution of work, both in the CF and CoF Programs.

1.3.2. WRS Categories

The following categories are used to identify work categories in the database:

Category Type Contractor file:///E:/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Active%20Contracts%20-%20Post%20Award/NAS5-00210%20-%20FaCETS%20-%20Parsons/Modifications/Local%20Settings/220Common/TECHPOL/PDRI/Building%20PROJECT%20SCORE%20SHEET_weighted.doc http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/techinfo/CPW/PWTB/25301.pdf file://gsfc-filesrvc.gsfc.nasa.gov/210share/210.I%20-%20Institutional/Code%20210.1/Randy's%20Contract%20Files/Active%20Contracts%20-%20Post%20Award/NAS5-00210%20-%20FaCETS%20-%20Parsons/Modifications/Local%20Settings/220Common/TECHPOL/SRD/Related%20Documents/Code%20220%20Facilities%20Budget%20Call%20Handbook.doc

F General Construction, > than $2500 requiring design FaCETS

I UCS, > $2500 Johnson Controls

J General Construction Montage, Inc.

L Roofing Capitol Roofing

A General Construction, < $2500 FaCETS

O UCS, < $2500 Johnson Controls

P For Planning purposes only (budget call)

Q Miscellaneous work funded with M&R $ (permits, etc.)

R Concrete and Paving work Herron Enterprises

S Study, survey, or inspection only

1.3.3. Work Request in Support of UCS Related Work

Issuance of a UCS Work Request to support a project needs to be done as early as possible in the execution of a standard work request. The Planner or PM that first receives the standard work request needs to make this determination. If UCS work is required to support the work request a separate WR is created to be referred to when the combined mechanical and controls design is being developed. The two WR’s will reference each other and each will contain information on the budget allocation for the mechanical and the controls work. The drawings should have coordination notes that clearly note which contractor is responsible for what work and each contractor receives the others’ contract drawing package marked with “For Reference Only”. JCI or the COTR needs to be notified of pre-construction and progress meetings for the original work request so that the proper coordination of work can be attained. The JCI contract ends on April 30, 2006.

2. CADD

2.1. CADD MANUAL

CADD requirements are specified in the CCAADDDD MMaannuuaall. Presently AUTOCAD 2005 is used to create drawings. The CADD Manual is presently being updated. In the interim, the guidance to our external Architect-Engineering firms is that they need to follow the A/E/C CADD Standard, Revision 2. The standard can be accessed at hhttttpp::////ttsscc..wweess..aarrmmyy..mmiill//pprroodduuccttss//ssttaannddaarrddss//aaeecc//iinnttrroo..aasspp. PM's need to have the A-E firm contact the Parsons CADD Team Lead so that required drawing templates, not included in the A/E/C Standard are incorporated on our drawings.

3. GENERAL TECHNICAL POLICIES

3.1. SAFETY 1st!

GGSSFFCC SSaaffeettyy HHoommeeppaaggee.

3.2. DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN GUIDELINE CRITERIA

The SRD guidelines shall be followed unless there is reasonable justification to use design approaches, systems, or details other than as indicated. It is recognized that no single source document can be all-inclusive to the requirements, issues, and solutions that will be encountered in the design of GSFC facilities. If deviations to this manual are necessary, they shall be so noted in the Requirements Document, Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), or as supplemental information to the Design documents.

http://tsc.wes.army.mil/products/standards/aec/intro.asp http://safety1st.gsfc.nasa.gov/

If a deviation is necessary, the following process shall be utilized to document the deviation and provide a formal approval process. Requests for deviations should be directed in writing (email) to the Technical Policy Discipline Lead with a copy to the appropriate Engineering Branch Section Head. The requesting individual must document the deviation along with its rationale.

The Technical Policy Discipline Lead will review the deviation and issue an approval or disapproval with the concurrence of the Technical Policy Section Lead to the Engineering Branch Section Head. If there are disagreements in the disposition of the deviation, the issue shall be escalated through:

William Holley Head, Engineering Branch Terry Spagnuolo Chief, Facilities Management Division Upon completion of the action, if the deviation is approved the Technical Policy Section will review it to determine if a change to the SRD policy or guidance is required.

3.3. TECHNICAL POLICY SECTION

The Technical Policy Section is Code 224.3 within the 224/Engineering Branch. The group, in addition to typical project management that all architects-engineers perform in the Engineering Branch, is also tasked with developing and maintaining technical documentation for the Division, specifically:

Updating the SRD.

Update the GSFCLOCLS (SPECSINTACT) Update the Technical Library

3.4. DISCIPLINE COMMITTEES

The Technical Policy Section will provide focus and advice to the Discipline Groups.

Framework for Committee activities:

Support the development and update of the SRD (including review of technical changes to SRD)

Support the development of SPECSINTACT Local Sections

Develop Standard Details for graphics

Support the Technical Library Standards update

Provide support and advice on Plant Engineering issues

Develop/Enhance Technical Expertise by assigning individuals oversight responsibilities on specific SPECSINTACT sections

Be a Forum for discussing Design Issues and New Technology applications

Support the Lessons Learned Database by submitting LL candidates

3.5. FACILITIES PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE (FPIG)

Project development shall comply with the FFaacciilliittiieess PPrroojjeecctt IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn GGuuiiddee (FPIG).

3.6. LESSONS LEARNED INFORMATION SYSTEMS

3.6.1. FMD Lessons Learned Information System

Objective:

To create an information system whereby individuals may relate lessons learned experiences pertaining to GSFC facilities work to others for the benefit of all.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PG_8820_002C_&page_name=main

Criteria:

The database uses the Construction Industry Institute (CII) “Lessons Learned Wizard” database.

Only GSFC/FMD related topics or issues will be allowed for submission. Topics relevant to any of the FMD Branches are welcome.

Lessons Learned input may be submitted by any civil servant, on-site contractor, off-site contractor, or anyone doing business with FMD.

Lessons for submission can be both good and bad, but should provide some benefit in making available to others.

Process:

The Facilities Lessons Learned Database is accessible at nn::llllpp.

All input submissions will be made to the Lessons Learned Coordinator (LLC) Mark Daly either electronically or in hard copy (preferably electronic). After entering the database, the submitter clicks on the “New Record” button, fills out all of the information, and finally saves the record (on their C or H drive) using the “Save As” button. The saved file can be submitted to the LLC as an email attachment or in hard copy.

The LLC will review the submission with the Technical Policy Section and either a) accept as submitted, b) revise to make acceptable, or c) reject. The LLC will respond to the submitter with thanks. Revision or rejection could be because lesson already exists, no relevance to FMD, no real benefit can be recognized, or other reason.

The LLC will enter the submitted lesson as a record into the database.

The LLC with the Technical Policy Section will maintain the database including deleting obsolete lessons.

The Technical Policy Section will recommend any changes in FMD processes or procedures as recognized by the submitted lesson. The real gain with a lessons learned system comes with the implementation stage, wherein changes to the organization result in a more efficient work process.

About the Database:

The following are Record Fields included in the database:

Project Title Phase Category Discipline Project Location Keywords Lesson Description Benefits Contact Name Contact Phone Contact Fax Contact Email Contact Address Comments Date Number

Through the use of these Record Fields one can use the Search Routine to look for particular lessons, for example: in a particular discipline, or about a category of work such as Steam Distribution System.

In addition to searching for lessons to view on the screen, one can produce reports which contain any combination of the given Record Fields. The report is formatted by deciding which Record Fields to include, how they should be laid out on paper, and then telling the database which lessons to include according to the chosen data in particular Record Fields.

3.7. A-E CONTRACTING

file://ODIN-ENTERPRISE/B17NETAPPS2/LLP/TB30RUN.EXE

A-E CONTRACTING

3.7.1 A-E Contracts

The FAR PART 36 “Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts” and NASA FAR Supplement Subpart 1836-602-2 provides selection processes for A-E services. Additional guidance is indicated in the FPIG. Agency selection authority for GSFC is delegated to the Center Director.

The Center Director or designee is responsible for establishing an A-E Selection Board.

Excluding FaCETS, Code 220 generally has three types of A-E contract vehicles that are used to perform A-E services for preliminary engineering reports, designs, studies, surveying, materials testing, etc.:

Open-End IDIQ Contracts: generally five or six firms are on-board at any one time. This allows a pool of A-E firms that have somewhat different specialties (architectural, mechanical, and electrical).

Open-End IDIQ Surveying, Materials Testing, and Incidental Geotechnical Design Contract:

generally only one firm on-board at any one time. Provides indicated services

Project Selected Contract: generally only used for very large CoF projects that warrant special selection of an A-E firm (or partnering of firms) to handle the specific project design requirements.

3.7.2 Open-End Delivery Orders

FMD also uses the A-E selection process to establish open-end contracts with one or more A-E firms. The contracts are typically for a Base year award and multiple Option years. The Government, upon expiration of previous Base or Option year, awards the new Option years, provided that the services received have been satisfactory. These contracts permit the design of various projects without requiring the A-E selection process for each project, by issuing DO’s under the open-end contact for each design project.

The PM uses the Caf-200 form to initiate the DO process. This form is completed and sent through the A-E contract COTR, the Engineering Section and Branch Heads, to Procurement.

Attached to the form are a Scope of Work, Procurement Request for the design funding, Government estimate, and any other pertinent information to describe the work required, such as a Requirements Document or NF1509 if applicable.

General design requirements for work at GSFC are already included in the A-E Specifications that are a part of the open-end contract, and by reference in this SRD. The scope of work for an individual DO does not need to repeat this information, but should clearly indicate the scope of the design effort for the specific project.

Part of the Caf-200 is a checklist that is helpful in spelling out the scope of work, schedule and deliverables for the project. The PM should fill in the blanks as appropriate to the project, to indicate design duration and review schedule, and to indicate the “design to” construction cost (which is the target for the Engineering Estimate which, when contingencies, SIES, and any other project burden costs are added, will fall within the approved AFPCE or Budget Limit for the Project).

Government estimates for open-end DO’s are based on rates for various labor categories that are incorporated into the contract for each A-E firm. The rates were negotiated with each A-E firm independently prior to the contracts being awarded to them. These rates vary between firms, and for each firm, the rates change generally change upon award of new Option years. It is very important that the PM verify that the rates used are those that currently apply. There is a CA assigned for the open-end A-E contracts and can provide current option year rates or other information. Caf-200A may be used to prepare the estimate.

Once Procurement has received the Request with all attachments, they request a proposal from the A-E for the work. When a proposal is received, it is forwarded to the PM to review and prepare a Technical Evaluation. If the fee is not acceptable as originally proposed, fact-finding meetings or negotiations are conducted between the PM, CO, CS, and A-E, and a revised proposal may be requested. When any required negotiations are complete and a technical evaluation recommends accepting the proposal, the CO issues the DO to the A-E, and they may begin work on the project.

3.8. DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Incorporates sustainable design practices, maintainable design elements, building commissioning procedures, and safety & security features into facility planning, design, construction, activation, operation & maintenance and de-commissioning to enhance and balance facility life-cycle cost, environmental impact, and occupant health, safety, security and productivity.

EO 13123, Greening of Government Through Efficient Energy Management – 1999 Federal agencies must apply sustainable design principles to sitting, design and construction of new facilities

NPD 8820.3, Facility Sustainable Design (hhttttpp::////nnooddiiss..ggssffcc..nnaassaa..ggoovv//lliibbrraarryy//ddiissppllaayyDDiirr..ccffmm??IInntteerrnnaall__IIDD==NN__PPDD__88882200__00000033__&&ppaaggee__nnaammee== mmaaiinn)

3.9. PRE-PROJECT PLANNING (P3)

Pre-project planning (P3) is a process of developing sufficient strategic information with which the customer can address risk and decide to commit resources to maximize their chance for a successful project. P3 creates a partnership among all project stakeholders that incorporates customer requirements with institutional requirements prior to executing a financial investment.

Integrating P3 into Project Program allows us to make improvements in our system by:

Developing a formal, uniform process for evaluation of projects

Allowing the customer to align with GSFC business goals up front

Allowing the project team (customer, planning, design, O&M, safety, environmental, and security) to work together from the beginning to provide a realistic conceptual design

Allowing the project team to collectively analyze the project and set a budget to address the customer needs

Eliminating the need to de-scope the project due to funding limitations

Spreading accountability through all organizations

Providing the FURB with a through package on which to make an informed investment decision with the funding GSFC receives

The following outline indicates activities for Programmatic and Institutional projects:

Selection of the Team o Customer (with decision making authority) o FMD – Planner, Design PM, Discipline Engineers, Building Manager(s), Construction Manager, Shop Personnel o Safety, Environmental, & Security Office

Selection of Team Leader o Customer w/ Authority or Design PM

Definition of Project Goals o What is the customer trying to accomplish (requirements, not solutions) o Customer schedule requirements o Any code/safety issues that need to be addressed o Miscellaneous concerns (housing, other construction projects nearby)

Define P3 Deliverables and Schedule o List information needed and assign actions required to obtain this information o Set meeting schedule and deliverable schedule http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_8820_0003_&page_name=main http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_8820_0003_&page_name=main

Look at Project Alternatives o Customer/FMD conduct benchmarking (how do others do this work) o Solution(s) from the customer point of view o Alternative institutional solutions

Evaluate Site(s) o Conduct site visit(s) with the entire Team o Record any possible issues to be addressed o Develop Pros & Cons

Conduct Constructability Review o Consider each site and detail possible construction problems

Conduct Risk Assessment o What events may cause project problems/failure o What could go wrong and how

Establish Project Control Guidelines o Identify nice to have, but not essential items o Establish quality requirements

Estimate your Project o Planning estimate, but based on above o OK to add a fudge factor, it’s pre-design

Establish the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) o The PDRI is a tool, a comprehensive checklist, that helps to measure the degree of scope development in a given project.

o A PDRI score of 200 or less has been shown to greatly increase the probability of a successful project.

3.10. FACILITY HAZARDS ANALYSIS

While a project is still in the Requirements Definition phase, the Planner should meet with GSFC

Safety Personnel (code 250.2) to determine the facility's Facility Risk Indicator (FRI) value. This is a number from 1 - 4 which represents the summation of potential hazards (loss of life, injuries, illness, property damage), with 1 being the highest risk and 4 the lowest. Generally reviewing the project description can do this. Projects with FRI values of 1-3 then require the development of a Preliminary Hazards List (PHL) and the documenting of hazards in a Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA). This study will look at such aspects of a finished project as employee exposure to hazardous chemicals, presence of dangerous equipment, etc. A GSFC Safety engineer will be available for consultation, however, funding for development of the PHL and PHA by an A-E must be provided by FMD. Based upon review of the PHA and PHL, a decision is made by Safety Management as to whether a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) is required which is comprised of other hazard analyses. In the end, potential facility hazards are documented and addressed with a plan of elimination, control, or acceptance of each.

The GSFC Safety Branch can provide much more detail on the required analyses and approximate timelines of each phase of the Facility Hazards Analysis. They should be consulted with early so that the project budget can account for hazard analysis/reports that may be required.

3.11. METRIC (SI) POLICIES

The SI metric system is the preferred system for engineering NASA's facilities and infrastructure.

All projects shall be accomplished using the SI system of Units unless a waiver exists.

Fundamental SI Metric is provided by IEEE/ASTM-SI-10 “Standard for Use of the International

System of Units (SI): The Modern Metric System”.

3.11.1. Basic Metric Policy (Historical Reference)

The NASA HQ memorandum from Code OJX, dated May 13, 1994, mandates that all FY96 facility projects (CoF and CF programs) be designed in International System of Units (SI) units unless an overwhelming cost (greater than 5 percent) or performance penalty would result. This policy is ultimately the outgrowth of Executive Order 12770, signed in 1991, which mandates the use of SI by the Federal Government.

Beginning with the FY96 CoF Program and on, GSFC generally complied with the metric policy.

The CF Program did not begin using metric until after 09/01/00.

3.11.2. Department of Commerce Guidelines (Historical Reference)

The NASA HQ memorandum from Code OJX, dated June 18, 1996, indicated that legislation had been introduced in the Congress to limit both the pace and extent of metrication for Federal construction. Some trade associations felt that specifying hard metric products was not in the interests of American business or American taxpayers.

The Department of Commerce issued (May 9, 1996) new guidance regarding use of hard metric products. This guidance was incorporated into discipline Chapters of the SRD.

3.11.3. Public Law 104-289

The NASA HQ memorandum from Code OJX, dated January 3, 1997, highlighted the provisions of Public Law 104-289 “Savings in Construction Act of 1996”, passed in October 1996. This law imposed several requirements that must be considered and documented before specifying Concrete Masonry Units or Recessed Lighting Fixtures as hard metric products. The guidance was incorporated into discipline Chapters of the SRD.

PL104-289 requires that each agency have a “Construction Metrication Ombudsman”, to whom metric related complaints are voiced. All metric related complaints from contractors or suppliers should be referred to the Ombudsman.

PL104-289 became effective January 10, 1997. It did not apply to existing contracts or solicitations issued before that date. It has a 10-year sunset provision, and therefore expires January 9, 2007.

3.11.4. Determination for Waivers

Requirements Documents shall consider metric implications if any, and provide recommendations. Final determination of metric usage, however, shall be determined in the Engineering Branch.

Upon assignment of a CoF project, the Section Head together with the Project Manager will determine if an exception to metric design will be required. Generally the guidelines to be considered to make that recommendation are:

1. If the design or construction cost will significantly exceed 5 percent of the estimated imperial cost.

2. If the customer's requirements conflict with a metric design due to unusual equipment interfaces or intricate renovations of existing facilities.

If it is determined that a waiver is justified, the Section Head shall write a memo (through the

Head, Engineering Branch, and with concurrence of the FMD Metric Coordinator, Alfonso Eaton) to the Chief, FMD. The memo shall state the reasons for such request with a brief rationale. A copy of the memo shall be sent to the Code OJX.

3.11.5. Project Considerations

The decision on whether to use hard metric or soft metric conversion and modular metric products must be based on knowledge, experience, common sense, Public Law, and NASA HQ and Department of Commerce guidance. Consideration should include product and material availability and impact to project schedule, cost, and performance.

Over 95 percent of the products used in building construction today undergo no physical changes as used in a metric project. All that occur is that the dimensions of the product are identified in drawings, specifications, and on product literature in metric units, a process of soft conversion.

Most standard products have not changed physical dimensions. Custom products may be specified in metric dimensions since their manufacture is performed using computer-controlled machinery (e.g., wood doors, glass and windows, metal ductwork, interior stone-work, and pre-cast facade systems). Determining whether to select only hard metric products and materials should be based on whether there is a significant impact to the schedule for longer lead-time items or budget. Some hard metric products may have minimum ordering quantities that may limit their use to larger projects. Most products, however, are the same dimensions in both measurement systems and can easily be used on any project.

The Department of Commerce guidelines (May 1996) states "Modular construction projects in a hard metric size shall only be specified in a federal construction project for situations in which the following criteria are met: (1) the product's application requires it to coordinate dimensionally into the 100 mm building module, (2) market research demonstrates the product’s availability, sufficient to ensure competitive process, and (3) the product's total installed cost is reasonable."

Public Law 104-289 imposed even further restrictions on the specification of hard metric Concrete Masonry Units and Recessed Lighting Fixtures, requiring that: 1) their installed costs are “estimated to be equal to or less than the total installed price of using non-hard-metric” products, and 2) “the application requires hard metric products to coordinate dimensionally into 100 mm building modules”. Furthermore, the head of the agency is required to document this in writing. In order to eliminate the documentation that would be required to specify these products as hard metric, OJX suggests that the design specify “nominal” metric dimensions and specify the required performance of the block and lighting systems. This approach allows the contractor to decide the most cost advantageous product (hard metric or imperial components). In this case, it is then their decision, not a government requirement, and therefore no documentation or justification is necessary.

GSFC decided to specify concrete block, ceiling grid, and recessed lighting fixtures as soft converted, and allow the contractor to substitute hard metric products at their choice, with final approval contingent upon project considerations.

New Facilities New facilities shall utilize hard metric products and modular systems as much as practical.

Smaller projects must give greater consideration to product lead-times, cost, and in the interfacing and coordination with existing spaces. However, the more demand there is for metric products, the more likely that their availability will increase and their cost decrease.

Repair Repair projects will generally be soft metric conversions in order to maintain the continuity of the system.

Rehabilitation Rehabilitation projects will generally use hard metric products and modular systems as much as practical. The scope and size of the project, including the interface and interactions with the surrounding facilities that are in the inch-pound system, must be considered on whether to use hard of soft metric products.

Submittals and Shop Drawings One of the areas that have seemed to cause the most confusion with the construction contractor is the availability of hard metric products, their delivery schedules, and metric shop drawing submittals. It is recommended that PM be very cognizant of the products that are specified as hard metric in a project, indicate them as being hard metric in the drawings and specifications, and specifically discuss them at the pre-bid meeting to make all of the bidders aware of the requirements. At the Pre-Construction meeting discuss again the requirements for hard metric products and their delivery schedules. Also discuss the requirements for metric shop drawings.

All shop drawings should be submitted in metric format. State that it is not acceptable to provide inch-pound shop drawing literature with a stapled attachment of a metric conversion chart.

Where a supplier’s or manufacturer’s product information has not been printed in metric, it is the contractor's responsibility to markup the inch-pound literature as necessary to indicate the metric equivalents.