esc construction

Enviromental Systems Corporation Huntsville, AL

2010 Associated Builders and Contractors - Excellence in Construction

6000 Technology DriveCategory: Special ContractingMechanical: Commercial $2 to $10 Million

PROJECT DESCRIPTION


2010 Associated Builders and Contractors - Excellence in ConstructionCategory: Special ContractingMechanical: Commercial $2 to $10 Million

6000 Technology Drive is the renovation of a 3-building campus to meet a Solicitation for Offers with mission critical stringent noise criteria and system redundancy while working within the above ceiling space limitations and structural restrictions of the existing buildings.

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

Chi

ller

yard

be-

fore

con

stru

ctio

n.

It w

as n

eces

sary

to

kee

p as

com

-pa

ct a

s po

ssib

le

to n

ot e

xten

d be

yond

the

end

of

the

build

ing

due

to e

xist

ing

utili

-ti

es n

or t

o im

pose

on

the

exi

stin

g pa

rkin

g an

d dr

ive

thro

ugh

area

.

PHO

TO 1

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

The

pho

to a

fter

de

mol

itio

n sh

ows

the

lim

ited

abo

ve

ceil

ing

spac

e.

Thi

s sp

ecifi

c sp

ace

is t

he s

ame

area

whe

re t

he

Mis

sion

Cri

tica

l ph

oto

was

tak

en.

PHO

TO 2

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

Chi

lled

Bea

m

pipi

ng.

Thi

s is

an

in

pro

gres

s pi

ping

ph

oto

but n

ote

the

final

pip

ing

inst

al-

latio

n w

ill lo

ok

sim

ilar

with

no

insu

latio

n on

the

“chi

lled”

tert

iary

w

ater

pip

ing.

The

ch

illed

bea

ms

are

prot

ecte

d du

ring

co

nstr

uctio

n by

co

veri

ng fi

nish

ed

face

with

cor

ru-

gate

d ca

rdbo

ard.

T

he c

hille

d be

ams

are

supp

orte

d an

d po

sitio

ned

with

ad-

just

able

slip

cab

le/

lock

ing

devi

ce,

a pr

oduc

t cal

led

grip

ple.

PHO

TO 3

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

The

chi

lled

yar

d pi

ping

in p

rogr

ess

show

s th

e co

mpa

ct

desi

gn a

nd w

ork

nece

ssar

y to

fit i

n

desi

gnat

ed s

pace

an

d to

be

acce

s-si

ble

for

oper

atio

n

and

mai

nten

ance

. C

ompa

ct in

line

pum

ps a

re u

sed

for

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y ch

illed

w

ater

and

pri

mar

y ho

t wat

er p

umps

.

PHO

TO 4

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

Thi

s ph

oto

dem

onst

rate

s th

e ce

iling

con

gest

ion

en

coun

tere

d fr

om

duct

, lig

hts,

and

sp

rink

ler

pipi

ng.

Not

see

n in

the

ph

oto

are

hydr

on-

ic p

ipes

inte

rsec

t-in

g th

is c

orri

dor.

B

undl

ed m

iles

of

com

mun

icat

ion

ca

blin

g w

ill e

ven-

tual

ly la

y ab

ove

light

fixt

ures

.

PHO

TO 5

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

(the

“af

ter”

of

Pho

to 2

)M

issi

on c

riti

cal.

The

cus

tom

ers

final

pro

duct

wit

h

the

attr

acti

ve

finis

hed

chill

ed

beam

inst

alla

tion

w

ithi

n th

e ce

iling

gr

id.

PHO

TO 6

Envi

rom

enta

l Sys

tem

s Co

rpor

atio

n H

un

tsvi

lle,

AL

2010

Ass

ocia

ted

Build

ers

and

Cont

ract

ors

- Ex

celle

nce

in C

onst

ruct

ion

Cate

gory

: Spe

cial

Con

tract

ing

Mec

hani

cal:

Com

mer

cial

$2

to $

10 M

illio

n

The

chi

lled

yard

ph

oto

show

s th

e di

stri

butio

n of

ch

illed

wat

er fr

om

thre

e (3

) 70

ton

ch

iller

s, h

ot w

ater

ha

rves

ted

from

th

e sa

me

chill

ers,

te

rtia

ry c

hille

d w

ater

ret

urn,

boi

ler

(at r

ear

bloc

ked

by

last

chi

ller)

, chi

lled

wat

er a

nd h

ot

wat

er p

umps

, air

se

para

tors

, exp

an-

sion

tank

s, s

yste

m

fill p

oint

s an

d fin

ally

the

seve

n (7

) va

riab

le fr

eque

ncy

driv

e en

clos

ures

fo

r pu

mps

.

PHO

TO 7

CONTRACTED SCOPE



Due to Government Client Confidentiality and Nation-al Security Concerns, need-to-know/sensitive informa-tion will be excluded from our submission.

Environmental Systems Corporation (ESC) was the mechanical design/build contractor for the Renova-tion of 6000 Technology Drive, which is a campus of 3 buildings in the Cummings Research Park East. The project was in response to a Solicitation for Offers (SFO) published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the government tenant.

As a member of the design team, Environmental Systems Corporation worked with other design profes-sionals to provide the Crown Group with a cost effec-tive renovation. Buildings 1 & 2 demanded a thor-ough review and evaluation of all existing mechanical systems and equipment. The review allowed ESC to utilize much of the existing HVAC equipment before moving forward with the new design. Since the tenant requirements described several areas as “mission criti-cal”, Building 3 required a comprehensive review and strict adherence to the SFO which lead to the complete demolition of the existing mechanical system and a totally new innovative design solution.

Building 1: Complete Mechanical Engineering and Construction•Demo. and removed existing HVAC ductwork and systems not being reused•Installed new ductwork•Refurbished and relocated five existing HVAC units•Re-zoned with a VVT (Variable Volume and Temperature) system•Installed three new HVAC systems to meettenant requirement. Two of the systems includ-ed energy recovery ventilators.•Installed new web based open protocol Build-ing Automation System

Building 2: Complete Mechanical Engineering and Construction•Demo. and removed existing HVAC ductwork and systems not being reused.•Installed new ductwork•Refurbished and relocated two existing HVAC units

•Installed additional RTU dedicated to the UPS Area•Installed new HVAC split system serving new main electrical room•Re-zoned to meet requirements of the new floor plan and occupancy•Installed new web based open protocol Building Automation System

Building 3: Complete Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Certified Commissioning•Demo. and removed complete HVAC system•Installed new active chilled beam system•Installed new chiller plant with integrated heat recovery system•Installed primary, secondary, tertiary piping system with over two miles of piping•Installed fully redundant cooling system for 13 mission critical areas•Installed of new system for a mission critical data center including full redundant capacity and control•New web based open protocol Building Automa-tion System with integration of Lon and BACnet networks

Type of ConstructionRenovation and Rehabilitation

Size of the Project88,480 square feet

Contracted Amount$2,787,892

Length of Construction ProjectMarch 10, 2009 - April 15, 2010Design - March 10, 2009 – July 10, 2009Construction - June 25, 2009 – April 15, 2010

Percentage of Self-Performed Work100%

Merit Shop Participation100%

ABC Members – North Alabama ChapterRam Tool & Supply CompanyMayer Electric Supply CompanyService Steel, Inc.Madison Mobile Storage

PROJECT NARRATIVE



14

Please note that the need-to-know limitation of information regarding this project has restricted our ability to share some information. While some facts may seem unimportant, they are indeed classified as sensitive information, or need-to-know information. Due to Government Client Confidentiality and National Security Concerns these types of information will be excluded when writing our narrative for our submission.

Environmental Systems Corporation (ESC) was contacted by The Crown Group in March of 2009 and asked to participate in a team effort to provide a response to a Solicitation for Offers (SFO) published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Crown Group chose 6000 Technology Drive, which is a campus of 3 buildings in the Cummings Research Park East for the proposed renovation. With Building 3 having been built in 1965 and Buildings 1 & 2 in 1987 the spaces were in need of renovation to meet the recent space requirement needs of the SFO.

As part of the design team, Environmental Systems Corporation worked with the other design professionals to provide the Crown Group with a cost effec-tive renovation for the property. The buildings required a thorough review and evaluation of all of the existing mechanical systems and equipment. By coordinating the SFO requirements and the facility review ESC was able to utilize much of the existing HVAC equipment on Buildings 1 & 2 before proceeding with a new design. One of the first challenges that ESC had to overcome was the requirement to submit a fully qualified proposal with de-sign concept and firm pricing (excluding changes caused by the tenant) in less than six weeks.

The design for Building 1 required the demolition of the existing HVAC ductwork, the control system, and the HVAC systems that were not being reused. The engineering division designed a new duct system, three new HVAC systems, two of which included energy recovery ventilators, and a new web based open protocol Building Automation System to meet the new tenant requirements. Five of the existing HVAC units were completely refurbished and relocated as part of the new mechanical design.

Building 2 required the same approach: the demolition of ductwork, con-trols, and HVAC systems that were not being reused in the new design. ESC designed a new duct system, refurbished and relocated two existing HVAC units, added an additional roof top unit dedicated to the UPS area, installed a new HVAC split system serving the new main electrical room, re-zoned the

PROJECT NARRATIVE



15

facility to meet the requirements of the new floor plan and occupancy as well as engineered a new web based open protocol Building Automation System.

Buildings 1 & 2 presented their own challenges but not the design challenges presented by Building 3. This building required an entire HVAC system replacement to meet the SFO. There were three primary factors which con-tributed to the search for a new and innovative approach: the stringent noise criteria of NC 25 in a number of critical areas, a lack of physical space for the installation of more conventional systems, and the requirements for full N+1 redundancy which could not have been accomplished with conventional systems given the space limitations.

Paul Smith, P.E. and Vice-President of Engineering attended seminars and academic/continuing education courses over several years where the technol-ogy of radiant cooling had been presented. This approach has been used in Europe and the northern United States but when it came to the south the fundamental issues of heat and humidity had to be dealt with and were gen-erally considered to be outside the realm of workable for these systems. The ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refridgeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) headquarters in Atlanta had investigated and ultimately aban-doned the approach for their new facility because of a fear of being able to adequately deal with the humidity inherent to the deep south. The Univer-sity of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, had also looked at the option for one of their buildings, but because of it not having a strong history in the region was abandoned for the project.

ESC considered the reasoning against the system type, but because of the SFO’s stringent requirements and the physical lack of space in the facility, decided that chilled beams were the strongest candidate for this project and decided to move forward. We felt that since ESC had control of the design, installation, controls, and ultimately maintenance of the beams that many of the fears others had expressed could be addressed and contained.

Russell Grimes, President of ESC , Paul Smith, Vice President of Engineer-ing, and Stephen Grimes, Vice-President of Operations began researching the radiant cooling approach and how it could be implemented in our application. They found the Fläkt Woods Company who was having wide spread success with their product in the chilled beam application. Through discussions with our SEMCO (who sell the Flakt Woods product in the US under the SEMCO brand) representative, a trip was arranged. In April of 2009, Mr. Grimes

PROJECT NARRATIVE



16

and Mr. Smith visited what SEMCO considered to be an IQIC chilled beam system showcase facility in South Carolina. Both men found the trip helpful and informative and they came away with additional ideas for insuring the proper installation and operation of a chilled beam system.

The active chilled beam is basically an induction terminal with chilled wa-ter coils supplied with medium temperature chilled water and cold primary air. For chilled beam technology to be successful in the Huntsville area, it was imperative that the chilled beam water supply be above the build-ing interior dew-point. Without this the entire chilled beam system would collect condensate and ultimately “rain” in the facility. This control was accomplished by using the water from the circulation of the return wa-ter from other cooling processes in the facility. In addition to assisting in controlling the temperature of the chilled water, it also gave the benefit of allowing warmer water being returned to the chillers. This results in chill-ers that operate at higher efficiency levels. Because the beams are induc-tion terminals, the chilled beam requires less primary air than a traditional air terminal device. The reuse of chilled water, the reduced fan horsepower in terms of air handlers, and the enhanced chiller efficiency allowed the system higher energy efficiencies.

By using chilled beams which have no moving parts, the system offered resolutions for the major issues of noise, space, and redundancy. The ma-jority of the air movement from a chilled beam is a result of induction, not mechanical action. This helped to meet the noise criteria. With no moving parts, all of the redundancy issues could be resolved at the use of primary air handler units at the chilled water level. Two air handler units, each specially designed for low dew-point operation and capable of handling the mission critical cooling capacities, were used meeting the project require-ment for redundancy.

PROJECT SAFETY



President of Environmental Systems corporation

Vice President of Operations

Project Managers

Project Superintendent

Robins & Morton Safety Officer ESC Safety Officer

Workers First Safety Inspector

Russell Grimes

Stephen Grimes

Russell Grimes - Stephen Grimes

Gary Parton

Kelly Rolen Jeff Morrison

Brian Youngblood

ESC Safety Organizational Chart

PROJECT SAFETY



Company Health and Safety Policy Manual - Safety Programs used specific to this project

Daily Pre-Task PlanningDocumented pre-task planning was conduct-ed by the project superintendent at the be-ginning of each shift to review and analyze any potential safety hazards; fall exposures, electrical exposures etc.

Weekly Safety InspectionsIn conjunction with the project superinten-dent, the esc safety officer visited the site weekly to verify compliance with all ESC Safety programs.

Compliance with all General Contractor Safety RequirementsESC provided full cooperation with Robin & Morton on all requested safety documentation

Additional TrainingThe ESC Safety Officer Jeff Morrison along with three other key field personnel have completed the 30 hour OSHA Certification Program for Construction Safety.

Site Specific ManualDue to ESC’s full implementation of the Company Health and Safety Policy Pro-gram, no additional special safety and health programs were needed. Our com-pliance and enforcement of all of our writ-ten policies resulted in no injuries on this project. Additionally our President, Russell Grimes serves as a Trustee for Workers First Comp Fund the Self-Insurance Comp Fund for the State of Alabama, so ESC is dedicated to Job Safety.

PROJECT SAFETY



Toolbox safety meetings are documented and held weekly with all employees in both English and Spanish

PROJECT SAFETY



Weekly safety meeting topics from March 10, 2009 through April 15, 2010

9 Everybody’s A Safety Inspector16 Working Safely with Corrosives and Solvents23 Rigging30 Roofing Hazards

6 Anger Management on the Jobsite13 Eye Protection20 AEGCP27 Spills and Disposal of Chemicals

4 Pneumatic Tools11 Ladder Safety – One Step at a Time18 Lacerations, Contusions, and Abrasions25 You Are the Sharpest Tool in the Box

1 June is National Safety Month8 Preventing Forklift Accidents15 Don’t Play the Fool22 Is There Danger in the Air?29 How Noisy is a Construction Site?

6 First Aid for Heat-Related Illnesses13 Aerial Lifts and Platforms20 Storing Chemicals Safely27 Storm Watch

3 Work Zone Safety10 Watch Your Back17 Housekeeping on the Jobsite24 Safety Punch List31 Chemical and Thermal Burns

7 Emergency Preparedness14 Live Circuits Can Kill You21 First Responders28 Lockout/Tagout

5 Fire Prevention Week12 Scaffolds and Fall Protection19 What Are Crane Inspectors Looking For?26 Heart Attack

2 Job Safety Analysis9 Working in the Cold16 Don’t Let Gravity Take You Down23 Rebar and MSDs

7 Evacuation Plan14 Respiratory Protection21 Motor Vehicle Safety28 Care and Maintenance of Tools

4 OSHA’s Top Ten for 200911 Ergonomics: The Right Tool Fits Right18 Portable Heaters on the Jobsite25 Watch Your Step When the Jobsite is Icy

1 The Dirt on Earth-Moving Equipment8 PPE15 Welding Operations22 Struck-by and Caught-In-Between Acci-dents

1 Easy Rules for Hand Tools8 General Housekeeping15 Confined Spaces22 Working Alone29 Hanging Steel

5 Work Zone Safety Awareness12 Solvents

March October

November

December

January

February

March

April

April

May

June

July

August

September

PROJECT SAFETY



As part of Enviromental Systems Safety Program we have inspections conducted by our insuring representative to document compliance with all on site safety requirements.

PROJECT SAFETY



Letter Provided to Robins & Morton by our Project superintendent, Gary Parton verifying training, and eligibility and screening of all ESC employees participat-ing in the construction of 600 Technology Drive.

PROJECT SAFETY



Company Health and Safety Policy Manual - Drug and Alcohol Policy

Alabama Roofing, Sheet Metal, Heating, & Air Conditioning Contractors' Association

Self Insurance Fund Environmental Systems Corporation

4114 Environmental Circle Huntsville, Alabama 35805

(256)882-1122

DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY

The Company has a vital interest in maintaining a safe and effective working environment for its employees, a working environment as free from the use of illegal and non-prescription drugs and alcohol and unauthorized use of prescription drugs as reasonably possible. Employees with drug and alcohol abuse problems make up only a small fraction of the workforce, and the Company regrets any inconvenience that may be causes to other employees by the problems of a few. But being under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job poses serious safety and health risks, not only to the user but also to all who come in contact with the user. The benefits to be derived from reducing the number of accidents and the greater safety of all the employees make up for any inconvenience. The Company asks for your full cooperation in implementing this policy.

Rules

1. Possession, Etc.: The distribution, sale, purchase, use, or possession of intoxicants, including alcohol, non-prescribed narcotics, marijuana and other hallucinogenic drugs, or other non-prescribed controlled substances while on Company property or during work hours is prohibited.

2. Possession, Etc. of Equipment: The distribution, sale, purchase, use or possession of equipment, products and materials which are used, intended for use, or designed for use with non-prescribed controlled substances while on Company property or during work hours is prohibited.

3. Use of Illegal Drugs: Reporting to or being at work or being on Company property with a measurable quantity of illegal intoxicants, non-prescribed narcotics, hallucinogenic drugs, or other non-prescribed controlled substances in blood, urine, saliva, or breath is prohibited.

4. Use of Alcohol: Reporting to or being at work or being on Company property while possessing, drinking or being impaired or intoxicated by alcohol is prohibited. While having any alcohol in a person's system is prohibited, a Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) of .04 will be accepted as presumptive evidence of intoxication. Additionally, mandated employees (employees subject to provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 40 and the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991) with a BrAC of .02-.039 will be placed out-of-service for a period of no less than 24 hours. Evidential breath testing devices (EBT's) on the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration Conforming Products list will normally be used to determine BrAC.

5. Use of Lawful Drugs: Reporting to or being at work or being on Company property with a measurable quantity of prescribed narcotics or over-the-counter drugs in blood, urine, saliva, or breath or use of prescribed or over-the-counter drugs where in the opinion of the Company such use prevents the employee from performing the duties of his or her job or poses a risk to the safety of the employee, other persons or property is prohibited. If the Company is of the opinion that the employee poses a risk to safety, the employee may be required to take a leave of absence or other appropriate action as determined by management. The Company's Medical Review Officer (MRO) may be consulted regarding any question of fitness for duty.

PROJECT SAFETY



Company Health and Safety Policy Manual - Lockout/Tagout Program

mechanical engineering & contracting / commissioning / building automation

Lockout/Tagout Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PURPOSE 3II. SCOPE 3III. PROGRAM COMPLIANCE 3IV. DEFINITIONS 3V. RESPONSIBILITY 4VI NORMAL PRODUCTION OPERATIONS 4VII. MINORSERVICING TASKS 5VIII. PREPARATION FOR LOCKOUT/TAGOUT 5IX LOCKOUT/TAGOUT PROCEDURES 5X. RESTORINGMACHINES/EQUIPMENT TONORMAL OPERATIONS 6XI. GROUPLOCKOUT/TAGOUT PROCEDURES 7XII. SHIFT ORPERSONNEL CHANGES 7XIII. OUTSIDESERVICEORCONTRACTORS 8XIV. PERIODIC INSPECTIONS 8APPENDIX A (LOCKOUT/TAGOUT TRAININGPROGRAM OUTLINE) 9APPENDIX B (MACHINE/EQUIPMENT LOCKOUT PROCEDURESFORM) 12

Lockout/Tagout Program Revised 7/21/03 © 1998 ExcellenceAlliance, Inc. – Page2

PROJECT SAFETY



Company Health and Safety Policy Manual - Hazard Program

REFERENCES



SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS



SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS



Please note that the need-to-know limitation of information regarding this project has restricted our ability to share some information. While some facts may seem unimportant, they are indeed classified as sensitive infor-mation, or need-to-know information. Due to Government Client Confi-dentiality and National Security Concerns these types of information will be excluded from our submission.

AQC CONTRACTOR



esc construction

Documents

contractors excellence

special contractingmechanical

millionthe photo

progress piping photo

millionthis photo

mission critical photo

millionthe chilled yard

chilled tertiary water