Creating an oasis
Delta Air Lines LAX 'Take 5' terminal
CREATING AN OASIS Delta Air Lines LAX “Take 5” Terminal
1989 PMI Project of the Year Award Winner Daniel, Mann, Jobnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM]
By Andrea Walden and Wayne K. San Filippo, DMJM Researcher, Sue C. Martin, DMJM
“TAKE 5“ CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT
The ultimate program management success story—design and construct a world class airport terminal for one of the largest U.S. airlines in one of the largest airports in the world, do it without interrupting service, and do it in record time. Midway through the project, change ownership and objectives and do so smoothly. Delta Air Lines Terminal 5 at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) accomplished exactly that, and its existence is a triumph.
Behind Delta's “Oasis” is a story of a team effort on behalf of numerous sources and a maze of intricate organizations and schedules. The resulting terminal is a modern construction miracle not only in terms of project management, but also of human endeavor. The terminal turned out to be an exceptional example of what hard work and unyielding determination can accomplish.
Its design is creative, unique, and a breath of fresh air. Stepping into the terminal transports travelers into a dimension that announces their arrival into southern California. The terminal, a fast-track project, is proof positive of what stringent planning and efficient coordination can accomplish. The strategic combination of a myriad of resources brought the terminal to successful completion, and also welcome relief to scores of weary travelers.
An aerial view of LAX Terminal 5 operating while construction proceeds indicates the scope and magnitude of the project when compared to a similar terminal in the background.
LAX is one of the busiest international airports in the world, with over 45 million travelers utilizing its facilities last year. Delta Air Lines, the third largest U.S. air carrier, accounted for a substantial portion of that traffic. Its passengers enjoyed the relaxing atmosphere of Delta's newly created Oasis, the reconstructed Terminal 5, which provides patrons with an environment conducive to a leisurely stroll instead of a hectic dash.
“Delta is particularly proud of our Los Angeles Oasis Terminal in that it is but another indication of Delta's firm and long-standing commitment to passenger comfort and convenience. Our company's philosophy regarding quality service has earned us the distinction of leading the nine largest U.S. carriers in passenger satisfaction for the past 16 consecutive years, according to the Department of Transportation. Delta's new terminal in the Los Angeles International Airport is a tribute to a tremendous cooperative arrangement between airport officials, contractors, architects and engineers that made it possible--on time and under budget.”
Ronald W. Allen Chairman and CEO, Delta Air Lines, Inc.
In 1988, construction was completed on the new Delta Air Lines Terminal 5 at LAX. The $75 million fast-track project presented a challenge to the entire team of consultants, construction contractor, terminal operator, and building owner. The successfully completed project was honored as the 1989 PMI Project of the Year, an annual award that recognizes and honors a project exemplifying the application of good project management techniques.
When Western Airlines was acquired by Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines in 1987, work had already begun on the 270,000 square foot expansion and remodeling of Terminal 5. Delta inherited this major project and accepted the considerable responsibility for its outcome. The construction started in January 1987 and was to be completed in just 18 months. With stringent planning for a gala opening and in anticipation of the upcoming peak season, the terminal was to be built without interrupting business as usual or the thousands of travelers who use Terminal 5. The architects, engineers, facilities and airlines operations personnel, contractors, equipment manufacturers, and specialty consultants moved forward in an orchestrated effort to achieve the task at hand.
The challenge was to remodel an airline terminal in one of the most active airports in the United States, cause no significant disruption of airline operations or loss of revenue, meet a fast-track schedule within the $75 million budget, and concurrently redesign major elements of the project, while almost tripling the square footage of new construction.
How the completion of this terminal was realized is a story of dedication and teamwork on behalf of the parties responsible for making it happen. DMJM provided overall project management and engineering design services for the Terminal 5 expansion. Architectural design was conducted by the Los Angeles office of Gensler and Associates. Special consultants included Dames & Moore (soils engineering), Thompson Consultants International (aviation planning), and Rolf Jensen & Associates (life safety). Other consultants provided services for landscaping, lighting, acoustical design, interior design, and vertical transportation.
Eighteen months of construction and countless obstacles later, a beautiful terminal was delivered on schedule and within budget—a new terminal design that is responsive to the region it represents and the people who use it as well as to the modern, practical function it performs. “Here at last,” wrote architectural critic Sam Hall Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times when the building opened, “is a terminal at LAX that through its design announces to all that they are in Los Angeles. ” The new gateway to Los Angeles combines aesthetic and practical qualities that truly reflect the city it serves. The terminal is both stylish and functional and creates a new dimension in air travel for the Los Angeles traveler, with palm-lined promenades and large skylights that give the open, airy feeling of an oasis. Comfortable seating and convenient gate access are provided throughout the terminal for the benefit of its thousands of users.
Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall, (DMJM) - (pronounced “dimjim”), is an international architectural/engineering firm, one of the nation's largest, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. DMJM has been a leader for over 42 years in providing professional consulting services to both private businesses and governmental agencies. Current projects under way or recently completed by DMJM include the following:
• The Britomart Development, a planned mixed-use facility located in the heart of downtown Auckland, New Zealand.
• The new Los Angeles Times printing plant consolidating current operations into a single facility, part of a $350 million expansion plan.
• The Metro Rail project, the Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit project, and the Norwalk-El Segundo Rail Transit projects are the first three elements of a massive regional transit program to relieve roadways overburdened by the enormous growth in population.
• The Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, the cornerstone of Los Angeles treatment capabilities, is undergoing a $440 million renovation and expansion.
DMJM commissions span the range of professional service areas from mass transit systems to commercial architecture, from military and civilian airports to regional water supply systems to advanced technology R&D complexes.
Take a walk through LAX Terminal 5 and experience the “Oasis” environment. From the entry (above), through the Connector Building (right), and into the Satellite Building (below), the traveler is reminded of the oasis that is Los Angeles.
Photos by Nick Merrick
The combination of remodeling 70,000 square feet of space and new construction of 200,000 square feet transformed the previous satellite configuration into a pier terminal capable of serving 16 gates for all sizes of passenger aircraft. The terminal's state-of-the-art amenities include a preconditioned air system for parked aircraft, aircraft guide-in lights, apron drive boarding bridges, hydrant fueling, advanced telecommunications, and a state-of-the-art automated baggage handling system. With the opening of the new terminal, Delta's Oasis strengthens its role as southern California's premier airline.
In the beginning in 1985, Western Airlines interviewed various consultants to select a team that would plan and design a major renovation to its existing terminal facilities at LAX. Western Airlines requested a teaming of Gensler and Associates/Architects and Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall to design and manage their proposed improvements. In November 1985, the beginning of planning, architecture, engineering, and management services was authorized.
An example of the advertising program for Delta Air Lines which drove the schedule for completion of LAX Terminal 5.
When Delta Air Lines took over the project, its expectations and requirements were similar to those of Western Airlines. However, Delta also had some new aspirations for the terminal, and these would have profound impacts on the project—the most important one involving time. The new 18-month schedule would push back the completion date even further. This started the process of updating and acquainting Delta with the project and its progress and developing a new relationship between all the parties. Delta proved to be a committed client and played an active role throughout the project.
GETTING STARTED! DESIGN OR REDESIGN?
One of the most crucial crossroads taken was the initial decision regarding the scope of the project. Delta was considering downscaling the project to keep down costs and complete the project on time. The program manager and designers started off by thoroughly familiarizing the new Atlanta-based client with the project and the implications of downgrading at that time. The cost associated with such a measure was investigated, and it was established that complete redesign would be more costly. The bottom line for Delta was time, and the decision was made to proceed.
To accommodate all of Delta's requirements, changes would still be made to certain elements of the project. Due to a different aircraft fleet mix and different operational philosophies, substantial redesign was still necessary to satisfy the new client's needs. This provided yet a new wrinkle to the construction timetable. The scope increased by 35 percent, equal to approximately $18 million. Additionally, Delta required that the redesign work be accomplished while construction proceeded and that the terminal's opening date be moved up by six months.
An extensive ad campaign was in the works while the project was still in the beginning stages. The resulting “Take 5 at LAX” campaign was tremendously successful. This campaign and the beginning of the summertime peak travel season were the foundation for the critical time schedule. To miss the peak season or miscalculate the timing of the public relations program would result in lost revenues and opportunities for the airline. These elements had to be synchronized to achieve the maximum effect and publicize the terminal.
THE SCOPE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Under a separate program management assignment, the DMJM team was entrusted with coordinating the activities of the owner's facilities and operations departments, the architect, the engineer, the contractor, and the various consultants. Within this framework, the following had to be performed:
- define the project scope and develop a project execution plan
- establish a project controls system to monitor budgets and schedules
- select a project delivery system that established construction and contracting methods
- coordinate the activities of owner, A/E, contractor, equipment suppliers, and specialty consultants
- perform value engineering and trade-off studies
- monitor project cash flow, construction schedules, and contractor performance.
Long before Delta's Oasis was a reality, plans were in the making to launch it. Management of the design and documentation of a project, especially one as complex and important as this, requires the utilization of a wide range of resources. Early mobilization of management staff for this team and the establishment of clear project needs were paramount to meeting project goals and objectives while maintaining established budgets and schedules.
Under the direction and control of Western Airlines, the project groundwork was laid. Several project management options were thoroughly investigated and presented to the client. The program manager functioned as the owner's representative in all development management matters. This established a central point of client contact and clear identification of each team member's responsibilities and roles. The strategy was to always treat the project as a whole integrated system. The team was committed to a project management system where quality of design and project documentation were measured against program requirements to ensure a standard of excellence with the least amount of risk to the client and owner. Western/Delta's needs focused on the following:
• design to cost to meet the strict financial constraints imposed by a bond issuance
• retention and integration of existing structures through structural upgrade
• create a space that is visually exciting, yet functional and cost effective
• optimization of the air side apron space to gain as many gates as possible
• continuous uninterrupted passenger traffic during an 18-month construction period.
The project was broken down into phases. As part of this management approach, a comprehensive set of phasing documents was developed to clearly define the airline operational areas that must be maintained during construction sequencing. This preplanning effort resulted in a comprehensive plan and overall strategy. The program manager analyzed the project delivery options and made recommendations on which the airline (then) Western Airlines) could base their project policy and implementation decisions.
PROJECT DELIVERY OPTIONS
There are three primary methods by which building projects are developed frrom the owner/user's original concept through the design-build process to beneficial occupancy. The utilization of the processes, techniques, or methods for accomplishing this is refered to as “project delivery.”
Project delivery affects the method of contractual arrangement, the bidding process, and construction management, and, in the case of Delta, has a profound impact on successfully meeting project requirements. The delivery process, a complex task that may be organized in different ways, usually involves different persons, firms, and organizations who perform various roles, each with specific responsibilities. These three project delivery avenues were investigated under the following three headings:
- Traditional Process
- Phased Construction
- Single-Point Responsibility.
Traditional process. The owner hires an architect/engineer who determines the client/users’ needs, creates a design, and then obtains competitive bids or a negociated price.
Phased construction. Often called construction management, this method is similar to the traditional process during the determination of program and early design. However, with the approval of schematics, the project is segmented into an optimum number of contract packages rather than a single general contract. Each package contains data that deals with and define a discrete portion of the work. These packages are awarded or negotiated in a predetermined order according to construction logic so that earlier packages can go into the construction process while later sequenced design packages are being refined.
RFP RESPONSE ANALYSIS MATRIX
INSTRUCTIONS: Grade In Narrow Column Using The Following System: 5- Excellent, 4- Above Average, 3- Average, 2- Below Average, 1- Poor
Note: Extra Space Allotted For Additional Components.
A B C D etc.
Project Execution Plan Elements
- Project Management Plan
- Detail Level
- Communications Plan
- Project Team
- Cost Control System
- Time Control Plan
- Project Schedule
- Preconstruction: Operational Network & Analysis
- Program Logic
- Detail Level
- Indication Of Const. Phasing
- Detail Level
- Preconstruction: Operational Network & Analysis
- Project Budget
- Clear Pricing Methodology
- Compliance w/RFP
- Precontract Consulting Service Proposal
- Comprehensive Plan
- Detail Level
- On Services During Construction Phase
Single-Point responsibility. This method is often referred to as “design-build” and has a number of variants essentially containing the following basic parameters. The client/user is given a firm combined price for both design and construction. Since the price is usually given at an early stage in the project, the definition of the project's program and the criteria for quality is limited. There will be a single point of responsibility (generally, a general contractor) for delivering the project, including design services.
The process of selecting a delivery method is one of evaluating each alternative's time, cost, and quality advantages and disadvantages. In early 1986, the analysis of the various project delivery options was completed. The critical date schedule developed during this study indicated fast tracking the project if the 1988 completion date was to be met; the targeted project budget (with no over run provisions) demanded strong project cost controls and a construction contractual relationship with no risk for the owner. With these objectives firmly fixed, the program manager began to develop a “game plan.”
An early meeting with the design team disclosed the general consensus of opinion that a contractor should be brought on board early on to authenticate prices, since the owner required a guaranteed maximum cost contract.
COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS
When given the facts surrounding the design and construction of the terminal, the conditions suggested expediting the construction and with the airlines requiring strict budget control, a competitive negotiated process was recommended. The main objectives were:
- Establish a design solution approved by the owner/user
- Select a group of contractors capable of performing the required preconstruction consultive services and executing the construction phase work within the time-cost-quality constraints
- Develop a competitive selection procedure that matches the program requirements.
Current building contracts are usually either negotiated or selected by competition, and the methods used for Terminal 5 were a combination of these. Since the contractor was brought on early in the design stages, the selection was made on a competitive basis, with a guaranteed maximum cost to be established as soon as possible.
Negotiated contracts are gaining acceptance because of pressures on building owners and architects to expedite conception, development, and documentation of major projects by developing new methods of defining the scope of the work in sufficient detail to allow pricing of the entire construction cost. The advantages of negotiated contracts are often outweighed, however, by the loss in competition in determination of construction time and cost. Consequently, a system of competitive negotiated contracts was developed.
Instead of demolishing the 30-year-old building, the consulting engineers strengthened the structural frame, enabling it to meet the revised 1985 Los Angeles City Building Code without interrupting airline operations.
The ticketing floor was expanded to a large open area and upgraded to withstand a 100-pound-per-square-foot load. It was also upgraded to current seismic standards.
The baggage area was doubled in size and built under an accelerated schedule. Using simple pipe post shorings of the existing roof precluded the necessity for demolition and replacement of the roof structure. The result is an innovative 10,000-square-foot basement facility.
A new connector building was built to provide access from the ticketing area to boarding gates. The three-story structure was designed to span over an underground tunnel structure.
Foundation engineering was a difficult task due to constraints imposed by existing facilities. Three unique approaches related to soils and foundations:
1. Heavily loaded columns had to be supported adjacent to passenger tunnels. Footing loads were spanned across the tunnels and supported on deep-seated piers.
2. Concrete pedestals were field engineered to replace loose soil pockets and uncontrolled fills.
3. Excavations revealed contaminated soils, which were isolated and cleaned up in a specially constructed landfill.
This three-story building was redesigned to feature raised floors and ramps surrounded by planters and trees. The mezzanine floor was enlarged to house a large room, which was partly hung from the roof and partly supported on the floor below.
The escalator and stairs were moved to create an uninterrupted passage corridor, and the seismic frame was strengthened.
SOUTH HOLD ROOM
A two-story addition was built to the satellite building. It is a steel frame structure, separated from the existing building by a seismic joint.
The bridge connecting upper levels of the parking structure and the ticketing floor was prefabricated and installed at night because it was above busy roadways.
In the mechanical-electrical area, the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system at Terminal 5 represents state-of-the-art energy-efficient design and the variable air volume air handling equipment has replaced inefficient constant-volume reheat systems to provide substantial energy savings.
The electrical system was designed to deliver additional capacity. It was determined that electrical service equipment could be maintained to allow incremental construction with minimum downtime by switching over to two 2,500-kilowatt transformers. A load-shedding system with tie breaker was installed to eliminate power interruptions.
At Delta Air Lines Terminal 5, the engineering challenge was transformed into a complex program of incremental design and construction phasing. During construction, DMJM's management team conducted daily meetings with client staff and the contractor to plan and implement the building program.
When Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and Delta's Chairman Ronald W. Allen dedicated the terminal on June 6,1988, they signaled establishment of a new standard in the design of air travel facilities. Terminal 5 features modern comforts for airline passengers, as well as fully functional state-of-the-art transportation systems.
Selective tendering of bids is the long-standing prime contractual system acceptable to both client and contractor when the documents used for bidding and contract purposes represent the completeness of the design and the conditions under which the work will be executed.
The Oasis project was broken down into phases, some overlapping with critical paths back-to-back. As the project moved into the design phase, the program manager implemented its administrative and control aspects. Working closely with the A/E, the program manager coordinated design schedules and provided advisory services on design improvements, construction technology, and construction economics. The program manager further developed the required project management systems and procedures, including scheduling, cost control, procurement, contracting, and management and project communications.
The third phase, which overlapped the design phase, implemented the procedures related to contract bidding and procurement. The program manager continued the administrative duties and advised the owner on establishing contract packages, procuring bids, and recommending award of contracts. In the construction phase of the project, the program manager took on the duties of construction administration with responsibility for total project coordination. Management and administrative services were provided to organize and coordinate the contractors and to provide control and accountability systems to monitor, evaluate, and control construction costs and scheduling and quality requirements.
SELECTING A CONTRACTOR
Work began on a contractor selection process and a set of construction sequencing drawings expressing the logical methodology for processing the project's construction phase, based on an in-depth analysis of the schematic design documentation. The “first cut” of these drawings was presented in a joint meeting with the architect. Western Airlines then formally invited four contractors to submit qualifications statements, which stated the project's time frame and requirements for a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal. DMJM responded to the submissions regarding contractor qualifications with an analysis of the submittals and our comments. In a team meeting with the owner's representative, a short list of contractors was agreed on.
The Connector Building under construction while travelers moved from the ticketing area to the boarding area in a below grade tunnel.
The contractor was selected from firms chosen for their capabilities to perform the preconstruction consultative service, and to execute their contractual obligations, particularly with respect to time, quality, and performance.
A list of contractors capable of executing the project was prepared, and invitations were dispatched to them with the following documents:
- A narrative description of the project indicating the scope of construction
- A chart showing the scope of the relationships between owner, consultants, and contractor
- A prequalification form.
The prequalification information required consisted of:
- A detailed statement of the management structure that the contractor proposed to carry out the contract, including the preconstruction consultative services. This was to include the form of organization, years in business, person authorized to commit the firm, and names of key personnel and their qualifications and experience. In addition, a statement of the contractor's overall management capacity was required so that an estimate could be made of total project management requirements relative to the contractor's total management resources.
- A detailed statement of the Contractor's total financial and management resources, which included banks and lending resources, type and amount of insurance carried, name of bonding company and agent and limits of bonding capacity and balance available.
- A listing of similar major projects the organization has completed in the past 5 years, giving the name of project, owner (including phone number and address), architect, contract amount, date of completion, and percentage of the cost of the work performed with the contractor's own forces.
- A listing of the applicable experience of the key individuals of the contractor's organization proposed for this project and their experience in construction project management, superintendence, estimating, and scheduling. In addition, a list of client/owner references was requested.
Western Airlines issued RFPs to four contractors, asking for submission of a project execution plan based on the scope, design development drawings, and outline specifications prepared by the architect/engineer, and construction sequencing drawings/schedule prepared by the program manager. A specific format was given for submission of the various items required by the project execution plan, which included:
- Project Sequencing Program that maintains all required airline operations
- Project Management Plan proposed by the contractor to include staffing and organization
- Project Schedule developed from a computer-generated network analysis
- Project Budget to be converted into a Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract for construction of the project
- Proposal for precontract construction consultative services during the Design Phase
- Proposal for construction management services during the Construction Phase.
The contractor presentations were made to a six-member client/consultant team, who scored their compliance with the RFP on a matrix form (see page 20). The results of this process were presented to airline management, and Swinerton & Walberg was selected as the contractor based on qualifications and experience.
Throughout the 18 months of construction, countless obstacles had to be confronted and resolved—no easy accomplishment on a tight schedule. Los Angeles is renowned for having one of the toughest building codes in the country, and to move swiftly through construction while adhering to the code required a team well versed in the workings of the City's building department.
The biggest complication that this project faced was that frequently the code had to be interpreted to deal with a new or unique situation. This required tremendous give-and-take from both the City and the project team. Some situations required extensive negotiation for a solution that would adjust to the project's unique aspects while fulfilling the requirements of the code.
Airport terminals can fall into various sections of the code, and it is important that the designer and reviewer agree on which sections and subsections apply, and their meaning. This project went through four different reviewers, each with their own interpretation. This proved to be very challenging as the project progressed. Deciding what sections of the code apply to airport terminals can have a consequential impact on construction, especially on occupancy. Occupancy is determined at the onset and establishes the quantity and placement of emergency exits. This was yet another grey area where code interpretation could cost valuable time. The number of exits is a function of the number of occupants of the enclosed area. Originally the requirement assumed a ratio of one person to an area of seven square feet. In the case of Delta, the occupancy negotiated was based on studies indicating one person to 18 square feet, thereby providing adequate safeguards but reducing the number of exits required.
The first task was to construct temporary holding rooms to accommodate passengers and related traffic while construction was in progress. This presented unusual problems because the facilities had to be safe and adequate in every way, especially seismically, yet still maintain their temporary nature. It took more than three months to construct the rooms in adherence to the code. Safety played a big part in construction and was paramount in the effort to maintain the strict schedule. No one must be hurt, and safety must never take a back seat to the deadline. At one point in the busy holiday travel season, a hammer was dropped during the constructing of the pedestrian walkway and landed on a parked car. Although there were no injuries, the job was shut down for a week and resumed at a less harried time when accidents were less likely.
Construction was accomplished through two basic phases and several related subphases, which were critical to the completion date. Extensive shuffling of deadlines occurred as different hurdles presented themselves throughout the construction. One serious incident occurred when the material “neoparium,” which had been specified in substantial amounts, was not recognized as an acceptable material by the building code. The project team had to elicit the manufacturer's help in providing the required information and procedures so the material could be used. This resulted in the contractor having to work around the material. To go back to the drawing board at that point would have resulted in months of delay, which would have been disastrous to the completion deadline.
Another challenge was construction of the connector building. Fortunately, the existing pedestrian tunnel under the aircraft parking apron could be used to connect the ticketing building and the old satellite, thus maintaining passenger access to the facilities while the connector building was being constructed. The new connector building bridged the pedestrian tunnel so that the tunnel could remain in service.
Most of the important lessons to come out of the project centered around communication. In the beginning design stages, a frequent problem experienced by team members was the lack of a common language. Separate consultants used different terminology and, as a result, misunderstandings occurred. The absence of a clear definition of completion and occupancy was cause for concern. These terms can be significant in relation to maintenance of the new facilities and product warranties.
In the case of Terminal 5, the owner of the facility was the Department of Airports and the tenant was Delta Air Lines. The third party involved was the contractor. As the project neared completion, there was a lack of definition as to who was responsible for project elements and when the responsibility shifted. For example, the Department of Airports has stiff requirements for accepting responsibility for maintenance of the facility's new systems and products. One example was the HVAC system. The system was only partially complete in one phase of construction and would not be complete until another phase of construction was finished. Until a system was totally finished and judged to be in proper working order, the owner was reluctant to assume any responsibility for it. In turn, once the contractor had installed the system and fulfilled their responsibility according to plan, they wanted to turn it over to the owner as completed.
To eliminate this type of problem, thorough understanding of the systems and the responsible party for the different elements and their maintenance should be established early on in the form of sequential maintenance agreements.
Additionally, due to the construction and fast-track phasing, finished sections of the terminal could not be adequately protected from the rigors of future construction. For example, because of scheduling and circumstances beyond control, the carpeting had to be installed a month before painting the same area.
Beneficial occupancy posed another sticky situation. What exactly was the definition of completion? This could take on several different meanings. Defining these requirements from the beginning would promote a better understanding of overall expectations. This in turn would alleviate confusion, especially on a fast-track project such as this.
THE FINAL RESULT
Delta's Terminal 5 at LAX is testament to what a combined effort of dozens of sources contributing their maximum effort can create. The best seller In Search of Excellence credits Delta with knowing the true meaning of quality. “Delta knows it (quality) means planes that arrive on time.” In this same spirit, Delta was committed to the successful timing and operation of Terminal 5. Not only did it arrive on time, but Delta's Oasis has given the airline a solid foundation on which to touch down.
THE DELTA AIR LINES TERMINAL 5 PROJECT TEAM
BUILDING OWNER: City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports
Clifton A. Moore, Executive Director
William M. Schoenfeld, Deputy Executive Director
Mal M. Packer, Chief Airports Engineer
Donald Trestik, Project Engineer
TERMINAL OPERATOR: Delta Air Lines
Ronald W. Allen, President
Mo Cain, Director of Facilities
Dan McGhee, Facilities Engineer
PROGRAM MANAGER AND ENGINEER: Daniel, Mann,
Johnson, & Mendenhall
Gerd Ernst, Principal-in-Charge
Gerhard Pichel, Project Manager
Lem Bottoms, Chief Estimator
David Cho, Project Structural Engineer
Joseph Duda, Project Scheduler
Michael G. Gasparro, Project Civil Engineer
Farhad Holakouee, Project Electrical Engineer
Clark Post, Site Representative
Russell Holland, Site Representative
Agy Nagy, Project Mechanical Engineer
Howard Steinmann, Chief Specifications Writer
ARCHITECT: Gensler and Associates/Architects
Ronald L. Steinert, Project Manager
Andy Cohen, Project Designer
Imre Takacs, Project Architect
GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Swinerton & Walberg Co.
William Van Leuven, Project Principal
Wiley Clawson, Project Manager
PLANNING CONSULTANT: TCI/Thompson Consultants International
Gary Blankenship, Vice President
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT: Dames& Moore
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING: Dubron & Associates
CODE CONSULTANT: Rolf Jensen & Associates
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Lawrence, Reed, Moline, Ltd.
LIGHTING CONSULTANT: John Lomeli
ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT: Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates
Andrea S. Walden is communications manager for Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall, a Los Angeles based architecture/engineering firm. She has a bachelor degree in Marketing and has been marketing professional A/E services for seven years. In addition to providing media and public relations support, Ms. Walden has produced corporate brochures and resource materials for DMJM for four years.
Mr. Wayne K. San Filippo, PMP, is director of Aviation Facilities for Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall. A civil engineer Mr. San Filippo has served as project manager for major aviation-related improvements in the U.S.A., Malaysia, the Middle East, and South America. He previously served as chief civil engineer for DMJM and manager of major projects. He has been an active member of PMI for many years, having served as an elected officer at both the chapter and international levels. He and his wife, Susan, have two children-Lisa, 16, and Mark 14.