Contents: |
Current Committee |
I . Transitions of Responsibility: Closing Gaps in Project Management
III. Principals' Needs Survey IV. Addenda to “A New Bond in Fall 2000?” V. (In progress) Survey of All Site Committees VI. Summary: “Should CCAC continue?” In addition to this document, our year yielded the November 9, 1999 report, “A New School Bond in Fall 2000?” |
Bruce Wicinas, Chair and Editor Phil Frick, Andy Ganes James Hallam Lloyd Lee Tom Rose Les Shipnuck Sandy Wood Andrew Suskind, student member Mike Eastman (through 7/99) |
Part I – Closing Gaps in Project Management
Various specific construction-related problem incidents received our discussions this year. Most difficulties originated in gaps of responsibility among the various managers who preside over a school site through its era of construction. For example, “Moving and Transition” is difficult at most sites because the responsibility is not clearly defined in advance and understood by everybody. “Pilferage” is sometimes misleadingly applied to items of value which disappear because they are not dealt with in a timely manner and remain until they cause delay. “Commissioning” – the expert verification that all aspects of a job have been completed according to contract, is an area where lapses have occurred. Below are recommendations for improvement. A device for improved overall coordination as well as data banking – the “Project Manual”, is described.
I. A. “Pilferage”
Observed by the Maintenance Department Staff.
[I was among the last people in Malcolm X before the contractor took it. On my last visit I wondered at the usable furniture and equipment still scattered about the areas of the school which were a day away from going to the contractor. The following confirms that what concerned me is a problem and that it is probably the rule rather than the exception. Many of the items which “disappeared” at Malcolm and at other sites might not have needed or worth restoring. But the “preserve” / “destroy” discrimination is not always deliberate. Some items are afterward missed, and fingers pointed. - - B.W., editor.]
The word “pilferage” is sometimes misapplied to regular operational occurrences. “Pilferage” is a catch-all label for anything that gets lost, thrown out, left behind and hauled home by the contractor, left behind and hauled back to District employees' offices for use, or taken home for use, or taken to another site that has a different funding source and is unable to purchase the item or piece of equipment, or not taken to the maintenance yard to be saved for use at another site.
By intention, items are left behind in a way that demonstrates they are to be discarded, that they no longer have any value to their owner (the District). The owner agrees to pay to have these disposed of where necessary to expedite the construction process.
Perception of waste by the District puts into peoples' minds that the District has lots of money and that the management is indifferent to economy.
Many times I (Mike Eastman) have seen the District throw away equipment or materials that are in better shape than those at other sites. An example is the several pianos which were demolished or hauled away by the contractor at Columbus. I could list on and on the things I have seen discarded. I'm not on the dump truck, but any of the drivers could tell you that when they haul a load to the dump they are told to set it in a separate area away from the garbage; it is quickly sorted by Urban Ore or other scavenger contractors. The library shelves at Malcolm X are another instance. The District left them behind for too long. When the asbestos people started they demolished the shelves to do their work. [This is one of conflicting accounts of the fate of the library shelves – ed.] On the first day the contractor has control of a site you see his men arriving by carpool in groups. On the second day they are driving by themselves in their own empty truck and leaving at the end of the day with a full truck.
It can be shown that many missing objects were not pilfered but, due to time constraints and lack of management to react to deadlines for removal we simply left stuff behind.
Up to and including Malcolm X, at every site you walk through on the last day before being turned over to the contractor you see piles of boxes packed by someone labeled who owns them and where they are to go, left behind because our crews were pulled off for something else and time ran out.
• Make clear designation of who the responsible party is for the security and storage of items to be reused in projects. Generally, if a contractor will ultimately re-install certain amenities, the contractor should have the responsibility for storage/security. Fragmentation of responsibilities is a recipe for disaster.
• Stored goods must be accurately inventoried and documented to prevent disputes later on regarding what was, or was not stored. Methods of documentation might be:
• Method of storage should be appropriate to the situation, and might include:
• Whenever goods change hands from district personnel to contractor employees, or vice versa, copies of the inventory should accompany them, and be checked for completeness. Transfers should be noted, signed by responsible parties and dated. Stewardship for these stored items need to be clear and documented at all times.
• The provisions to guarantee District property need to be incorporated into the specification for projects to be effective. Contractors need to know what is expected of them, and District staff will have to plan on being involved in oversight at certain times.
Committee Recommendation
• Programming
During the formulation of a project design program, the District would include as part of the scope of design services, a brief report from the Architect to the District summarizing the conflicts and processes which will impact the normal functioning and operation of the facility during the life of the project. The report will be 3 to 5 pages including short memos from the primary sub-consultants addressing potential conflicts as they see them.
Cost impact: minimal at this stage.
• Design Cycle
• Schematic Design . Architect instructs sub-consultants to note all potential scheduling and logistical interferences which could affect the functioning of the school or site.
Cost impact: $ 500—$1,000 estimated.
architect with brief memos which outline the major conflicts impacting the use of the project site. The architects add their own observations and writes a short memo on the subject to the district. The Logistics/Scheduling Memo, as I will call it, will be included in the Bid Documents on an informational basis.
Cost Impact: $1,500--$2,500 estimated.
• Bidding & “Pre-construction” Meeting.
The Bid Documents will inform the contractors that logistics/scheduling shall be an issue on the project, to the extent that it affects the functional use of the site. The bid package will instruct the winning bidder to present a response to the architect's Logistical/Scheduling Memo at the time of “pre-construction” meeting. Additionally, the apparent low-bidder will be asked to present a written summary of conflicts/interferences which became evident in the bidding process, and which may not have been included in the architect's memo earlier. The intent is to minimize the burden to produce lengthy reports, and to maximize the sharing of critical information regarding potentially troublesome logistical problems.
The ideas brought to the table, and discussed at this point will be gathered, edited and published, by the Construction Manager, as a working document. It will be circulated to the architect, District, the site principal and committee, and the contractor. If a ‘rolling' project manual is being used, the document will be added to it.
This document, will represent the broadest view of all the major and minor conflicts/interferences, known to date. The process will also force an up-front discussion about issues that could result in delays or change order costs, and such claims might be precluded or weakened by these recorded discussions. Further, the District will have the last-minute opportunity to modify the design to avoid the conflicts, or might decide to anticipate and mitigate them later, by means outside the construction contract.
Cost impact: $ 1,000-2,000 estimated.
• Construction Manager.
The construction manager (CM) should be on board at this time if not earlier. The CM will then be responsible from this time forward for coordinating efforts to minimize the impacts that have come to light. The CM can monitor the situation and spot difficulties as they develop. The CM is uniquely positioned to do this and is in regular contact with the architect, contractor and the owner. During the early stages of the project the CM will be instructed to periodically review the logistical/scheduling conflicts with the principal, so that mitigation can be planned if required.
Cost impact: Difficult to estimate.
• Who is "the Client?"
Who needs to participate on behalf of "the owner"? The primary representative is usually the principal.
The District may benefit by requiring all significant construction projects to include the preparation and use of a project manual during their design, construction, and operational phases. I (Lloyd Lee) have participated in several large construction projects for UC Berkeley and UCLA in which the use of a project manual was invaluable. This Memorandum describes the objectives, contents, and possible uses of project manuals for the BUSD.
Committee Recommendation
The objective of the “Project Manual” is to describe a construction project comprehensively and to define the criteria under which it will be designed, constructed and operated. A project manual brings together, in one document, both narrative descriptions and detailed specifications for a project from its inception until its completion. It is a compact, portable file for programmatic information which the architects collect during the planning process concerning the planned uses of a building, and it can continue to be useful to those who operate and maintain a building, after completion.
Appropriate use of a project manual requires that the principal players in a project agree, from time to time, on increasingly specific project descriptions, design and construction criteria, construction practices and procedures, and operating requirements, all of which must be filed in the manual.
The primary interest of the District in any project is to transition smoothly from an old facility to a fully-functioning new facility. However, there are a myriad of steps in any project, many of which are typically undertaken without adequate coordination. Project owners, like the District, use the project manual to focus attention on the need for coordinated project planning and implementation.
Physical Description
The project manual takes the form of one or at most two large, loose-leaf binders. These are maintained in several copies for each of the principal parties. These binders become, during the course of the project, the place of deposit for the project's history and the record of the agreements reached by the parties. It allows the participants to review progress in a comprehensive manner.
Contents
The project manual should not include the entire set of plans and specs. These are too large to be contained in the binder. However, the main few architectural floor plans – Site, Level 0 through Level 2, for example - and a few overview pages from the Spec, are desirable and of great use. The plans can be kept in plastic sleeves within the binder.
In contrast to the complete technical plans and specifications of a construction project, the project manual is the place to set forth the broader objectives of the owner, such as:
• expectations for programmatic discussions with school staff, parents, and students by the architect;
• catalog of existing building and contents - preservation issues;
• analysis of scheduling problems/issues;
• need for and timing of District-level program changes, e.g., relocation of programs or changes in school organization;
• discussion of community input process and design constraints;
• analysis of site conditions and environmental concerns;
• planning for transitions and move-in; and
• requirements and schedule for operations and maintenance after completion.
What must be avoided is indiscriminately including every memo, letter and meeting minute. Documents which record important agreements should be included. A proven method is for Owner/Architect to specify, in the form of a detailed table of contents, a set of topics that the contractor must complete. The corresponding sections of the Manual would be in a narrative format. For example, if the Table of Contents specified "Elevator Maintenance/Warranties," the contractor would be required to describe in narrative form the requirements for maintenance, the contact organization for repairs and the warranty provisions covering the elevator.
Preparation of the initial outline of the project manual can be made an obligation of the architect, although District staff could also originate the outline. Preparation of the detailed contents should be separate responsibilities of the architect and the builder. The architect's agreement with the District would require that sections of the manual, such as programmatic objectives of the project, design criteria, and the technical plans and specifications, be among the architect's deliverables. The delivery of the balance of the manual would be an obligation of the builder at the completion of specific phases of the work. The delivery of a completed project manual would be an obligation defined in the bid documents and must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Owner.
Benefits Cited by the Committee
• Though it can begin with a standard template, its form becomes specific to each project reflecting the unique trajectory of each.
• It's a sort of diary of the job, a “project memory” which can be preserved long after the job concludes. It allows anyone to look back, weeks or years later, to find why something did or did not happen.
• During the job it's a road map of what's going to happen through the course of the job. The compilation forces the “owner”, who is “a complex beast”, to focus on the job, task by task.
• It should include the plan for moving and transition, and for other critical hand-offs of responsibility.
• It helps reduce the enormous cost of project management changes during the course of the job. Several of BUSD's long-duration jobs have suffered major management transitions. Keeping project memory at least partly in a binder instead of entirely in someone's head helps the job to weather the change.
• No “boiler plate”. This is not a bureaucratic exercise but a useful management tool.
“Commissioning” is the evaluation and sign-off by the owner at the conclusion of a construction project that all aspects have been completed to the level specified by the contract.
Is the “Commissioning” of BUSD construction projections being performed adequately? Harvey DeLorm, in a memo transmitted just prior to his departure, raised the question. A list of alleged omissions and faults with a cover letter of explanation dated 8/28/99 was circulated to Jack McLaughlin, the Board and to advisory committees. Mr. DeLorm recommended that an outside expert perform the sign-off of some aspects of projects.
An item-by-item response by Lew Jones ( To Jack McLaughlin, 10/26/99 ) expands insight. It confirms some problems but disputes there is a single pattern with simple solution. Below is a list of the categories of problem.
Of note is the magnitude of the DeLorm items. That is, the total cost of “problems” (about $20,000) is a very small percentage of the jobs' total cost ($65 M.) The list indicates not a substantial failure to fulfill a contract, but small oversights and planning shortcomings. Of more concern than that these did not get done in the first place is the time which elapses before these get corrected. This is an issue that involves the Maintenance Department.
Categories of Problems• Items not in the scope of work. Many of the items cited at various sites were not in the scope of the project. This reflects a planning or a budget issue. In some instances items probably should have been in the scope, but the architect and consultants were not informed about them during design development. If the job title occupied by Harvey had been in place and consistently staffed years ago when the planning occurred these might not have occurred.
• Construction Problems. There were a few construction problems and errors, scattered over various sites.
Committee Recommendation
1. Improved coordination between the Maintenance Department and the Facilities Department . In many instances, more vigorous participation in project planning by the Maintenance Department would have improved the outcome. In turn, the correction of deficiencies and avoidance of early failures requires an effective routine of coordination between these departments. This needs coordination between the department managers and between maintenance department personnel and construction project management. It presumes stability of management and of personnel in both departments. The citizens of the Maintenance Advisory and the Construction Advisory committee can also facilitate coordination.
2. A Small “Quick and Dirty” (Contingency) Fund
A small contingency fund can finance the rapid correcting of small problems. To determine size, note that the total list of “errors” and problems cited by Harvey, excluding the items which were not in project scope, sum to $20,000 on projects of $65 million. Disbursements from this fund must be subject to firm rules and include a method of oversight. We did not work out detail. The total disbursement might simply appear as a line item to the quarterly report of construction expenditures presented to the Superintendent and to the Board.
II. Construction Bid Procedures: E.M.R.
Committee Recommendation in May, 1999
It is in the District's interest to assure that our construction contract bidding process is as good as can be. The District desires the largest possible pool of truly qualified bidders to submit bids on its projects. Any viable method for pre-qualifying bidders to weed out undesirable firms is worthy of discussion. At the initiative of members familiar with bidding procedures in other arenas of public construction, the Committee looked at aspects of the District's bidding procedures.EMR or “Experience Modification Rating” is a numeric rating of the contractor's incidence of Workman's Compensation claims. Public agencies are experimenting with using EMR to qualify bidders. Private industry has been using EMR to select contractors for over a decade. An EMR of 1.0 is defined as average. An EMR of less than average indicates a lower than average Workman's Comp claim rate. EMR is thus a measure of the contractor's ability to maintain safety. Though safety is a positive value, of greater consequence to the construction program is the contractor's overall competence, for which the EMR measure is judged to be a proxy. That is, a lower EMR indicates greater safety and presumably higher management and workman competence. Marginal contractors who underbid and then perform negligently are apt to have higher EMR.
The EMR proposal was discussed by the committee over several meetings. The facilities staff responded positively. Construction attorneys for other public entities have reviewed the method and found it sound. On May 27, 1999, the CCAC unanimously recommended “that the District adopt EMR as a bidder's qualification both at the contractor and the principal subcontractor level. Such technique to be evaluated on a project by project basis.” The King and/or BHS projects seem good candidates.
The CCAC solicited each of the K-5 and middle school principals to submit a list of unfulfilled facilities needs. The October 8 letter, on District stationary signed by committee chair Bruce Wicinas, explained that the Superintendent and Board had asked the committee to assess the unfulfilled capital improvement needs of the District and to submit a report. It was followed up on December 1 by a reminder letter to non-respondents. This was a method of assessing the relative urgency of need, not a solicitation of “wish lists”. A fraction of principals responded. Enumerated below are their lists.
Emerson Promised a response.
John Muir Listed maintenance issues:
• Finish painting the school 2) Phone in cafeteria. 3) Connect classrooms #6, #7 to the PA system. 4) Refinish floors in autorium and cafeteria. 5) Add additional exterior lights, Domingo Path and parking lot. 6) Fix hole under play structure. 7) Shades for classroom and office windows. 8) New floor for room1, office and other classrooms.
Malcolm X Listed two substantial omissions:• The under-stage room was not in the scope of construction. Once a useful dressing and storage room, it stills floods with standing water during the wet season. The stairs are dangerous.
• $200,000 of playground improvements: A safe upper-grade play structure is needed to replace the one that was removed.
LeConte No response. Whittier Listed maintenance issues:1) Some fire alarms don't work. 2) Heating doesn't work uniformly. Many areas are constantly cold. (Since their response was received this system has had some work.) 3) Ceiling tiles are missing in the teachers' lounge. 4) The intercom speakers and clocks were never installed in the Auditorium, cafeteria, and in some rooms. 5) There are leaks. 6) The downstairs restroom floor does not drain. 7) The sensored lights in the boys' and girls' restrooms are not performing properly.
Cragmont No response.
Washington No response.
Oxford Listed maintenance issues:• Clocks don't work. Public address system can no longer be heard through the school. 2) Room 4 needs work. A few problems with cabinets and trim, various rooms. Small maintenance issues in other rooms.
Thousand Oaks Listed one anticipated omission:Playground improvements. Needed are basketball hoops, more play areas and equipment.
Columbus “We have no major needs.”
Jefferson Listed omissions and maintenance issues:
1. Remodeling of Cafetorium. Needed is improved lighting, skylights, new flooring, refinishing of stage woodwork.
2. Improvements in hallway lighting.
• New ceiling tiles and floor tiles in hallways.
• (Will soon need a boiler. –L.J.)
City of Franklin “The building needs a complete modernization. It is hard to begin listing the needs. Obvious lacks are computer networking means, clocks, an elevator, an adequate electrical system.”(Franklin has had only slight access to Measure A funds and no occasion to enumerate and to advocate its facilities needs via a site committee.)
King Middle School Major anticipated omissions:• The cafeteria. The existing cafeteria had to be converted to classroom space. After construction is completed there will be no cafeteria at King.
• Improvements to the gymnasium and science building. None are included in present scope of construction.
• Refurbishing of the Little Theater behind the auditorium. This is omitted from present scope. (The main theater also needs work. – L.J.)
• Landscape improvement and schoolyard resurfacing. This is beyond the current scope.
• Improvement of the track. This is not in present scope.
• The contract “alternates”. These include sinks in classrooms with at least cold water, improved classroom lighting, wall cabinets with storage, chair rail wood trim, mounted projection screens, display cases, non-elimination of existing clerestory windows, adding skylights, covered walkway, signage, window shades, non-elimination of existing wood floors.
Willard Major anticipated omissions and maintenance issues:• New intercom/ communication system for the entire school.
• Admin Building: New flooring, paint interior and exterior, new interior lighting, ceiling tiles. Remodel bathrooms, add per-room control of heating. Fix sewage plumbing.
• Classroom building: replace old carpeting with tile. New waterproof floor for north porch area. Fix heating; make thermostats functional. Paint “pod” areas; eliminate all orange paint. Install Internet properly. Install on-wall TV/VCR units in each classroom.
• Cafetorium: Install front and rear wall speaker system. Install dimmer-controlled stage lighting.
(Major bid “alternates” were omitted from the scope of Willard's construction. Chief among these are renovation of the aging Administration building, classroom building and site improvements, bid at roughly $650,000, $300,000 and $400,000 respectively.)
Longfellow Omissions, oversights and maintenance issues:1. Flat, not gloss or semi-gloss paint, was used in classrooms and hallways. Surfaces can't be cleaned.
2. No outside bells were provided. We have been pulling kids off the yard by guesswork.
3. We are scheduled to occupy the annex it for at least a year if not indefinitely, yet no one made provisions for water and heat and fire alarms to continue in that building once the connections in the old building were severed.
4. Major shortages of electrical and data outlets in classrooms and offices.
5. Cabinetry and storage in classrooms and elsewhere is inadequate or wrong type. Input at design development seems to have been ignored.
6. Sinks are too shallow to be functional for major purposes such as filling buckets.
7. Sunscreens on new building for east-west-facing large windows in gym and library both ineffective and of a design different than approved by the facilities committee.
• A main light pipe in the theater is hung over the seats which are steeply raked, so it is inaccessible to all but the most sophisticated rigging crews with special equipment. We will be able to light major downstage areas in certain stage configurations only with great hassle and expense.
9. The original space planned for a dance studio is inadequate due to low ceilings. To move it and make it functional will be costly. The fate of this major program element is in doubt.
10. Original planning left us at least one academic classroom short of our needs. Adding it now is costly.
11. Major problems with HVAC in new building. Gym doors are hard to open because the system literally "sucks". Tremendous noise problems in library because outtake ducts are too small.
• Outside water fountains were omitted.
• The instrumental music room is very short on instrument storage.
In the CCAC report submitted earlier to the Board, “A New School Bond in 2000?”, a couple of calculations were promised. The following adds inflation to the calculation performed in 1992 by Lew Jones, with some comment by the committee.
Per-year total deferred maintenance cost for BUSD Here is a rough calculation for the per-year total deferred maintenance cost for the entire inventory of BUSD buildings. That is, this is presumably the amount which need be spent if no maintenance were “deferred”- if functionality and quality are 100% preserved on an on-going basis rather than allowing buildings to gradually “run down”.
1.7 million square feet x $3.38 /square foot per year = $5.75 million /year
The 1.7 million square feet includes all K-12, administrative and support buildings, the adult school, the rental property (Hillside).
The $3.38 / square feet is derived by quantifying a matrix of deferred maintenance items such as appeared in the Appendix Chart 1 of “A New School Bond in 2000?”, using this to calibrate a per-year total cost for a couple of schools, and deriving from it the per-year-per-square foot cost. In the above formula this figure is applied uniformly to the whole district. The matrix below illustrates the approximate methodology by which this figure was derived.
The matrix culminates in a figure of $2.02 per square foot per year for Malcolm X. To this figure is added contingency, design, project management, inspection and bidding, raising it to $2.67. This 1992 figure $2.67 differs from the figure $3.38 used above, due to: 1) inflation; 2) replacing of estimated costs with actual costs encountered; and 3) some correction for differences in types of building across the building inventory.
It's the simplest possible formula for such a calculation, admittedly a blunt method. Until we have better means to calculate costs per square foot, however, there is no point to a finer breakdown. We will continue to review these figures and methodology.
Deferred Maintenance Calculation for Malcolm X School. Figures from 1992.
|
SF |
Yrs |
$ unit |
$ pr yr |
a. Floor replacement |
72990 |
15 |
3 |
14,598 |
b. Interior painting |
145980 |
7 |
1.5 |
31,281 |
c. Exterior paint/weatherproof |
20000 |
12 |
2 |
3,333 |
d. Paint wood every |
10000 |
5 |
4 |
8,000 |
e. Roofing every |
30000 |
15 |
5 |
10,000 |
f. Downspouts/gutter |
1800 |
30 |
20 |
1,200 |
g. Boilers |
72990 |
40 |
3 |
5,474 |
h. Doors with new hardware |
170 |
30 |
1500 |
8,500 |
i. Just hardware |
170 |
30 |
600 |
3,400 |
j. Wood sash (windows) |
200 |
30 |
1000 |
6,667 |
k. Piping |
72990 |
40 |
5.45 |
9,945 |
l. Upgrade power distribution |
72990 |
35 |
.40 |
834 |
m New alarms and security systems |
1 |
20 |
35000 |
1,750 |
n. Replace clocks and bells |
72990 |
20 |
.90 |
3,285 |
o. Communications (phones/icm) |
72990 |
20 |
.70 |
2,555 |
p. Repave |
50000 |
40 |
3 |
3,750 |
q. reseal blacktop |
50000 |
10 |
.20 |
1,000 |
r. Replace kitchens |
700 |
30 |
130 |
3,033 |
s. Replace playground equipment |
1 |
15 |
50000 |
3,333 |
t. Major landscape work |
1 |
20 |
20000 |
1,000 |
u. Restrooms replaced |
2700 |
25 |
180 |
19,440 |
v. Ceilings replaced |
72990 |
15 |
1 |
4,866 |
TOTAL |
72990 |
|
|
147245 |
Deferred Maintenance Cost per Square Foot Per Year = $147245 divided by 72990 = $2.02
The committee is in the process of issuing a survey including all site committees of the Measure A construction program. The purpose is to assess the site committee process and to capture experience which may inform subsequent community process and facilities improvement. So far, research has yielded the membership rosters of all committees beginning with Whittier. A questionnaire has been drafted and revised. The survey will be mailed this month.
The year has been exceptional for excellent attendance and for the quality of discussion. The committee was fully constituted nearly all year, for the first time in at least five years. Our agendas far exceeded the fixed amount of time available. Some deserving topics were repeatedly postponed. Most of our meetings were attended by a board member, and we felt excellent support from the Board and from the staff.
Should the CCAC continue? The committee's charge is to monitor and to advise. As the bond “winds down”, there is less to monitor and fewer subsequent decisions to advise. Should the CCAC continue? Bureaucracies tend to live forever, regardless of the priority of their charge. If the Board and the Staff see a continuing purpose for the committee, I'm sure that several of us are willing to serve.