pulaski county new consolidated middle school …...independent review of the pulaski county new...

Plaza Suite 1

10 Church Avenue SE Roanoke, VA 24011-2104

540.342.6001 PH | 540.342.6055 FAX www.spectrumpc.com

PROJECT NO. 17053

July 20, 2017

Independent Review of the

Pulaski County New Consolidated Middle School Project Report

Pulaski County, Virginia

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE PULASKI COUNTY NEW CONSOLIDATED MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S P E C T R U M D E S I G N JOB NO. 17053

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 EVALUATION OF REPORT Enrolment Capacity 2.1 School Capacity Worksheet 2.1.a Building Area 2.3 Site Development 2.5 School Cost Data 2.8 Report Cost Estimate 2.10 Opinion of Probable Cost 2.11.a Conclusion 2.12 Tabulation of VDOE School Building Cost Data 3.1 Virginia Annual Cost Data Reports (2012-2017)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Page | 1.1

INTRODUCTION In July 2017 Spectrum Design was asked by Pulaski County to perform an independent review of the Pulaski County New Consolidated Middle School Project report, submitted by RRMM Architects to Pulaski County Public Schools. Spectrum Design was charged with the following tasks:

1. Review all public documents concerning the existing Pulaski County New Consolidated Middle School Project report;

2. Review all calculations and cost estimates and provide an opinion regarding the accuracy of calculations and cost estimates (*excluding Transportation costs);

3. Provide an opinion regarding the recommended estimated project contingencies and the likelihood of completing the project within the budget, including contingency amounts; and

4. Review all available relevant as-built construction costs for schools constructed across the State of Virginia and provide a projected cost per sq./ft. for construction of this school.

PROCESS The following report contains the results of our independent review of the Pulaski County New Consolidated Middle School Project report. Our Process included:

1. Comparison of Design and Program to state recommended instructional and support spaces, square footages, and site elements.

2. Area take-offs of floor plan and site plan. 3. Review of report cost estimate and comparison to published construction cost data for

middle school Statewide. 4. Development of an Opinion of Probable Cost based on cost projected to the anticipated

2018 bid date. CONCLUSION Upon review of the New Pulaski County Consolidated Middle School Project report, we find the following:

1. The New Consolidated Middle School appears to meet Virginia Dept. of Education facility recommendations.

2. The Building Square Foot Costs should be increased to reflect state cost data projected to the anticipated 2018 bid date (refer to sheet 2.11.a for Opinion of Probable Costs).

3. The Site Development Costs should be increased to reflect anticipated development expense and a design contingency for items that remain unknown (refer to sheet 2.11.a).

4. The Soft Costs should be increased to 18% of Hard Costs, for budgeting purposes.


REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF REPORT


Page | 2.1

PROGRAM AND BUDGET SUMMARY

(from RRMM’s 6/7/17 presentation) ENROLMENT CAPACITY As stated in the RRMM report:

Target Enrolment = 1000 Future Enrolment = 1200 VDOE Capacity = 1090

RRMM’s Middle School Program Chart (updated 6/26/2017) indicates classrooms sizes that meet VA Dept. of Education recommendations. The Program uses an allowance of an additional 50% for Corridors, Toilets, Structure, and Support. We consider this appropriate. The 50% allowance equates to the 66% state recommended efficiency. We have produced a middle school capacity worksheet based on the floor plan in the report which yields a VDOE Student Capacity of 1066 students (refer to sheet 2.1.a for School Capacity Worksheet). The discrepancy may be attributable to RRMM assigning some elective spaces as homeroom classrooms. The plan indicates the footprint for an additional classroom at each floor of the three classroom wings. If enrolment growth is to be anticipated at this school site we believe it is wise to size “core” spaces, such as Gym, Media Center, Cafeteria, and elective spaces to the larger student capacity, while planning the location for the future classrooms that will provide the increased school capacity. This appears to have been done. Two classrooms, one on each floor at each of the grade level wings, can be added in the future. While this maintains the grade level wing concept though the expansion, three separate two-story classroom additions is likely more expensive than a more efficient future addition.


SCHOOL CAPACITY WORKSHEET

No of Stations

SOQ Max Capacity Capacity VDOE Min

As Shown on Plan

Assigned SpacesHomeroom Classrooms:

6th Grade 14 25 = 350 700 708

7th Grade 14 25 = 350 700 708

8th Grade 14 25 = 350 700 708Self-Contained Sp Ed 2 8 = 16 750 808

Classrooms

Non-Capacity Spaces

Art Classrooms 1 0 = 0 1200 1197

Chorus / Band / Music 2 0 = 0 1200 1603Classrooms 1202

Resource (Pull-out) 2 0 = 0 500 206Classrooms

Gym 1 0 = 0 12000 11536Aux Gym 1 0 = 0 5000 7066

Explorator Career 7 0 = 0 1600 variesClassrooms / Labs

Computer Rooms 0 0 = 0 800 na

Cafeteria (3 lunches) 1 0 = 0 4800 5000

Media Center 1 0 = 0 2800 4016

Other 0 0 = 0 (varies)

Maximum Capacity = 1066

Comments:

Note: Science Rooms VDOE is 1,200 SF, as shown on plan 996.

Middle School Capacity WorksheetPulaski County Middle School

Student Capacity Classroom Area, SF

SPECTRUM DESIGNJOB NO. 17053

Page | 2.1.a




Page | 2.2

Primary Program Elements The Primary Program Elements as listed in RRMM’s report are categorized into Site, Building, and Future categories for budgeting in the following table. Item Site Building Future

225 Parking Spaces X

24 Bus Loading Spaces X

1 Baseball Field X

1 Softball Field X

1 Track / Multi-purpose Field X

2 Multi-purpose Fields X

1000-seat Stadium X

6 Tennis Courts X

Field House / Concession / Toilets X

24 Core Subject Classrooms X

2 Self Contained Sp Ed Classrooms X

3 Collaboration Areas in lieu of Computer Labs X

1 Language Arts X

Modest CTE X

1150 seat Gym X

Auxiliary Gym X

450 Seat Auditorium X




Page | 2.3

BUILDING AREA As stated in the RRMM report:

Enclosed building size = 162,200

Canopies and Overhangs = 2,700

Gross Building Area = 164,900

(from RRMM’s 6/7/17 presentation)




Page | 2.4

In Spectrum’s examination of the CADD floor plan file we measured floor areas that are somewhat larger than the areas that were described in the report.

There is a large area under cover at the front canopy and at each of the three grade wings. Per state guidelines this space is counted at 50% area for the gross building area and cost estimate. There is also a large amount of volume in the two story spaces of Lobby, Commons, and three Collaborative Spaces. The open spaces upper volume should be counted at 50% as well for the Gross Building Area to account for the construction and increased HVAC systems to serve that volume. The tabulation is as follows:

1st floor enclosed space 127,856 = 127,856

2nd floor enclosed space 37,636 = 37,636

2nd floor open space 12,632 x .5 = 6,316

Exterior Covered 3,982 x .5 = 1,991

Gross Building Area = 173,799 Recommendation: Use 173,799 SF as the Gross Building Area for budgeting purposes.




Page | 2.5

SITE DEVELOPMENT

(from RRMM’s 6/7/17 presentation) The proposed Rt. 11 site and layout have been reviewed from a Civil Engineering perspective (Site Parcel C in report). The subject property fronts Rt. 11 and slopes downhill and away from the main road to the southeast. The proposal indicates using earthwork to provide a benched site with cumulative level areas totaling 38 acres. Multiple level pads are intended for 6 major elements. These amenities include the school facility, Track and Field, Soccer fields, baseball and softball. A future tennis court area is purposefully graded as well. Impacts and evaluations of probable costs have been examined. After typical cost ranges and rules of thumb for development are applied, only extraordinary, ancillary and complex design features not typical of general development are examined. These are summarized as athletic fields, transportation (access lanes at Rt. 11), utilities and growth potential. For this report Transportation related costs have been excluded and will be addressed by others. Athletic fields as indicated on the proposal are not clear as to the extent of design which can impact costs considerably. Spectrum Design has assumed that natural turf will be chosen which eliminates a significant portion, but to enhance longevity and extend the life of the fields, there should be consideration for subdrainage and irrigation for all playing surfaces.




Page | 2.6

Regarding utilities, there is water service available within the Rt. 11 corridor, but across the street which will require a jack and bore installation. It is assumed that flows and pressures have been researched and can be sufficiently provided by the 6” water main. Sanitary sewer service is available within modest distances, but options must be evaluated for feasibility and are not outlined within the proposal. Options are to pump to the PSA gravity system via Hatcher Road and ultimately to the PSA pump station near the high school or access the gravity system through the golf course along Thorne Springs Branch. Slightly more intangible, but still a resultant cost, is the growth potential as a result of the school project. Remaining acreage left for future development as well as the draw a school facility can bring for development of surrounding available parcels can skew the assumptions made during design. Sewer service will have the most impact and will demand a thorough analysis to resolve. Development of just the school facility and an approximate 10,000 to 12,000 gallons per day of sewage may not have a major impact on the County’s ability to provide service, but it should be noted that with either direction the flow is directed, you must account for the future growth impact. The option of directing this flow to Hatcher Road and the existing county pump station facility near the High School could require upgrades for pumping systems. Another consideration is that this pumping facility is the oldest in the County and adding potential residential development in addition to the school flows would most likely require a significant upgrade. For a pumped condition, even the location of the station should be considered carefully and determined whether it would just serve the school facility or be placed and designed such that it has the capacity to address future development. Directing flows towards Thorne Springs Branch by gravity is another option but must account for the future growth impact on the existing gravity system age and capacity. While pumped systems may offer more flexibility with routing, gravity systems will always prove to be the cheapest to maintain and can be cheaper to install when considering overall project costs. The water system along Rt. 11 is currently a 6” main. While possibly serving the needs of a middle school facility, the additional demand imposed by future development surrounding the school site may require an upgrade to match the supply of the 8” within Thornspring Road. Summarized, the major site construction cost components include the following and are expected to have the following probable costs. For sanitary sewer service, it has been assumed that a gravity system to Thorne Springs Branch would be pursued: Typical Development $4,000,000 Athletics $2,900,000 Transportation (TBD by others) Utilities $ 450,000 Approximation of Probable Cost* $7,350,000 *Costs do not reflect potential impacts from Transportation improvements.




Page | 2.7

There are several unknowns relative to the proposed design that must be resolved that can add to construction costs and soft costs. These include:

Geotechnical engineering to identify rock, karst features, and difficult soils such as fat clays or inordinate depths of topsoil which can be common in agricultural land.

Utility extensions and connection for sanitary sewer: It is not clear if routes can be secured for gravity or pumped connections or if easement purchases would be successful.

Upsizing the capacity and reliability of a new pump station to not only serve the school, but also the community and future growth. This may include a Tri-plex pump system and an emergency generator.

Utility upgrades for either the PSA pump station near the high school or enlarging the gravity system at Thorne Springs Branch as a result of future development growth.

Utility upgrades for the water main within Rt. 11 to account for future demand potential.

These unknowns can impact site related costs significantly. Adequate contingency for this project in the amount of $625,000 should be considered to cover the potential of these conditions as impacts on the project budget. Recommendation: Use $7,350,000 as the Site Development Hard Costs and add line for a Site Design Contingency of $775,000 in the Project Budget.




Page | 2.8

SCHOOL COST DATA As stated in the RRMM report: $32,155,500 Building / 164,900 Gross SF = $195/SF Eleven New Middle Schools have been constructed in Virginia from 2012 to 2017. All eleven schools are grades 6-8. They range in capacity from 600 to 1300 students. A tabulation of VDOE School Building Cost Data from 2012 to 2017 is attached (refer to tabulation on 3.1). The following is a summary of the average Total Construction Costs (Building plus Site) and Building-Only Construction Costs from 2012 to 2017 for all eleven middle schools.

Four of the eleven middle schools are from more highly populated school districts, Loudoun County and Richmond City. For the purposes of establishing a comparable cost model, we have tabulated middle school costs both with those districts and without.


COST PROJECTIONS TO 2018 BID DATE

Virginia DOE 11 Middle Schools Statewide 7 Middle Schools Statewide

Middle School Cost Including Loudoun Co Excluding Loudoun Co

& Richmond & Richmond

Avg 2012‐17 Costs Total Bldg Only Total Bldg OnlyProjected to 2018 Cost / Sq Ft Cost / SF Cost / Sq Ft Cost / SF

Statewide at 241.57$ 207.67$ 229.51$ 195.73$ 3.5% annual inflation(30 year avg)

Statewide at 247.62$ 212.90$ 234.88$ 201.07$ 4.2% annual inflation(20 year avg)

Using 2 x Annual CPI 237.83$ 204.44$ 227.31$ 194.64$

Using Construction Inflation 246.74$ 212.12$ 234.36$ 200.62$ (Zarenski)

Using Turner Index Actual Costs 253.05$ 217.57$ 239.93$ 205.39$

Bldg Only

Cost / SF

200.00$

Budgeting Recommendation

Based on the mid-range of these cost projections for inflation, we recommend a building-only SF cosof $200 for a 2018 bid date.


Page | 2.9




Page | 2.10

REPORT COST ESTIMATE

(from RRMM’s 6/7/17 presentation) Review of the Hard Costs The Hard Costs should be updated to utilize the Gross Building Area from above and the School Construction Cost Data projected to the anticipated bid date of fall of 2018. This yields a Construction Cost Estimate (hard costs) of $42,884,800, rather than $39,755,500. (refer to sheet 2.11.a for Opinion of Probable Costs) Review of the Soft Costs Design, Surveys, Tests, Special Inspections, Misc Cost: The cost listed for professional services equates to 7.5% of the report’s Hard Costs. This may be low considering the size of the parcels to be Surveyed, the cost of Geotechnical Evaluation and Environmental Investigation, and the nearly two year construction duration for on-site Construction Testing and Special Inspections. Construction Testing and Special Inspections costs can vary quite a bit, but we have recently seen on school project cost ranging from .5% – 1% of construction costs, which could be $200,000 – 400,000 for this project. We recommend a Soft Cost of 8% - 8.5% for design and construction phase professional services.




Page | 2.11

Furniture Fixtures and Equipment: The FF&E budget appears to be suitable. No change is recommended. Land Purchase: The land purchase price budget appears to be suitable, however it should be considered an unknown until an agreement has been reached. No change is recommended. Construction Contingency: The amount listed equates to 2.5% of the report’s Hard Costs. We believe that this is too low considering the unknowns at this time related to geotechnical and environmental conditions, as well as general protection for the Owner as change orders that arise during construction. The Soft Costs should be updated to take into consideration the concerns above. We believe a Soft Cost budget of 18% to be more appropriate and in the Owners best interest. This yields a Total Project Cost Estimate of $50,509,040, rather than $45,700,000. (refer to sheet 2.11.a for Opinion of Probable Costs) Recommendation: Budget $50,509,040 as the Total Project Costs.


OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

Projected to Bid Date of Sept 2018

New 1000 Student Consolated Middle SchoolNew Construction 173,799 sf @ 200$ / sf = $ 34,759,800 Site Development = $ 7,350,000 Site Design Contengency (to cover site unknowns) = $ 775,000

Total Construction (Hard) Cost = $ 42,884,800

Design, Surveys, Tests, Spec Insp, Misc Const $ 3,500,000 Funriture, Fixtures, and Equipment $ 1,760,000 Land Purchase $ 220,000 Construction Contingency 5% $ 2,144,240

Total Soft Costs 18% = $ 7,624,240.00

Total Project Budget = $ 50,509,040 (Hard plus Soft Costs)

* Note: 1. SF costs projected to Fall 2018 costs2. This does not include the cost of off-site Traffic Improvements, which are yet to be determined


Page | 2.11.a




Page | 2.12

CONCLUSION Upon review of the New Pulaski County Consolidated Middle School Project report, we find the following:

1. The New Consolidated Middle School appears to meet Virginia Dept. of Education facility recommendations.

2. The Building Square Foot Costs should be increased to reflect state cost data projected to the anticipated 2018 bid date (refer to sheet 2.11.a for Opinion of Probable Costs).

3. The Site Development Costs should be increased to reflect anticipated development expense and a design contingency for items that remain unknown (refer to sheet 2.11.a).

4. The Soft Costs should be increased to 18% of Hard Costs, for budgeting purposes. Comparison of Cost Budgets: Hard Costs RRMM 6/7/17 RecommendationBuilding Construction $ 32,155,500 $ 34,759,800Site Development $ 7,600,000 $ 7,350,000Site Design Contingency 0 $ 775,000Subtotal Construction Costs (Hard Costs) $ 39,755,500 $ 42,884,800

Soft Costs Design, Surveys, Tests, Sp Insp, Misc Cost $ 2,988,200 $ 3,500,000Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment $ 7,600,000 $ 1,760,000Land Purchase $ 220,000 $ 220,000Construction Contingency $ 994,000 $ 2,144,240Soft Costs Subtotal $ 5,962,200 $ 7,624,240 Total Project Cost Estimate (rounded) $ 45,700,000 $ 50,509,040

VA DOE Annual Cost Data ‐ Statewide

Max Bldg Only

Year Project Name Grades Division Opp Cap Building Cost Site Cost Total Cost Total Sq Ft Sq Ft / Pupil Total Cost / Sq Ft Cost / SF Cost / Pupil

2016 New Bedford MS 6‐8 Bedford Co 754 23,098,130$ 5,701,235$ 28,799,365$ 123,822 164 232.59$ 186.54$ 38,195$

2017 Middle School 7 6‐8 Loudoun Co 1,354 44,126,500$ 6,938,500$ 51,065,000$ 185,251 137 275.65$ 238.20$ 37,714$

2016 Northern Suffolk MS 6‐8 Suffolk 799 22,460,000$ 2,715,000$ 25,175,000$ 125,220 157 201.05$ 179.36$ 31,508$

2016 James Blair MS 6‐8 Wlmsbg / JC 605 20,137,000$ 1,877,735$ 22,014,735$ 110,871 183 198.56$ 181.63$ 36,388$

233.06$ 201.45$ 2016‐17 avg


2015 Happy Creek MS 6‐8 Warren Co 915 27,878,940$ 5,041,310$ 32,920,250$ 158,457 173 207.76$ 175.94$ 35,978$

239.80$ 198.11$ 2015 avg

2014 Frederick Co MS 6‐8 Frederick Co 921 35,592,328$ 5,907,672$ 41,500,000$ 186,163 202 222.92$ 191.19$ 45,060$

2013 New Page MS 6‐8 Gloucester Co 683 18,931,000$ 3,922,763$ 22,853,763$ 118,237 173 193.29$ 160.11$ 33,461$

2012 Georgie D Tyler MS 6‐8 Isle of Wight Co 602 17,033,333$ 2,714,167$ 19,747,500$ 113,636 189 173.78$ 149.89$ 32,803$


2012 ML King MS 6‐8 Richmond 847 27,306,636$ 2,835,518$ 30,142,154$ 149,600 177 201.48$ 182.53$ 35,587$

182.49$ 162.48$ 2012 avg

Sq Ft / Pupil

167.53 avg 2012‐17

3.1

Virginia Department Of Education

Annual Cost Data Report

2016 - 17 New Middle School(s)

Project Number Project Name Grades Division NameContract AwardDate

MaximumOperating Cap (b)

Building Cost Site Cost Total Cost (a) Total Sq. Feet Sq. Feet/ PupilTotal Cost/ Sq.Feet

Building OnlyCost/Sq Feet

Total Cost/Pupil

010-06-00-100 New Bedford MiddleSchool

6-8 Bedford County (010) Nov-16 754 $ 23,098,130 $ 5,701,235 $ 28,799,365 123,822 164 $ 232.59 $ 186.54 $ 38,195

053-36-00-100 Middle SchoolMS-7-Loudoun

6-8 Loudoun County (053) Feb-17 1,354 $ 44,126,500 $ 6,938,500 $ 51,065,000 185,251 137 $ 275.65 $ 238.20 $ 37,714

127-48-00-100 Northern Suffolk MiddleSchool

6-8 Suffolk City (127) Jun-16 779 $ 22,460,000 $ 2,715,000 $ 25,175,000 125,220 161 $ 201.05 $ 179.36 $ 32,317

131-02-00-100 James Blair Middle 6-8 Williamsburg-James CityCounty (131)

Sep-16 605 $ 20,137,000 $ 1,877,735 $ 22,014,735 110,871 183 $ 198.56 $ 181.63 $ 36,388

Total 3,492 $ 109,821,630 $ 17,232,470 $ 127,054,100 545,164

(a) Usually includes construction, site development, water system, sewage disposal, built-in equipment and demolition. A E fees, value engineering, construction management fees, cost of site, loose equipment, and furniture are excluded.

(b) State SOL capacity based on a pupil teacher ratio of 25:1 in core classrooms.

( c ) See Appendix A for project specific comments

156 $ 233.06 $ 201.45 $ 36,384Statewide Average

Jul 14,2017 03:07:44 PM Page 2 of 8








Total Cost/Pupil

053-112-00-100 MS-9 6-8 Loudoun County (053) Aug-15 1,354 $ 40,081,400 $ 9,262,600 $ 49,344,000 184,593 136 $ 267.31 $ 217.13 $ 36,443

093-10-00-100 Happy Creek MiddleSchool

6-8 Warren County (093) Jul-15 915 $ 27,878,940 $ 5,041,310 $ 32,920,250 158,457 173 $ 207.76 $ 175.94 $ 35,978

Total 2,269 $ 67,960,340 $ 14,303,910 $ 82,264,250 343,050





Jul 14,2017 03:07:45 PM Page 2 of 7








Total Cost/Pupil

034-53-00-100 Frederick County MiddleSchool

6-8 Frederick County (034) Nov-14 921 $ 35,592,328 $ 5,907,672 $ 41,500,000 186,163 202 $ 222.92 $ 191.19 $ 45,060

036-802-00-100 New Page MiddleSchool

6-8 Gloucester County(036)

Sep-13 683 $ 18,931,000 $ 3,922,763 $ 22,853,763 118,237 173 $ 193.29 $ 160.11 $ 33,461

Total 1,604 $ 54,523,328 $ 9,830,435 $ 64,353,763 304,400





Jul 14,2017 03:07:28 PM Page 2 of 8








Total Cost/Pupil

046-33-00-100 Georgie D. Tyler MiddleSchool

6-8 Isle of Wight County(046)

Oct-12 602 $ 17,033,333 $ 2,714,167 $ 19,747,500 113,636 189 $ 173.78 $ 149.89 $ 32,803

053-104-00-100 MS-6 at Newton-LeeSite

6-8 Loudoun County (053) Jun-12 1,154 $ 26,874,012 $ 3,221,898 $ 30,095,910 175,064 152 $ 171.91 $ 153.51 $ 26,080

123-77-00-100 Martin Luther KingMiddle School

6-8 Richmond City (123) Apr-12 847 $ 27,306,636 $ 2,835,518 $ 30,142,154 149,600 177 $ 201.48 $ 182.53 $ 35,587

Total 2,603 $ 71,213,981 $ 8,771,583 $ 79,985,564 438,300





Jul 14,2017 03:07:18 PM Page 2 of 8

pulaski county new consolidated middle school …...independent review of the pulaski county new...

Documents